should the grand national be banned? POLL Watch

Poll: Should the Grand National be made illegal?
Yes Its cruel (48)
20.43%
No its fun and these things just happen (55)
23.4%
I dont care either way (21)
8.94%
It shouldnt be illegal but should be improved (111)
47.23%
This discussion is closed.
Gary Barlow
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#41
Report 7 years ago
#41
They've been trying to make the national "safe" for decades. Not sure how safe you can make something that involves jumping a 6'9 fence at 30 miles per hour. Aintree is a brutal race course and i don't bet on the national as a result. Accidents do happen in horse racing but i feel those which happen in the National are inevitable. If you make the fences 'safer' then you turn it into any other horse race and then everyone and their mum won't rush to the bookies to put a £1 each way on a horse that has the same name as someone they know. It should be banned, it gives the sport a bad name.
2
ben-1993
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 7 years ago
#42
Those race horses weigh between 500 and 600kg each how can anyone expect an animal to support over half a tonne on a broken leg. Keeping them alive is much more cruel to the animal.You cant put a horse in a wheelchair like you can a human.

Horses do not have things to do like humans, when my ankle was broken I spent most the time on my sofa playing the xbox, for a racehorse their stimulation and excitement is racing and training they want to be able to run, granted they are tools used for racing and dont appreciate the fact that they won the race but they also dont become downhearted when they lose. They just want to exercise because thats what they do. When I take my dog for its walk I go to a nature reserve where there is lots of things to smell, birds to chase other dogs to interact with which is something she loves to do. But when I go jogging around the streets which is something that I do because I like to challenge myself, it makes me feel good, it helps me lose that little belly fat. All three things that my dog doesnt think about but when I say "Rubes (Ruby) you coming on a jog!" she knows instantly what is happening and come with me even though she is just running around the streets which is no where near as interesting as the usual place she goes on walks she does it because she likes running. Same with Horses.

Saying the horses dont have a choice to race in such a poor excuse, horses arent born and straight away racing in the Grand National it takes much training and if a horse doesnt really want to run around a course it wont and if it doesnt then it wont be a racehorse anymore and will be sold on or rehomed.

If you think they shouldnt be put down for a broken leg imagine yourself with a broken leg standing still or lying down with a 200kilogram weight on your back not being able to walk and when you do being in excruciating pain in an empty room where all you did was eat and sleep with no computers, games, books or anything interesting for months. Sounds like medieval torture! Think about that next time you say that its better for them to be kept alive.

Please dont think im being heartless in what im saying because im not, yes it is upsetting when horses are injured and i wouldnt call it "entertainment" to see a horse fall at the first herdle but what im saying is that the horse do have a choice in what they are doing and when accidents do happen it is best to handle them in the most responsible way possible
1
Tahooper
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#43
Report 7 years ago
#43
(Original post by cl_steele)
yes but the vast majority of these falls didnt result in any meaningful harm to the horses with only two suffering severe injuries and having to be euphanized. its comaprable to cycling races where there are often falls and many of the cyclists then dont make it to the end, wouldnt you say?
i wouldnt say theyre that common, one maybe two deaths a year with a fair few years not having any deaths either.
No, I wouldn't say it's comparable. The cyclists compete knowing full-well the risks involved and consent to it. Horses can't consent nor can they know the risks involved.

If you're just talking about just the Grand National then yes of course there are going to be very few deaths. But you have to look at the other horse racing events like Cheltenham and Royal Ascot et al then the figure is more likely going to be in double figures, which is not acceptable.
0
orcprocess
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 7 years ago
#44
(Original post by pinkangelgirl)
maybe the unneccessary death of an animal is serious :sadnod:
Are you a vegetarian? Should we ban eating meat?
1
Dmon1Unlimited
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#45
Report 7 years ago
#45
forgive me tsr, im not a sports nut so i dont know much about the grand national, other than it being horse racing... ill assume from this thread, something bad has happened
though id say, with sports, you need movement to participate. if you have movement, you will have risk of injury/death. you can improve how to participate in sports to decrease chances of injury/death, but outright banning it, means you might as well ban every sport...
2
Genocidal
Badges: 16
#46
Report 7 years ago
#46
Oh here we go again.

We get this same utter crap every year. Someone makes a thread like this, people argue, and then it's all forgotten about until next year. In fact, I recall participating in a thread like this last year.

Yes, it's dangeorus, but that's what makes it so popular. We could reduce the size of the fences, which happened this year, but then it's just like every other hurdle race which makes it pointless. This is just some silly modern obsession with health and safety.

Either way, the risks will never be removed unless you completely abolish the hurdles in horse racing. I don't expect non-racing fans to understand, but look which horse died yesterday. It was Synchronised. This is the horse who is one of the best in the business as he won the Cheltenham Gold Cup. If even the best can die in that race then that means the risk is always going to be there.

