Erm, I believe Ramble HAS already........

Ramble, I'm sure anyone supporting the National won't be "too" concerned with any deaths or injuries..... if they were, they wouldn't be betting in the first place, would they?

Nor I

I'm betting on 'Don't Push It', seems to be the favourite this year.

I do - I did not do well as a vegetarian (although I tried!)

I try very hard to ensure that all the meat I eat is a)locally sourced and/or b)free range etc to make sure it has had a 'good' life.

However - I also look at the reasons why. I do not see the point of the GN except the pleasure of the people watching. Which IMO is not a valid reason to put the Horses in that much danger.

I`ve got no problem at all with racing. Horses love to run, and jump.
It`s simply that over-facing them in a crowded field because it makes a lot of money doesn`t exactly uphold the great tradition of racing - to match the best horses.

Well this thread took exactly the path I knew it would
when I saw the title, I think those who have placed bets on the national, should have placed them here , they would have got better odds


I have no problem at all that some dont like horse racing , or the national in particular, each to their own, to be honest its not one of my favorite equine sports either, I find it boring.

But will just comment on a couple of things I read, 1) they dont make jumps to big for a horse to jump, that would be madness , do you really think peopel would put their own lives at risk along with their horses , racing round a track with jumps they could not possible make.

2) you cant teach a horse an adrenaline rush, horses are flight animals, they are also pack animals, they will run with the crowd, and the saying is never more true that "you can take a horse to water , but you cant make it drink" , you simply cant make it do something it does not want to do. 3) the use of the whip, is prohibited, it has been in ALL equestrian sports for many yrs, you are allowed to Carry a whip but you are not allowed to beat a horse with one. if you do , you pay the price,

Whipping a tired horse will not make it go faster, if the tank is empty or it is not fast enough whipping it wont make it any better.

Horses are fragile creatures, the very nature of their conformation makes them so, they were never designed for us to sit on, and their legs are extremely fragile, and anyone who has owned or had dealing with horses will tell you , they they would never willingly put one at risk.

Millions of people enjoy one sport or another with their horses,, so which are you going to include in the cruelty crusade, which sport is more dangerous for the horse,

It seems you are all jumping on the racing as the bad guy, what about eventing, show jumping, dressage, endurance, horse in harness, hacking out, cantering across a field, being boxed in a stable...........ALL of these can and does incur injury/death, on a much higher scale than one race in the sports calender yr.

The very fact on sits on a horse is danger in itself, but you minimise the risks as best you can, and that included the national, many or most of those jockeys will not get placed, they wont make a mint out of the race, nor will the horses owners, only a very small minority will, so do you really think they will put their lives on the line for nothing.

if you are going to cry "vile sport" then at least include ALL equine activities, and not just pick out one publicised race in the yearly calendar.

TBF it has improved over the years, ie the entered horses MUST have some realistic chance of getting round (years ago you could put a horse just out of a milk float in).

They have also now got a maximum field number (used to have very big fields years ago).

They have made alterations to some of the fences eg The Chair.

Horse racing is a dangerous sport, as is 3 day eventing, more PEOPLE are klilled in the latter than the former, I was next to the fence when and where a female rider was killed several years ago, but the horses are very well looked after at the stables, when they travelling etc and their owners and lads and lasses adore them.

When they retire their fate varies, but that is true of pet dogs, ex farm animals etc.

I think you will find that as a %age of horse deaths, racing is much smaller than say the annual culling of native ponies that nobody wants to buy.

Things are rarely as black and white as those with polarised views like to portray. But then it suits people to take the moral high ground in some issues without weighing up all the pros and cons, and as far as I am concerned steeple chasing has, on balance, more pros than cons.

I will be watching. It is sad that horses die and get injured, but as JB pointed out far better than I could have this happens in all aspects of equine sports and in fact in stable yards all across the country, A horse gets cast in a box, a horse canters across a field(riderless) and stumbles, foot caught in a rabbit hole etc etc.

Yes it is sad and true that at large meets, and in fact small meets racehorses may die and yes that is tragic.

The Grand National has had changes made to it and I believe it is now a far safer race than it used to be, I accept that many (not just on Dogsey) want to see this race and other races banned but then surely heir thoughts shouldn't/can't stop at that - all equine sport should be banned (in their eyes)a challenging cross country course or point to point event or trail ride is just as, if not more, dangerous.

Back to the OPs question yes I will be watching but not betting but I will pick out my Favs - What a friend, Midnight Club and Calgary Bay.

To those who are backing Lucinda Russels horse her stables are very near me and she is a lovely woman with excellent love for her horses, she has many retired horses just happily spending their days in her care and she was more than happy to let my grandpa (who is a horse racing man) visit her stables and see round them and meet her and her hubby for his birthday.

On a final hope I hope that all the horses get round safely

Yeah, I think I got most of them wrong (I skim read on the way out), but either way I felt compelled to have my say about such a vile sport (that one's for you JackBox).

Are you saying if they were you would agree with it and bet on it?

Hello

We had a thread on this last year, and the year before. It's the same ones for it as it is against it. Nothing will ever change, people will have their fun flutters and horses will die.

I agree the discussion should be moved to a separate thread though as Esme has a right to have a fun thread for those pro it.

That logic amuses me. That's almost as if you're saying that you would put an animal through a potential dangerous sport for money and pleasure because it could hurt itself anytime.

Dogs on laminate flooring then. Is it now OK to let them play on laminate, tat is slippery because let's face it they could hurt themselves in daily life anyway?

I think you will find that i deliberately did not comment anywhere on the laminate thing.

But as that is completely off topic I will get back to the topic - The logic I was putting across is that whilst I agree everyone has the right to their views there are very few (I know Ramble does not fall in to this category) who take 1 day a year to condem racing based on the GRAND NATIONAL, thats where I have the problem. By all means condem racing that is a logical argument if that is how you feel BUT then there has to be condemnation of all Equine sports including general hacking out - yes I appreciate the risks are less than racing in the grand national but there are still risks none the less so why is it acceptable to some to risk a horse in some activities but not others.

My logic was obviously flawed in your opinion or perhaps it was not explained well either way The Grand National is a race which yes has elements of risk and danger. Is that acceptable? To some yes to others no. Is it acceptable to put any animal through something potentially dangerous for our own entertainment or to show as entertainment for others? To some the risk of danger is not seen until it is pointed out as Ramble took the time to do, to others the risk is known and ignored and to others the risk is judged to be in the big picture an acceptable risk. Does this make anyones logic wrong?