The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Calling all 2012 VetMed entry hopefuls, *VERY* Early i know!

Scroll to see replies

I have put a bet on 3 horses:
1. Weird Al - 50-1
2. Rare Bob 40-1
3. Shakalakaboomboom- 20-1

I bet on the ones with terrible odds and the best names haha... always with the underdog :biggrin:
Original post by SimBa14
Sorry to bother you but you look like you know what you're talking about.
Quick question: is it likely I'll find a cheaper place to rent near the college? A £134 a week, utilities included sounds pretty good to me (seeing as it's London) but I was wondering if it's better to go private or College Grove/Mary Brancker? I don't know if it makes any difference but I've deferred my entry so should (hopefully if I get the grades) start in 2013.


I'm afraid I can't help a huge amount with this! I lived in MaryB last year, but I was on the graduate course, so only spent that one year living in London and have moved out to Potters Bar this year. So I didn't rent in London to compare the cost of it with halls.

I would say though that renting might work out a bit cheaper, but probably not much. I'm paying £86 a week at the moment in Potters Bar - which is cheaper that it would be in central london, but have water, gas, electric and internet on top of that. I don't know what the rent costs are nearer Camden - but you would struggle to get one less that £100, probably higher. I know friends who lived very near campus generally ended up paying more rent, others who lived further away found some cheaper places, but end up paying for buses etc to uni.

In all, from what I've heard/guess from renting in Potters Bar, you might save a small amount renting in London compared to halls, if you found a cheap place, were really careful with bills etc - but probably very little, esp compared the hassle of landlords, bills etc.
Reply 8082
Avatar for SimBa14
SimBa14
2 dead horses :frown:
Reply 8083
Avatar for SimBa14
SimBa14
Original post by kookabura
I'm afraid I can't help a huge amount with this! I lived in MaryB last year, but I was on the graduate course, so only spent that one year living in London and have moved out to Potters Bar this year. So I didn't rent in London to compare the cost of it with halls.

I would say though that renting might work out a bit cheaper, but probably not much. I'm paying £86 a week at the moment in Potters Bar - which is cheaper that it would be in central london, but have water, gas, electric and internet on top of that. I don't know what the rent costs are nearer Camden - but you would struggle to get one less that £100, probably higher. I know friends who lived very near campus generally ended up paying more rent, others who lived further away found some cheaper places, but end up paying for buses etc to uni.

In all, from what I've heard/guess from renting in Potters Bar, you might save a small amount renting in London compared to halls, if you found a cheap place, were really careful with bills etc - but probably very little, esp compared the hassle of landlords, bills etc.


Thanks for replying and for the advice :smile: I guess it's college grove or MB for me, it means I can get up later aswell :P
Synchronised, the 2012 Gold Cup Champion and according to pete are now dead :frown:
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Irishguy2K10
Synchronised, the 2012 Gold Cup Champion and according to pete are now dead :frown:


I was gutted when I heard about them, at first we thought it was a person that wasn't getting up as one of the horses practically landed on his head but when they ran around again and they're was the black fencing around I knew it was a horse :frown: I was actually suprised synchronised actually raced seen as he had practically ran half the race before it was even started so he was bound to be tired.

I put a bet on Seabass and Treacle (I liked the names :biggrin:) so chuffed that Seabass came 3rd
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 8086
Avatar for Cetacea
Cetacea
8
Original post by beccac94
I was gutted when I heard about them, at first we thought it was a person that wasn't getting up as one of the horses practically landed on his head but when they ran around again and they're was the black fencing around I knew it was a horse :frown: I was actually suprised synchronised actually raced seen as he had practically ran half the race before it was even started so he was bound to be tired.

I put a bet on Seabass and Treacle (I liked the names :biggrin:) so chuffed that Seabass came 3rd


It's tragic I know. It seems even though the course had new safety measures introduced horses can still die. According to the BBC, both had fractured legs which we all know inevitably means they have to be put down.

