Synchronized and According to Pete die in Grand National
Cheltenham Cup winner Synchronised and According to Pete have died following falls in the Grand National.

Both horses fractured legs on the Aintree course and were later put down.

Professor Tim Morris from the British Horseracing Authority said: "We are very sad about the fatal injuries suffered by Synchronised and According to Pete in the Grand National.

"The BHA takes its responsibility of looking after the welfare of horse and rider very seriously."

Sorry to monopolize the board, but I am so upset...watched the race now 4 times and I don't really understand why McCoy fell off at the start(it may appear that the horse thought a white painted line was a fence and threw his jockey off) but something spooked him and Synchronised cantered on for about a mile and on reflection, horse and jockey were obviously very shaken up and should not have been allowed to start this race!! From some reports I have read, it seems the trainers comments were very matter of fact!!

According to Pete, so unlucky as he ran right into another who had fallen in front of him, but even though this race had it all, nothing makes up for what is now an inevitable yearly death toll for this race...........naturally we will again have all the activists and "Ban the National" brigade out in force and yet an Italian footballer died today whilst playing. What do you do, ban the sport? Hardly.

Some dramatic pictures herein. This race is a British Institution but leaves me very depressed.....

RIP..Synchronised and According To Pete.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129727/Grand-Nation...

If a jockey broke a leg, rest assured that he would not be shot. Why not similarly treat the injured horse? Ah, no profit there eh?

If a jockey broke a leg, rest assured that he would not be shot. Why not similarly treat the injured horse? Ah, no profit there eh?


I'm told that a horse cannot cope with a plastercast. Apparently it would panic and damage itself further.

All I know is that if I had a Cheltenham Gold Cup winner I would never risk it in the GN. In fact I wouldn't risk a carthorse in it.

Leo

Well i had £100 on Synchronised, however i'm not sad for my money, just the horse. In fact i'm feeling rather bad this morning about even betting on this race at all.

I certainly wouldn't include myself naturally in the "Ban the National" brigage, having followed racing to some extent all my life (my first job was working in a betting office 30 years ago). Racing is a risky business, however in most national hunt meetings fatalities are pretty rare.

But 2 horses killed in both this year and last year's national plus 5 in this years Aintree meeting overall is completely unacceptable in my view.

I think you have summarised my position on this LexerAlan.

It could be entirely possible that the measures taken to try and improve safety are in fact making the problem worse; chiefly the lowering of the fences and the distance of the drops to the ditches etc. in that this increases the overall speed of the race and it is this increase in speed that is leading to the "perceived" number of casualties. I've absolutely no idea if causalities are on the increase or not tbh.

Could I just quietly point out that neither horse had a 'fatal injury'


And there's a horse in the field behind me that has survived a broken leg. It's nearly 18 now and starting to loose its teeth, not long for the old girl now, but the owner loves her, still rides her lightly, and thought her worth the expense( and it WAS expensive...that's why people invented insurance)


The horses were shot dead because they were geldings.


I'll get my coat.
( sorry, Simsqu)

Nobby.

But 2 horses killed in both this year and last year's national plus 5 in this years Aintree meeting overall is completely unacceptable in my view.

Sad, yes, unacceptable - I don't think so.

A small number of animals, which had been very well looked after throughout their lives, were humanely killed soon after suffering serious injury.

Meanwhile, the lunchtime crowds and millions watching on TV chomp their way through vast quantities of meat and poultry, much of it derived from somewhat less fortunate animals. But of course, that's not the same, because we didn't see those animals on TV or give them names.

I wonder how many horses are destroyed every year, after suffering injury whilst being ridden in more ordinary places - amateur show jumping or hacking or whatever. But few people want those activities banned, the risks are accepted because they aren't played out on TV.

I think that the organisers have taken reasonable precautions and after that, the risks are acceptable.

And there's a horse in the field behind me that has survived a broken leg. It's nearly 18 now and starting to loose its teeth, not long for the old girl now, but the owner loves her, still rides her lightly, and thought her worth the expense( and it WAS expensive...that's why people invented insurance)

It really does depend on the type of fracture, to be honest. The majority can't be fixed, unless you have a VERY quiet horse (which thoroughbreds aren't, as a rule) who's happy to be supported in a sling without moving for a couple of months while it heals and then you have to cross your fingers that no infection sets in. It's generally much kinder to the horse to put it straight to sleep.

