This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

should the grand national be banned? POLL

Poll

Should the Grand National be made illegal?

A lot of people have been leaving comments about the Grand National and the controversy over the horses that have died (RIP).

Personally, I dont think it should be banned but I do think it should be significantly improved so no animals lives are lost.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Phillipsherman

Fabrice Muamba could've died earlier this year - but no one suggests banning football

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 2

L i b

What the **** is with the modern obsession for 'banning' everything? You do realise that criminal law is supposed to be there to stop serious wrongdoing, don't you?

Reply 3

pinkangelgirl

Original post by L i b

What the **** is with the modern obsession for 'banning' everything? You do realise that criminal law is supposed to be there to stop serious wrongdoing, don't you?

maybe the unneccessary death of an animal is serious :sadnod:

Reply 4

Tommyjw

If we were to ban every sport that had a risk of injury to a person or animal then we would all be sat around watching bowls or something, and entertainment would completely suck

What happened is sad, and maybe calls for somehow looking into such races to improve them.. somehow.. but outright banning it is a bit crazy.

Reply 5

cl_steele

this has been blown completely out of proportion, the amount of horses that die each year compared to the number taking part is tiny...
if we're banning potentially dangerous sports why not racing? football? rugby? etc.

Reply 6

cakefish

"No its fun and these things just happen"

What blasphemy is this? It's not fun for the horses - WHEN THEY DIE!!!

I don't think it should be banned but anyone who doesn't think that the welfare of the horses is paramount and that the course should be completely redesigned to improve safety until there are no casualties are heartless.

Reply 7

pixcypants

I'm sorry I missed the part where this person asked if we should ban all sport.

That's because its not the question. Its about the grand national I'm sitting on the fence about banning it becuase it is a wonderful sport but nothing else. I believe they should if anything make it as safe as possible.

And the reason behind pointing out that other sports don't matter. Is becuase they don't compare a footballer chose too be a footballer a horse doesn't sign up too be in the grand national people make them for entertainment and if a few die who cares I'm sure they knew the risks. And we can watch as they shoot them sorry I mean humanely dispose of them.

Sorry it just annoys me that we ban other sports becuase they cause less harm to animals.

I disagree with the ban just safety issues need to be reviewed haha if not I want a more dangerous hurdle challenge at the Olympics just for fun lol

Reply 8

Colour Me Pretty

Original post by Phillipsherman

Fabrice Muamba could've died earlier this year - but no one suggests banning football

Muamba plays football voluntarily, the horses have no say in the matter.

Anybody who says it should be banned is being ignorant imo, because if they did then it would result in a lot of horses being sold for slaughter. Speaking as a horse lover, It needs to improved by lowering the fences, and maybe reducing the number of competitors.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 9

Idle

Original post by Millyshyn

Did any die this year? I only saw them falling over and then getting back up again. Didn't seem too bad. Although out of 40 only 15 seemed to have finished the race :/

Two.

Reply 10

cakefish

Original post by cl_steele

Unfair comparison. Humans have the choice to risk their own lives. Horses aren't allowed the freedom to decide whether they want to put their life at risk. That's the difference. We're forcing them to injure themselves for our own pleasure and greed. I don't think it should be banned but there needs to be a major rethink in safety.

Reply 11

Jabberwox

Banning is too much because all sports come with 'dangers' but it is very sad what happened to the horses :frown:

I must point out though that this is a sport involving animals which cannot really give their full consent. However, it is not the running which is dangerous to them, but the fences. Modifying the race by lowering fences might prove less dangerous and lessen casualties/deaths of horses and jockeys.

Reply 12

ddrrzzeerr

I think they should keep it going as it is. They shouldn't 'improve' it because the reason the Grand National is good is because there are big jumps and loads of jockeys come off which is exciting. I don't think the horses suffer much, they are put down quickly after they get injured. Loads of animals get killed everyday for meat and most people aren't concerned about that, I don't see why horses dieing in the Grand National is any different.

Reply 13

Greenlaner

Original post by L i b

What the **** is with the modern obsession for 'banning' everything? You do realise that criminal law is supposed to be there to stop serious wrongdoing, don't you?

This. Banning is such a ridiculously lazy "solution" to a percieved problem. But i guess people think if they cant see the problem anymore then as far as they are concerned it no longer exists.

Reply 14

cl_steele

Original post by cakefish

i think i should point out that whether you gave a horse the choice or not it could not physically make a choice, remember theyre animals not humans.
but in reference to your point about 'forcing them to injure themselves' and 'humans have the choice to risk their own lives' ill have to disagree with both. for a start the first makes out that this is little more than blood sport where we want to see the animals hurt and the second the sport is not as violent as you make out, very few injuries in themselves have been life threatening to the horses and many of the immediate deaths related to the GN have been from heart attacks and colliding with large immobile objects [which lets be honest could happen anywhere including the GN] but yes its my opinion that youre blowing the whole thing out of proportion to what it is for instance 95% of the horses at least survive many years see no deaths or at least only one maybe 2 at the outside dont they?