There's actually a bit of a debate as to whether Synchronised should have raced or not - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/17714060

I put a bet on Grey Chicago but he was unfortunately brought down on one of the earlier jumps by another horse (can't remember which one) falling down. You must have been cheering Seabass on towards the end!
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 8087
Avatar for ellie157
ellie157
Original post by beccac94
I was gutted when I heard about them, at first we thought it was a person that wasn't getting up as one of the horses practically landed on his head but when they ran around again and they're was the black fencing around I knew it was a horse :frown: I was actually suprised synchronised actually raced seen as he had practically ran half the race before it was even started so he was bound to be tired.

I put a bet on Seabass and Treacle (I liked the names :biggrin:) so chuffed that Seabass came 3rd


The black fencing was actually a jockey who'd broken something, the two horses both died at Becher's Brook - Synchronised on the first lap and According To Pete on the 2nd :/

The RSPCA are not happy about it: http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/statement/120412

I had a bet on Seabass too, and Cappa Bleu :smile:
Some interesting threads on TSR about the Grand National:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1971965

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1971978
Original post by Cetacea
It's tragic I know. It seems even though the course had new safety measures introduced horses can still die. According to the BBC, both had fractured legs which we all know inevitably means they have to be put down.

There's actually a bit of a debate as to whether Synchronised should have raced or not - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/17714060

I put a bet on Grey Chicago but he was unfortunately brought down on one of the earlier jumps by another horse (can't remember which one) falling down. You must have been cheering Seabass on towards the end!


I personally don't think he should have raced the horse was way too nervous and was going to be more tired than the others after running miles when his rider fell off. I was reading something in the newspaper yesterday about how a lot of horsey people thought that the horse had little chance against the jumps and the distance. If people knew that then why did they allow the horse to race?

I was practically running that race as well tbh I'm chuffed it came 3rd and shes the highest ranking woman jockey ever. :smile: My mums a bit gutted because she has a thing about not betting on grey horses so she was really thing about placing a bet on the horse that won until I told it was grey. Lets just say she wasn't too happy with me when it won :P

Original post by ellie157
The black fencing was actually a jockey who'd broken something, the two horses both died at Becher's Brook - Synchronised on the first lap and According To Pete on the 2nd :/

The RSPCA are not happy about it: http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/statement/120412

I had a bet on Seabass too, and Cappa Bleu :smile:


Oh I was wondering about that cause I was thinking that jumps not Bechers brook but what do I know :biggrin: I'm actually suprised with the RSPCA's reaction because they should understand that horses die all the time a horse died on Friday (not at aintree) and 2 died at the same race in newcastle a few weeks ago and they didn't even flutter an eye lid. I think its just because its a high profile race.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Angry cucumber


The people on them annoy me they no very little about racing, riding or horses so are just blaming everyone, including the vets.
Original post by beccac94
The people on them annoy me they no very little about racing, riding or horses so are just blaming everyone, including the vets.


I noticed :tongue:

You posted quite a few on the thread I posted on!! :rofl:

I was particularly annoyed at the idiot who posted about vets cba, it was just Bull****!!!! :mad:

You know more about horses than me though! :biggrin:

Edit: Don't go on the "Should the Grand National be banned" thread on the news and current affairs area. It is full of morons and the poll is a joke. It is isn't one of the ones I linked to :smile:
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Angry cucumber
I noticed :tongue:

You posted quite a few on the thread I posted on!! :rofl:

I was particularly annoyed at the idiot who posted about vets cba, it was just Bull****!!!! :mad:

You know more about horses than me though! :biggrin:


I know I couldn't believe they said that. I think its cause I've been riding since I was about 9ish and when I was little (like every other 5 year old) I liked horses so I read and watched lots of thing to do with horses :biggrin:
Reply 8093
Avatar for Lucy_x
Lucy_x
3
Im just gunna put this out there.. Some of you may not agree but each to their own

Seriously don't know how anyone can support the grand national, including betting on it, especially people who love animals. There has been a death in it at least every year and the safety measures they put in didn't help. By making a jump smaller the jockeys are just going to approach it with more speed. The problem is the amount of runners in it

Yes the horses may love to race but why not enter them in a safe race then? They are herd animals so when the jockeys fall off of course they are gunna try and keep up with the other horses. Even synchronised who had a fractured leg got up and jumped the next fence and then decided to stop.