And 18 is very young for a horse these days :o) My neighbour has a 31-y-o pony pottering around the place and my sister in law is still gently riding her 32-y-o ex-point-to-pointer.

I was going to post that the campaign to ban the National is the thin end of the wedge - the National is the cause celebre of a campaign to ban jump racing. However, a quick go-ogle reveals -to my great surprise- that maybe they have a point. Racehorse deaths are far more numerous than I'd imagined, on average a horse dies on the racecourse every other day. 816 horses in just over five years

http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/

Pretty grim reading.

Not so many years ago the Aintree fences were built like brick walls; fatalities (& injuries) were considerably higher than those of recent years. Todays fences are built in such a way that if a horse makes a pigs ear & crashes through a fence,as against jumping it cleanly,it will not neccessarily fall.

The fences themselves play a very small part in damaging,fatally or otherwise,the horse.
Racehorse trainers today frequently have to take instructions from their owners regarding the running of their horses; all manner of reasons exist, often it is to do with advertizing, but some will also insist their horse must run in the National,or run in high profile races such as at Ascot & so on.
The competitive nature of the racing world & fraternity within it is such that this is not uncommon. Hence there is an element, which was evident yesterday, that several horses should not have lined up for the GN.It is usually bad horses that bring down or hamper good horses.Trainers know if a horse is up to the job,or not as the case may be. Money talks in racing!
Far too many horses took part in the race,it resembled a multiple crash on the motorway at times.

Surely the media plays a large part in overhyping the GN? Where animals are concerned it is morally wrong imv to use them to pocket vast amounts of money. Racing is a sport... or is it?
It must change if we are to enjoy the likes of GN,the Derby & the rest.

Dear Mr?Ms? incomprehensible monniker,

You do yourself a disservice by justifying the disrespectful despatch of non profitable equines by reference to the dubious despatch of others.

And as for the greed and avarice of the proponents of this business............judge yourself Sir!

Hello Kcnopper,
I'm sorry that my username isn't as clear as your own.

Actually, I have no connection with horseracing and don't gamble (well, only on equities not equines). I do watch the GN and have also watched a similarly controversial horserace - the Palio in Italy.

By "disrespectful despatch", I presume you mean a quick humane kill of a seriously injured animal? I don't find that very hard to justify. Yes, I do point out the hypocracy in giving such great value to the life of a racehorse, compared to millions of cattle, pigs or chickens. The real revulsion about the GN is that spectators and TV viewers are (shock, horror) exposed to the grimmer side of real life.

Real life involves doing dangerous activities and sometimes things go badly wrong. We can discuss where to draw the line between Health & Safety versus adrenalin & excitement. I used to climb high mountains, so I have some first hand experience of being exposed by choice to mortal danger. The worst case scenario for a climber in the Alps or Himalayas is a much more painful death than for a GN race horse. I have put some skin into the excitement game, rather than just watching on TV.

This is not about greed and avarice. It is about living life with risk and excitement, in preference to living life in the nursery doing what nanny says.

regards
yyuryyub icuryy4me (Mr)
(Too wise you are, too wise you be, I see you are too wise for me. Or Foolish, as the case may be.)

Nick09 wrote:

Hence there is an element, which was evident yesterday, that several horses should not have lined up for the GN.It is usually bad horses that bring down or hamper good horses.Trainers know if a horse is up to the job,or not as the case may be. Money talks in racing! <i/>

There are no "bad" horses in the Grand National - they have to qualify on various criteria such as age, performance in races of at least 3 miles and their official rating.

All entries are scrutinised to see that these conditions have been met.

As the National is a handicap race, only the best 40 of those entered for the race will get a run.

Saying that "money talks in racing" and blaming advertising/the owners vanity, is a bit emotional, in my opinion.

I wonder how many horses are destroyed every year, after suffering injury whilst being ridden in more ordinary places - amateur show jumping or hacking or whatever.

The number of deaths on course (or directly related to a problem in a race) for steeple chasers is about 6 in 1000 starts.

Which might not sound a lot. But if you go hacking every other day for a year and those were the death rates for hacking, then there would be a 30% chance that your horse would die during the year.

The number of deaths for flat racing is about 1 in 1000. So there is a simple way to get rid of the majority of deaths - ban the jumps.

But few people want those activities banned, the risks are accepted because they aren't played out on TV.

The risks are FAR lower. And there is something highly unpleasant about the coverage of the National on TV. The deaths and non finishers are portrayed as increasing the risk and hence the excitement.

manzanilla

816 horses in just over five years

I wonder what would happen to a sport if that was the number of people dying and not animals?

The worst case scenario for a climber in the Alps or Himalayas is a much more painful death than for a GN race horse. I have put some skin into the excitement game, rather than just watching on TV.

This is not about greed and avarice. It is about living life with risk and excitement, in preference to living life in the nursery doing what nanny says.

What does you having chosen to climb a mountain tell us about the rights and wrongs of the Grand National? Well done for having put all that skin into the excitement game: I'm sure you've got absolutely colossal cojones. Probably as big as a racehorse's. (Ungelded racehorse, obviously...) But the two situations are totally different.

You chose to climb mountains. The jockeys choose to ride the horses. Horses aren't humans, though. They don't have the same ability to make choices as humans do.

To be honest, I'm not that bothered by the Grand National. I'd rather have been a Grand National horse who has a nice life and a relatively painless death than an intensively-farmed pig. That's where the real cruelty is. So I agree with you on that score, and do think that there are much bigger animal welfare issues to worry about than horse racing.

But the "nanny" nonsense isn't relevant. They're horses, not people, and they're not making the same choices as you when you climb mountains.

Recreational horseriding is like walking in the Lake District or other British hills. The fatality rate per person per day is very low, but a lot of people do it.

The extreme end of mountaineering has a very high death rate. This has sometimes reached such levels as to generate public revulsion (eg. Eiger North face 1930s). But the revulsion is not so much about the exact fatality rate, as about a lot of the hyperbole, publicity seeking and vainglory that go with it. I agree with manzanilla about the unpleasant side to some of the GN TV coverage. High altitude climbing has an even worse culture of glorifying risks, which used to thrill me, but which I grew out of. These dangerous activities need to be appreciated despite the dangers, not because of them. In the 1930s, tourists would gawp through telescopes at climbers on the Eiger. I think that most racegoers and TV viewers are interested in the racing, not the dark side. The same is true of motorsport, that has a dubious relationship to death and disaster.

What does you having chosen to climb a mountain tell us about the rights and wrongs of the Grand National?

Only that my views on taking risks in the name of sport are based on personal experience of sometimes being close to the downside. So I do see a real parallel between horseracing and other risky activities.

To be honest, I'm not that bothered by the Grand National. I'd rather have been a Grand National horse who has a nice life and a relatively painless death than an intensively-farmed pig. That's where the real cruelty is. So I agree with you on that score, and do think that there are much bigger animal welfare issues to worry about than horse racing.

Of course you can worry about both - the two aren't mutually exclusive. I full agree that there's a lot of animal cruelty that goes on in the the meat production industry, and if i'd have my way that wouldn't be the case. If meat was a lot more expensive as a result of that (because all animals had to be reared in clean and pleasant environments etc.) then so be it.

But besides, this idea elsewhere in this thread that you have to be some sort of full on vegan otherwise you're a hypocrite critisising the Grand National is Daily Mail style sound-biting at its worst. Still, based on the rec count it seems to be the approach that most people instinctively go with.

Only that my views on taking risks in the name of sport are based on personal experience of sometimes being close to the downside. So I do see a real parallel between horseracing and other risky activities.

For the jockey, certainly.

But it's the horses who died yesterday, not the jockeys. Horses in the Grand National aren't making the same informed choice as a human is when he decides to climb a mountain. (Or race in the Grand National, natch.) That's an absolutely huge difference. Fundamental.

You just can't compare a human deciding to engage in a risky activity with a horse racing in the Grand National. Humans are humans. Animals are animals.

Said it last year and saying it again. 30 horses maximum for the GN.

I think that most racegoers and TV viewers are interested in the racing, not the dark side

No, not when it comes to the National. Otherwise why isn't there the same sort of mass coverage for the Derby?

Obviously there are people that love their racing like Beerpig. But there are literally millions of people who never watch another race in the rest of the year. It is a manufactured spectacle and the high risk to the horses is seen as all part of the fun.

High altitude climbing - that is people choosing to take risks. they know that the risks are hugely increased if they try to climb high without oxygen. Or solo. But good luck to them, they know the risks and don't expect others to mount dangerous rescue attempt.

But I don't see that has got anything to do with choosing to do something 'for fun' which results in death of animals. Over the last few centuries most countries we regard as civilised have banned cat burning, bear baiting, dog fighting and bull fighting.

I'll make a £100*RPI bet to a charity of the winners choice that within 25 years steeplechasing is banned in England and so is the use of whips in flat racing.

manzanilla

I'll make a £100*RPI bet to a charity of the winners choice that within 25 years steeplechasing is banned in England and so is the use of whips in flat racing.

I'd say you're wrong on both scores. The fences in steeplechasing may well see a major scaling down in size, but it's hard to see how flat racing could continue without jockeys having a short stick for safety reasons.

it's hard to see how flat racing could continue without jockeys having a short stick for safety reasons.

The Norwegian approach is normally described as 'no whips'. Somehow races continue there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSeD5twJY1A&feature=relmf...

manzanilla

It's not so much the size of the fences, they really have been cut down over the years, it's the drop, inclines and scale of the slopes that needs to be looked at, particularly at Beechers. Horses coming to this fence have no previous experience of ever tackling this kind of obstacle. Add this to say 6 horses jumping this fence at the same time plus 3 more having gone over just in front of them and with two being brought to their knees, you have a massive pile up with no time to recover and nowhere to go. Have a look at the replay and you will clearly see this, particularly with According to Pete, second time round. It's staring us in the face, both horses who were killed at the same fence and the same thing happened last year.
Now reduce the field, have the horses start trotting in from 50 yds away and spread apart as much as possible, approach the starting tape in a straight line and you are off. No second or third chances...it's 4 and a half miles for goodness sake, if a horse is 40 yds behind from the tape, tough. He stays out of trouble and if he has the class, will catch up at some stage.
They already took two fences out of the equation last year, did the same again this year and we have the exact disaster repeated. Do we ban steeplechasing? No. Do we give horse and jockey a better chance of having serious injury inflicted upon them? We try to eliminate the obvious problems by first reducing the field and either get rid of Beechers entirely or make it less hazardous.
They had better get their priorities in order for next year as this cannot continue.

Dear Mr Lexicon,

The worst case scenario for a climber in the Alps or Himalayas is a much more painful death than for a GN race horse. I have put some skin into the excitement game, rather than just watching on TV.

This is not about greed and avarice. It is about living life with risk and excitement, in preference to living life in the nursery doing what nanny says.

You prejudicially conflate choice and perception of personal risk with the imposition of something else upon another species whcih has no choice on th matter.

I know a stripper, ergo the kid next door is ok with drugs and sexual abuse administered by another feckless humanoid for profit. So long, that is, as the stripper's (male by the way so feck your prejudice) ears are pricked foreward.

nbchgdtysjalouey w nwn nm,m too

Meanwhile, the lunchtime crowds and millions watching on TV chomp their way through vast quantities of meat and poultry, much of it derived from somewhat less fortunate animals. But of course, that's not the same, because we didn't see those animals on TV or give them names.


I think most people can tell the difference between treating animals as food and mistreating animals for sport.

That's the reason that we find bull fighting or cock fighting etc so distasteful.

But I don't mean to start a fight. I've just wondered into a pub to watch the football. If only they could find a way to make sport fair too?

Rich

the imposition of something else upon another species whcih has no choice on th matter.