Reply 15

TheWorldEndsWithMe

Original post by Millyshyn

Did any die this year? I only saw them falling over and then getting back up again. Didn't seem too bad. Although out of 40 only 15 seemed to have finished the race :/

I just read up a bit more and 2 horses got put down because they fractured a leg? They shouldn't have been put down because of that! That hardly seems like a 'fatal' injury, what the hell. I don't think they should be banning the race, but the owners should be a bit more responsible and instead of putting down the horses that are injured, just look after them. Seems really inhumane to put them down because they are unable to race again. Synchronised carried on running after falling so I don't believe he would have died had be not been 'put down'. They didn't just die in the race, they were killed. That's what I think anyway.

Pretty sure it's because horses can't heal from fractured legs or something to that effect because they aren't particularly good at being immobile and they're severely at risk of pneumonia (heard from a few places). Killing them outright is better than letting them suffer for weeks.

Tbh though, I don't like animals and don't particularly care if the animals have died; yes it's sad but at the same time they could've just fallen over a hedge in the wild just as easily and died there too. Animals die all the time.

Reply 16

Arbolus

What I don't understand is, why did the horses have to be put down? All they did was break a leg. If a footballer did the same then it might well mean the end of his career, but there's just as good a chance that he'll be back on the pitch after a few months for healing and extra training. Even if the horses injuries were severe enough that they'd never race again, why could they not have been used for breeding or sold for some other purpose? Retired greyhounds are commonly adopted as pets; why could something similar not happen for retired racehorses?

I don't know much about horses, but it seems to me that the main reason for deaths is because the owners don't want to have to pay for the upkeep while the animal recovers. If that's the case then it should be the owners being denounced by animal rights groups, not the sport.

Reply 17

cakefish

Original post by cl_steele

i think i should point out that whether you gave a horse the choice or not it could not physically make a choice, remember theyre animals not humans.

Well yes so if they can't make that choice we shouldn't make it on their behalf.

Original post by cl_steele

but in reference to your point about 'forcing them to injure themselves' and 'humans have the choice to risk their own lives' ill have to disagree with both. for a start the first makes out that this is little more than blood sport where we want to see the animals hurt and the second the sport is not as violent as you make out, very few injuries in themselves have been life threatening to the horses and many of the immediate deaths related to the GN have been from heart attacks and colliding with large immobile objects [which lets be honest could happen anywhere including the GN] but yes its my opinion that youre blowing the whole thing out of proportion to what it is for instance 95% of the horses at least survive many years see no deaths or at least only one maybe 2 at the outside dont they?

2 died last year. 2 died this year. 2 more will probably die next year if no changes are made.

Sending them off when we know there is a relatively high risk of them injuring themselves is wrong I believe. 2 out of 40 taking fatal injuries is just too high a proportion. I don't think it should be banned but changes need to be made until there are no deaths at all. Things would soon change if the jockeys were the ones that had died and it should be no different for the horses too.

Reply 18

cl_steele

Original post by cakefish

Well yes so if they can't make that choice we shouldn't make it on their behalf.

2 died last year. 2 died this year. 2 more will probably die next year if no changes are made.

Sending them off when we know there is a relatively high risk of them injuring themselves is wrong I believe. 2 out of 40 taking fatal injuries is just too high a proportion. I don't think it should be banned but changes need to be made until there are no deaths at all. Things would soon change if the jockeys were the ones that had died and it should be no different for the horses too.

this may sound calous but you cant treat an animal the same as a human by the logic of what youre saying we can no longer eat meat as it involves 'murdering' an animal as they have no choice in the matter?

well if we think about this both these animals [this year at least] died because of humans killing them neither one died from the race as they were euphanised.

what changes are you proposing that wouldnt compromise the race?

hmmm that may be but again these are animals not people and as such they arent afforded the same rights.

Reply 19

cl_steele

Original post by Arbolus

itd be cruel for the horse not to be put down, unlike humans horses cant lay in bed for a few weeks for their legs to heal can they by nature they to walk around [on all fours] and cant lay off one leg in the time it would take to heal, if they did walk on it it would damage the healing process and probably leave them in a lot of pain and lame, it really depends though some horses [like red rum] back in the 80s brake their legs and dont get put down i believe its at the discretion of the on site vet and the seriousness of said injury and as you said whether the owner wants to pay to keep around a horse whos now worth pittance.