Okay I'll stop now, it just really infuriates me! the RSPCA puts a statement out about it each year tbh it doesn't really do much.

And Clare balding on twitter as well.. How can she say she disagrees with aspects of the race yet go along and commentate and therefore support it :s

RIp to the two horses that had to be killed on site and the one who was put down friday night
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Lucy_x
Im just gunna put this out there.. Some of you may not agree but each to their own

Seriously don't know how anyone can support the grand national, including betting on it, especially people who love animals. There has been a death in it at least every year and the safety measures they put in didn't help. By making a jump smaller the jockeys are just going to approach it with more speed. The problem is the amount of runners in it

Yes the horses may love to race but why not enter them in a safe race then? They are herd animals so when the jockeys fall off of course they are gunna try and keep up with the other horses. Even synchronised who had a fractured leg got up and jumped the next fence and then decided to stop.

Okay I'll stop now, it just really infuriates me! the RSPCA puts a statement out about it each year tbh it doesn't really do much.

And Clare balding on twitter as well.. How can she say she disagrees with aspects of the race yet go along and commentate and therefore support it :s

RIp to the two horses that had to be killed on site and the one who was put down last night


A bit of a bold statement that one.

As you say it is the number of runners is the problem, going by some the form guide comments on the web, on horses lower down the order have comments such as "Not a chance, won't make it around." To allow horses such as those race is irresponsible of trainers, race officials and race vets alike, as said horses are likely to fall and cause collisions, hence cause injuries. This I agree with.

However you say horses should be entered "safe races" this is a wishy washy statement as like it or not every race is dangerous. As beccc94 has pointed out to me in another thread, this is not a rare occurrence, several horses were put down last week alone.

As for Claire Balding, everyone is entitled to dislike an aspect of a sport, yet still enjoy it. If your going to start telling people who dislike an aspect of a sport to stop supporting it, it's a bit of a slippery slope. She said that the fields should be smaller, I agree with her, criticising a person who has the same ideas as you for improving the GN is just daft.

And for the RSPCA make a huge difference, see new whip rules, the lowering of the jumps this year etc.

I should be doing Maths revisions!! :wink:
Reply 8095
Avatar for Lucy_x
Lucy_x
3
Original post by Angry cucumber
A bit of a bold statement that one.

As you say it is the number of runners is the problem, going by some the form guide comments on the web, on horses lower down the order have comments such as "Not a chance, won't make it around." To allow horses such as those race is irresponsible of trainers, race officials and race vets alike, as said horses are likely to fall and cause collisions, hence cause injuries. This I agree with.

However you say horses should be entered "safe races" this is a wishy washy statement as like it or not every race is dangerous. As beccc94 has pointed out to me in another thread, this is not a rare occurrence, several horses were put down last week alone.

As for Claire Balding, everyone is entitled to dislike an aspect of a sport, yet still enjoy it. If your going to start telling people who dislike an aspect of a sport to stop supporting it, it's a bit of a slippery slope. She said that the fields should be smaller, I agree with her, criticising a person who has the same ideas as you for improving the GN is just daft.

And for the RSPCA make a huge difference, see new whip rules, the lowering of the jumps this year etc.

I should be doing Maths revisions!! :wink:


Lool it was indeed I should take it back because it's a bit harsh isn't it.

Not every race is safe but I can't think of another race where a horse dies EVERY year! Yes it is a risk that people will take when racing, show jumping, eventing but flat races etc are undeniably safer than the grand national. Just because horses are being killed in other races doesn't mean it's acceptable for this to happen too. It's like, a jockey won't go to a different race expecting to lose a horse, or a show jumper expecting to lose their ride. It it's in the nature of the grand national. Almost unavoidable at the moment.

I'm criticising her because she goes along and therefore supports it. She may enjoy racing but doesn't necessarily have to go to an event that she doesn't like.

P.s. I know the RSPCA have done loads, Ive done work experience with them blaaaa de bla but at the end of the day it's the BHA that's going to bring in the changes
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by beccac94
I was gutted when I heard about them, at first we thought it was a person that wasn't getting up as one of the horses practically landed on his head but when they ran around again and they're was the black fencing around I knew it was a horse :frown: I was actually suprised synchronised actually raced seen as he had practically ran half the race before it was even started so he was bound to be tired.

I put a bet on Seabass and Treacle (I liked the names :biggrin:) so chuffed that Seabass came 3rd


Yea its very sad to see that them horses didnt make it. Yea, he had already ran the course/
Yea, my mum had a bet on seabass, she had so many top runners haha.
Im of two minds about racing. The way I see it, if you compared it to a human athletic sport with lots of betting, say football or sprinting, if an athlete dropped dead at every event or got injured so bad they were say paralyzed for life, what would peoples reactions be regarding the safety of the participants and would they alter the sport? My thinking would be yes they would. It worries me more people arnt concerned about the high death tolls in race horses regardless of the races. If we treated human athletes the way we treat racehorses (both of which are born/love their jobs) their would be a riot on our hands!

I think there should be must stricter controls over who is allowed to race. If the horse/jockey isnt fit or experienced enough, or on the day something is different (say they are spooked or the ground doesnt suit a particular animal) they shouldnt be allowed to race.

Interestingly there is an article on the BBc atm about accoring to petes owner who said its devistaing his horse died, he would never race grand national again etc etc. If he felt that way why enter the horse in the first place? I just found it a bit odd. Its like complaing you broke you back after choosing to do a base jump... If you want to take the risk you should be willing to live with the concequences. But hey thats just my opinion :smile:
Original post by Lucy_x
Im just gunna put this out there.. Some of you may not agree but each to their own

Seriously don't know how anyone can support the grand national, including betting on it, especially people who love animals. There has been a death in it at least every year and the safety measures they put in didn't help. By making a jump smaller the jockeys are just going to approach it with more speed. The problem is the amount of runners in it

Yes the horses may love to race but why not enter them in a safe race then? They are herd animals so when the jockeys fall off of course they are gunna try and keep up with the other horses. Even synchronised who had a fractured leg got up and jumped the next fence and then decided to stop.

Okay I'll stop now, it just really infuriates me! the RSPCA puts a statement out about it each year tbh it doesn't really do much.

And Clare balding on twitter as well.. How can she say she disagrees with aspects of the race yet go along and commentate and therefore support it :s

RIp to the two horses that had to be killed on site and the one who was put down friday night


i completely agree with you.

i don't necessarily disagree with racing in general but horses die so consistently in the national and so few even finish the race, there is obviously something not right. it's supposed to be a race not an endurance test to see who can finish the race alive!
I just want to add a few points to this debate, this is just stuff that I have heard/learnt from working at a racing yard for the past year...
First, the change in whip rules- many jockeys regard that as an unsafe change- WHen you are riding a race horse, with your short stirrups, your whip is a major tool for steering- I haven't ridden in a race, but I ride the horses out on exercise, you use your whip as a method of steering, especially going to a jump.
Also, remember these animals get the best, and swiftest veterinary attention, in the event of an injury.

Are there not bigger, more important issues in the veterinary world too? Perhaps it would be interesting to consider the many MANY equine deaths that are utterly preventable, such as obesity resulting in laminitis? Crippling, and often fatal? Why are we not angry about this? In terms of numbers of cases, and the agonizing suffering of the animals, to me, this is far worse.

I work in racing, and I now have a place at vet school, does this mean I don't love animals? I have to disagree. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but just thought I would share mine.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you