I know, the horse has no chance to say "nay" to life and death as a steeplechaser. It's an animal bred by man. Draft mules, oxen at the yoke, husky dogs, carthorses, trekking ponies, pet poodles - they all have the order of their lives set by their human keepers and by chance. It's therefore the responsibility of the keepers and those who rule them to take decisions that we consider reasonable. And I think that was where our discussion started.

I don't keep any kind of animal or indulge in any leisure activity related to captive animals, with the exception of watching a few horseraces and greyhounds each year. The GN is clearly exactly at the point between what is currently considered OK and what is currently considered not OK, hence the heated debate.

A few Fools have massively mis-interpreted my previous comments about risk taking. I did not wish to imply that chosing to do a dangerous activity allows me to force similar risks on others (animals included). Rather, my own past experiences forced me to think very hard about taking risks that might kill or seriously injure my friends or myself and whether these activities are justifiable, and the consequences if the worst scenario came about. Therefore, I can look at OTHER people doing risky activities with compassion and understanding - and perhaps not immediately cry for their sport to be banned. I think that it would be a shame, if the world lost great risky sports such as the Grand National and the Palio of Sienna.

Hello Rich,

I think most people can tell the difference between treating animals as food and mistreating animals for sport.

Indeed. Equally, most people can see the hypocrisy in inflicting lifelong suffering on hundreds of millions of animals, but chosing to get more upset about the humane killing of a small number of animals that had been seriously injured by accident, even if the accident was the result of a high-risk activity.

That's the reason that we find bull fighting or cock fighting etc so distasteful.

Yes, but those are activities where mistreating the animal is the intention, not a consequence which the organisers try to avoid. I think that 99% of the racegoers were horrified by the deaths of the horses, so I don't see how you can compare it to cock fighting.

I think most people can tell the difference between treating animals as food and mistreating animals for sport.

Indeed. Equally, most people can see the hypocrisy in inflicting lifelong suffering on hundreds of millions of animals, but chosing to get more upset about the humane killing of a small number of animals that had been seriously injured by accident, even if the accident was the result of a high-risk activity.

Agreed that horses are injured unintentionally, but as I pointed out earlier, on average around three racehorses die each & every week in the UK on racecourses. Im not convinced that the racing industry has done much (anything?) to address this death toll.

Alright, cock fighting is a bit strong. But bull fighters do argue very similar arguments though - good life before, get to go on dates with all the pretty females, happy retirement if successful etc.

I don't buy the intention argument. You can have whatever intention you want, but the facts speak for themselves in terms of how many horses are put down.

I guess what grates most with all this is the speed of the twist of fate. In the morning they are lauded as heros - possible record makers - potentially making history. Yet by 4:30 they are being put down for simply having the inconvenience of a broken leg.

It doesn't seem fair to me. At some point a line is crossed *

One more pint before I go please landlord if you're still serving.

Rich

* unless you are Juan Mata.

Hi,

"A small number of animals, which had been very well looked after throughout their lives, were humanely killed soon after suffering serious injury."

Just words. Is it the "small", the "very well looked after", or the "humanely killed" that you think makes this acceptable? Because if you substitute a human for the horse, your justification would seem to extend, by analogy, to putting down Patrice Muamba last month.


"Meanwhile, the lunchtime crowds and millions watching on TV chomp their way through vast quantities of meat and poultry, much of it derived from somewhat less fortunate animals. But of course, that's not the same, because we didn't see those animals on TV or give them names."

That's about as logical as saying that because I was born in the UK, then I should be held responsible for the ills of the British Empire. It doesn't compute. You have made the same mistake that the media are always making - tarring everyone with the same brush by generalisation, and hence deliberately evading the point.


"I wonder how many horses are destroyed every year, after suffering injury whilst being ridden in more ordinary places - amateur show jumping or hacking or whatever. But few people want those activities banned, the risks are accepted because they aren't played out on TV."

Again, you've put words into peoples' mouths to suit your own argument. To imply that people would object to one thing but not another very similar thing is misleading and disengenuous. It's like saying that most people are happy to have some nuclear-armed countries but not other countries (implying hypocrisy), whereas in fact the much more likely view is that most people would like no nuclear-armed countries.


"I think that the organisers have taken reasonable precautions and after that, the risks are acceptable."

The organisers are humans who impose their choices on defenceless animals. That fact that many horses are killed, by those same humans, as a result of forcing them over dangerous hurdles, is just another demonstration of human hubris, trying to justify the un-justifiable.

Taurus

Taken from the BBC, was pleased to see most of the points I mentioned yesterday that might help reduce the deaths during this race discussed herein.


Grand National 'never risk-free'
Winning Grand National trainer Paul Nicholls says the race will never be without risk following the deaths of two horses at Aintree on Saturday.

Speaking after Neptune Collonges' victory, he stressed authorities must make the event "as safe as possible".

"There are risks and we all try to minimise them. No stone is left unturned," he told BBC Radio 5 live.

"There is always risk in sport. A lot of people have to grow up, and realise that it is life."

Cheltenham Gold Cup winner Synchronised and According to Pete fractured legs in the race and had to be put down by vets following falls.

There have now been consecutive Grand Nationals with two fatalities, following the deaths of Dooney's Gate and the Nicholls-trained Ornais last year.

New safety measures had been introduced for this year following a review, with reductions in the height, and drops on the landing, of several fences made.

Despite the changes, only 15 of the 40-horse field reached the finishing post.

Two jockeys were also injured in this year's race. Noel Fehily broke his leg when his mount State of Play unseated him at the fifth and Brian Hughes, on board Viking Blond, suffered a suspected broken cheekbone when his horse fell at the first fence.

In a robust defence of the race Nicholls added: "We've got to be realistic about this. The horses have the best of everything they could have. They probably have better health care than we have.

"If people are going to continue to participate in sport, there is going to be both a human and animal risk.

"The worst thing you can do is to go too far. You make the fences smaller, they go faster and you get more fallers."

BBC commentator Richard Pitman believes changes must be made following Saturday's tragic events, which marred a thrilling race won by Neptune Collonges by a nose from Sunnyhillboy in a closest-ever finish to the race.

"There are questions to be asked and answers to be found and we cannot be complacent. We have to address the situation," the former jockey told BBC Radio 5 live.

"I think that things will have to be changed and I don't agree with the fences being smaller. That encourages horses to go faster. But I think the number of runners should be cut.

"The number of runners is the key point because quite a lot of horses were brought down by other horses. So if you've more room - say 25 horses instead of 40 - there will be a lot less interference from one to the other."

The RSPCA says there needs to be a number of drastic changes made to the race - including a reduction in the size of the field and the possibility of Becher's Brook being removed.

Chief executive Gavin Grant told BBC Breakfast: "Firstly, the scale of the field. Forty horses is a heck of a lot. Secondly, there are unique jumps there that horses aren't experienced in going over and I think we need to look at those jumps again.

"Becher's Brook has claimed another casualty [According To Pete] and perhaps it's time for that to go.

"We need to look at the landing areas. Some improvements have been made there, but when you've got a drop on the other side of the fence a horse isn't expecting that.

"And the going. The ground conditions are very important. Aintree has made a lot of progress making sure the going is softer because when it's hard the horses run faster.

"There is lots of work to be done to take the risks to horses out of this."

The British Horseracing Authority released a statement on Sunday saying it was still investigating the incidents in this year's race but pointed out Synchronised fractured his leg further down the course after unseating Tony McCoy at Becher's Brook whereas According to Pete was brought down by another horse.

The statement added: "We believe it would be premature to suggest that modifications to the course and other changes have not been effective or will not yet prove to be effective.

"The Grand National is a unique race and it represents a unique challenge for the sport and for its regulation.

"It is a thrilling spectacle, but there is a higher degree of risk involved in the Grand National than other races and for this reason everyone in the sport needs to be conscious of how the race is presented to the public, the general consumer perception and their views of how the race is run."

I guess what grates most with all this is the speed of the twist of fate. In the morning they are lauded as heros - possible record makers - potentially making history. Yet by 4:30 they are being put down for simply having the inconvenience of a broken leg.

I wish that the same applied in football for those who pretend to have a broken leg....

Okay, I'm going to add my two penny's worth.

Enough is enough now. I have watched the GN every year since a small girl, and with every year I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable at seeing the old green or black tarpaulins going up as the rest of the field is diverted. In fact, I felt sick afterwards. Synchronised should never have been run after depositing A P McCoy. But of course he was run because, like many businesses nowadays, his trainer couldn't financially afford to pull him out of it, compounded with the pressure of the owners who want a good day out.

Frankly, ANY animal dying for human entertainment is repulsive. And before anyone says "yes, but the horses are treated like royalty" don't understand a racing yard. I have ridden and had horses all my life. These animals are treated like royalty, until they break down or loose too many races. Trust me, a majority of the owners/trainers couldn't give a toss what happens to them after that because they don't make money for them anymore. The only person who will have had any tears for those two horses on Satuday afternoon were the two lads(ses) who looked after them on a day-to-day basis and saw them as personalities.

As civilisation progresses, our taste for many pursuits changes. I am hoping that, now that the BBC has lost its franchise to broadcast the race, that it will die a death [no pun intended].

Herbs

I recall my Mother saying in around 1960, that Becher's Brook was too cruel.

If only 15 horses complete a race when 40 started it tells you all you really need to know. Those numbers simply speak for themselves.

Nobody wanted Syncronised to race....even the horse wasn't in the mood....yet race he did..........


It's a marvellous sight..those magnificent Arabian horses running and jumping for all they are worth, ...but the price is simply too high.


Funnny how we have managed to make Formula One so safe, but when it comes to animals?.........



Nobby.

Nobody wanted Syncronised to race....even the horse wasn't in the mood....yet race he did..........

Unfortunately if anything he was too much in the mood. Synchronised wasn't killed in his fall at Beechers. He got up and continued to jump of his own volition eventually falling and suffering his fatal injury at the 11th.

Earlier in the thread there was questions on why they couldn't save horses with broken leg. The only incident I know of it being attempted was on Barbaro who broke his leg in the Preakness having previously won the Kentucky Derby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbaro

I know, the horse has no chance to say "nay" to life and death as a steeplechaser.

Or "neigh" even...

Frankly, ANY animal dying for human entertainment is repulsive.

Pedantic point: they don't die for our entertainment, they die because of it.

And I guess that's the crux: horses love running and jumping more than anything other than eating and lurrrrving, so they key is to find a way to *ahem* harness that instinct whilst maintaing the integrity of the sport.

This event is a one-off as far as the vast majority of its punters are concerned, thus would they know or care any different if the starting numbers were reduced, the distance shortened and the jumps made less onerous? There will still always be the occasional casualty, though.

Ok, Herbs, I'm going to add my £0.02 too.

Synchronised should never have been run after depositing A P McCoy. But of course he was run because, like many businesses nowadays, his trainer couldn't financially afford to pull him out of it, compounded with the pressure of the owners who want a good day out.

Firstly I have to ask whether you have any insider knowledge or proof that the trainer couldn't financially afford to pull him out? My own (admittedly limited) understanding of trainers is that they are paid by the owners of the horse and in addition get a share of any winnings.

To suggest that the trainer, who has a financial interest in keeping the animal alive, couldn't afford for it NOT to run I find laughable. More so considering the recent Cheltenham result.

I broadly agree with your sentiment about them dying for human entertainment and being working animals and being destroyed when no longer performing, but then again I'd feel the same whether it were a thoroughbred or a guard dog. It either can do it's job or it can't, and if it can't then it is of no use. It is not a pet.

I say "broadly" because when I go fishing I usually have a pretty good time. I don't care how the fish feel about it.

Cheers,

Griff.

If people don't want to watch vote with your TV's and dont watch simple. The TV viewing figures and attendance at the track suggest otherwise.

Nobody wants to see horses hurt or even die but every sport has its risks - I suppose the same people calling for the GN to be banned or changed beyond recognition would also want to see boxing etc banned?

Synchronised and According to Pete were bread for racing and whilst alive would have had a life most horses could only dream of.

As for the suggestion that Jonjo abd JP (whose wife bread him)are in need of the cash and had to run Synchronised - I suggest you google the pair of them, nothing could be farther from the truth. If they thought he was not right at the start he wouldn't have gone - no if ot buts.