Quite frankly I'm sick of these non-racing fans tuning in to the sport once every year and then having the audacity to believe that they should have an opinion on whether the race should be banned or not. You're nothing but some casual jackass who tunes in once a year. Seriously, piss off back to where you came from.
cl_steele
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#47
Report 7 years ago
#47
(Original post by Tahooper)
No, I wouldn't say it's comparable. The cyclists compete knowing full-well the risks involved and consent to it. Horses can't consent nor can they know the risks involved.

If you're just talking about just the Grand National then yes of course there are going to be very few deaths. But you have to look at the other horse racing events like Cheltenham and Royal Ascot et al then the figure is more likely going to be in double figures, which is not acceptable.
i think i should point out at this point that this is a horse not a human and as such cant make said decision so the point is mute..

and what would you have them do may i ask? ban all horse racing because a few horses are put down each year? it would be cruel to allow them to live. and either way i guarentee you banning racing would result in far far more horse deaths.
0
chiggy321
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#48
Report 7 years ago
#48
It's easy to think with your heart rather than your head in these matters. Yesterday, I joined the ranks of the many Britons who thought that what happened was terrible and I did question whether we should continue horse-racing, but when thinking the rationally the answer must be yes. We have an obssession with banning things that cause some wrong, irrespective of the proportionality of that wrong and that is the case here. Yes, it is wrong that some horses should die in races - but is it not wrong that horses should die in the wild? Or is it not wrong that they should die of natural causes, sometimes whilst young? The thing is - horses do die! Whilst it's particularly saddening when it happens in a public race I can guarantee you that many other horses died yesterday elsewhere across Britain, and many more will die today and tomorrow - it's just life. The life these racehorses have is remarkable and they are treated with warmth and affection, the likes of which they wouldn't gain in the wild - this must make up for the several years which are very rarely lost during horse races? If horse racing didn't exist then many horses would not be subject to this exceptional treatment, and why should they lose out! I am aware that I am personifying horses somewhat here, however, if we're agreeing that they're 'just animals' then there's no need to have this debate because if they're 'just animals' then, in the same we regularly slaughter chickens and cows for tasty food, their deaths would be irrelevant. I don't believe that their deaths are irrelevant but proportionally the damage is not sufficient to warrant an overall ban.
0
Tahooper
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#49
Report 7 years ago
#49
(Original post by cl_steele)
i think i should point out at this point that this is a horse not a human and as such cant make said decision so the point is mute..

and what would you have them do may i ask? ban all horse racing because a few horses are put down each year? it would be cruel to allow them to live. and either way i guarentee you banning racing would result in far far more horse deaths.
You're obviously under the assumption that if horse racing were to be banned (which I never said I wanted to happen) then all the horses who used to compete in the races would be systematically euthanised, which isn't true at all.

As for the horses being put down instead of rehabilitated, I understand the reasoning behind it but the problem is they wouldn't need to be put down in the first place if the race wasn't so dangerous (I would recommend lowering the amount of racers to between 20-30 and lowering the fences by a few inches)
0
cl_steele
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#50
Report 7 years ago
#50
(Original post by Tahooper)
You're obviously under the assumption that if horse racing were to be banned (which I never said I wanted to happen) then all the horses who used to compete in the races would be systematically euthanised, which isn't true at all.

As for the horses being put down instead of rehabilitated, I understand the reasoning behind it but the problem is they wouldn't need to be put down in the first place if the race wasn't so dangerous (I would recommend lowering the amount of racers to between 20-30 and lowering the fences by a few inches)
apologies i thought you were arguing that point as many seem to have been on this thread. It is a reasonable assumption though is it not? these horses are bred for one purpose and one purpose only, to race. If racing were banned there reason for existence would be mute, whilst all of them wouldnt be put down it is a reasonable assumption that a large number would due to the economic unviability of them and the fact that most people arent going to invest thousands of pounds in a horse that serves no real purpose anymore, at least for that amount of money.

lowering the number of horses in te race could well have a beneficial effect on the horses safety but imho it would make the race far less interesting and no different from races like Cheltenham, after all the number of horses is already realtivly low compared to records set which were upward of 60 horses, no? some would argue that lowering the fences by any consequential amount would infact be more dangerous as the horses would be enticed to hit the jumps at higher speed and the risk of tripping is far more amplified. also many of the injuries sustained during the race arent actually from falling but from fractures sustained whilst running which would make any changes to the race itself fairly mute.
0
jennifex
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#51
Report 7 years ago
#51
(Original post by 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.

The difference is in sports which involve people, those people can make the decision for themselves to take that risk. IMO no animal should ever be harmed in making human entertainment. They have no say in the matter.
0
jennifex
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#52
Report 7 years ago
#52
(Original post by Tahooper)
No, I wouldn't say it's comparable. The cyclists compete knowing full-well the risks involved and consent to it. Horses can't consent nor can they know the risks involved.

If you're just talking about just the Grand National then yes of course there are going to be very few deaths. But you have to look at the other horse racing events like Cheltenham and Royal Ascot et al then the figure is more likely going to be in double figures, which is not acceptable.
This.