If people don't want to watch vote with your TV's and dont watch simple

If you don't approve of dog fighting, don't go to a dog fight? Then everything is OK?

Synchronised and According to Pete were bread for racing


And now they're probably between two bits of bread in a Parisian restaurant somewhere.

HYD

Comparison with dog fighting and spelling on my blackberry! Shows how weak the arguments against the GN are.

Comparison with dog fighting and spelling on my blackberry! Shows how weak the arguments against the GN are.

Wasn't disagreeing or arguing with you. Just making a light hearted comment.

People who know me on this board will know which camp i'm in regarding the calls to ban the National.

HYD

No worries HYD - Sorry for catching you up in my haste to get back at the ridiculous comparison with dog fighting.

Spelling was never my strong point and the bread / bred is by no means my worst / best cock up on the BB!

Nobody wants to see horses hurt or even die but every sport has its risks - I suppose the same people calling for the GN to be banned or changed beyond recognition would also want to see boxing etc banned?

You're still not getting the essential difference between the two. Boxing is fought between two humans who have the freedom to decide whether to box or not. There are risks, but the boxers are only taking risks with their own health.

With horse racing, the biggest risk is to the horse, not the human.

I'm not calling for the Grand National to be banned, but I think that the comparison to human sports is disingenuous. Horses don't have the ability to weigh up the risks in the same way that humans can. The honest argument to support the Grand National is that the audience's enjoyment outweighs the risk of death to the animals.

I'd tend to agree with that argument. (After all, I eat meat when I could quite happily survive without it. That shows that I already think that my enjoyment outweighs the death of some animals.)

I'd tend to agree with that argument. (After all, I eat meat when I could quite happily survive without it. That shows that I already think that my enjoyment outweighs the death of some animals.)

I think everyone draws their own line somewhere. I'd find it acceptable for a herd of horses to be slaughtered for meat in the same was as I would cows, sheep, deer etc., but I doubt everyone would feel the same (same as in equally acceptable or unacceptable).

But I'd draw the line before dogs and cats. No logical sense, of course.

Scott.

I think on the GN we made the same point via different ways – the audience / crowd figures do support the view that the audience’s enjoyment outweighs the risk to the animals.

The boxing analogy is again aimed at a small number of people who don’t see the benefits of discipline, physical training, having a goal in life outweighing the risks.

The point where I draw the line is that I don’t want anything to do with where the primary aim of the activity is to hurt / kill the animal e.g. dog fighting, badger baiting, bull fighting etc have all been thrown up as comparisons with the GN at various places over the last 3 days.

I don’t believe any owner, trainer, jockey, workers at the stables, gambler in the high street shop wants to see a horse injured let alone killed – if anything exactly the opposite, they do everything possible to protect them.

However if the modifications to the GN continue where do we end up – a 2 mile flat race with 10 runners? A couple of weeks ago there was some of the richest racing in the world at Meydan on the flat – 3 horses died so do you get to the end point of all racing being banned?

Before Saturday I don’t think I would have written posts defending horse racing but having been accosted outside of the high street bookies + having to read in the press and hear on the news some of the rubbish that’s being banded around I think horse racing needs to make a stand to protect its long term interests.

PS – Casper, I didn’t see the glass programme but you’ll be pleased to hear that the old Pilkington Fibre Optic plant is now owned by Tyco and still going very strong in North Wales. They’re at the cutting edge of Fibre technology, Fibre To the Home etc and exporting the products and technology worldwide.

ridiculous comparison with dog fighting.



I wasn't comparing the GN with dog fighting - they are clearly different in that the aim of the National is not to harm the horses.

It was simply a response to your - " if you don't like it , don't watch it" comment: if I don't watch it the horses still die, and I've got a right to moan about that.
Unlike LoST we don't have to take completely polarised positions here, and I'm not a complete 'anti Grand National' - I just think the risks to the horses are too high at the moment and need to be reduced.

Here here AC!!!

Herbs

Here here AC!!!

There there Herbs. Kiss it better! :^)


Alan