If 2 jockeys died per year they would soon put a stop to it.
1
ForKicks
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#53
Report 7 years ago
#53
(Original post by jennifex)
The difference is in sports which involve people, those people can make the decision for themselves to take that risk. IMO no animal should ever be harmed in making human entertainment. They have no say in the matter.
What is the difference between for entertainment and for meat? Both may be deemed for the pleasure of people.
0
WeeBabber
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report 7 years ago
#54
(Original post by Genocidal)
Oh here we go again.

We get this same utter crap every year. Someone makes a thread like this, people argue, and then it's all forgotten about until next year. In fact, I recall participating in a thread like this last year.

Yes, it's dangeorus, but that's what makes it so popular. We could reduce the size of the fences, which happened this year, but then it's just like every other hurdle race which makes it pointless. This is just some silly modern obsession with health and safety.

Either way, the risks will never be removed unless you completely abolish the hurdles in horse racing. I don't expect non-racing fans to understand, but look which horse died yesterday. It was Synchronised. This is the horse who is one of the best in the business as he won the Cheltenham Gold Cup. If even the best can die in that race then that means the risk is always going to be there.

Quite frankly I'm sick of these non-racing fans tuning in to the sport once every year and then having the audacity to believe that they should have an opinion on whether the race should be banned or not. You're nothing but some casual jackass who tunes in once a year. Seriously, piss off back to where you came from.
I completely agree. Making the fences smaller this year actually made the competitors go flying into the fences, much faster than they would have done if the fences were at their normal height. This is probably the reason there were so many fallers.Although I do think halfing the number of competitors could improve safety in the National. According to Pete, the other horse who was put down on Saturday was brought down by other fallen horses.
0
WeeBabber
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#55
Report 7 years ago
#55
(Original post by ben-1993)
Those race horses weigh between 500 and 600kg each how can anyone expect an animal to support over half a tonne on a broken leg. Keeping them alive is much more cruel to the animal.You cant put a horse in a wheelchair like you can a human.

Horses do not have things to do like humans, when my ankle was broken I spent most the time on my sofa playing the xbox, for a racehorse their stimulation and excitement is racing and training they want to be able to run, granted they are tools used for racing and dont appreciate the fact that they won the race but they also dont become downhearted when they lose. They just want to exercise because thats what they do. When I take my dog for its walk I go to a nature reserve where there is lots of things to smell, birds to chase other dogs to interact with which is something she loves to do. But when I go jogging around the streets which is something that I do because I like to challenge myself, it makes me feel good, it helps me lose that little belly fat. All three things that my dog doesnt think about but when I say "Rubes (Ruby) you coming on a jog!" she knows instantly what is happening and come with me even though she is just running around the streets which is no where near as interesting as the usual place she goes on walks she does it because she likes running. Same with Horses.

Saying the horses dont have a choice to race in such a poor excuse, horses arent born and straight away racing in the Grand National it takes much training and if a horse doesnt really want to run around a course it wont and if it doesnt then it wont be a racehorse anymore and will be sold on or rehomed.

If you think they shouldnt be put down for a broken leg imagine yourself with a broken leg standing still or lying down with a 200kilogram weight on your back not being able to walk and when you do being in excruciating pain in an empty room where all you did was eat and sleep with no computers, games, books or anything interesting for months. Sounds like medieval torture! Think about that next time you say that its better for them to be kept alive.

Please dont think im being heartless in what im saying because im not, yes it is upsetting when horses are injured and i wouldnt call it "entertainment" to see a horse fall at the first herdle but what im saying is that the horse do have a choice in what they are doing and when accidents do happen it is best to handle them in the most responsible way possible
Too right.
1
Phillipsherman
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#56
Report 7 years ago
#56
(Original post by mudblood_)
Fabrice Muamba did not have a heart attack because of football. He had a heart attack because he had a heart attack. Should we ban public transport because someone had a heart attack on a bus? No. This is such a ridiculous and ignorant comparsion.
Thats like saying the horse tripped over a hedge because it tripped over a hedge though? He had a heart attack from the exercise from football.
0
Bonged.
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#57
Report 7 years ago
#57
It's very Daily Fail to ban things TSR. Make your mind up.
1
pinkangelgirl
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#58
(Original post by orcprocess)
Are you a vegetarian? Should we ban eating meat?
why is that relevant?
0
orcprocess
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report 7 years ago
#59
(Original post by pinkangelgirl)
why is that relevant?
Isn't killing animals for meat unnecessary in most cases?
0
jennifex
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#60
Report 7 years ago
#60
(Original post by ForKicks)
What is the difference between for entertainment and for meat? Both may be deemed for the pleasure of people.
Well, not really, but I'm not gonna get into an argument about the pros and cons of vegetarianism lol
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (314)
37.74%
No - but I will (64)
7.69%
No - I don't want to (62)
7.45%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (392)
47.12%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed