| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
oneshotbob
Full House
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 1273
Location: York, United Kingdom
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
  |
|
Interesting point by RSPCA man today that there are simply too may horses in the race. This kind of makes sense because they hamper each other and most of them fall because one in front stumbles.
and the point about marathon runners is that they choose to run marathons. Horses don't choose to run and jump over fences that big.
I don't want to ban the National or horse racing, I know everyone who works with those horses loves them. But if fewer will die by having 30 horses instead of 40 and a couple of fences being a bit smaller, then is there an argument against that?
_________________
@oneshotbobby on twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
WBPP
Flush
Joined: 02 Dec 2011
Posts: 531
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
| oneshotbob wrote: | Interesting point by RSPCA man today that there are simply too may horses in the race. This kind of makes sense because they hamper each other and most of them fall because one in front stumbles.
and the point about marathon runners is that they choose to run marathons. Horses don't choose to run and jump over fences that big.
I don't want to ban the National or horse racing, I know everyone who works with those horses loves them. But if fewer will die by having 30 horses instead of 40 and a couple of fences being a bit smaller, then is there an argument against that? |
No of course not mate, totally agree.
Just makes me LOL when the hypocrite brigade start bleating.
I hope they are all vegetarian as well as that would be too much for me to take.
_________________
Nobody likes Grasses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Dean
Straight Flush
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 3117
Location: with position on you
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
| oneshotbob wrote: | Interesting point by RSPCA man today that there are simply too may horses in the race. This kind of makes sense because they hamper each other and most of them fall because one in front stumbles.
and the point about marathon runners is that they choose to run marathons. Horses don't choose to run and jump over fences that big.
I don't want to ban the National or horse racing, I know everyone who works with those horses loves them. But if fewer will die by having 30 horses instead of 40 and a couple of fences being a bit smaller, then is there an argument against that? |
Good points......there have been too many horses in the National for years in terms of it being safer for the horses. But the reasons why there are 40 horses are to make it more of a spectacle and that comes down to making the race more profitable and that is a sad state of affairs. Because there are 40 horses then by sheer definition many of them should not be in the race and even if they stood up would still not make the distance.
Greedy owners who take a punt have to take some of the blame (not saying all....just some). IMO....around half the field shouldn't be jumping those fences and trying to get around 4.5 miles at racing speed but a 20 horse National wouldn't be as profitable unfortunately and much less of a spectacle. Unfortunately it is now an institution and things are not likely to change drastically.
A few years ago they reduced the difficulty of a few of the fences and I certainly do not agree with a couple of pundits that I heard recently who said that it was "all or nothing" with this race. I think some more concessions could be made and even perhaps reducing the distance by say half a mile would help or reducing the field slightly.
_________________
Poker columnist at www.poker.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WBPP
Flush
Joined: 02 Dec 2011
Posts: 531
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
| The Dean wrote: | | oneshotbob wrote: | Interesting point by RSPCA man today that there are simply too may horses in the race. This kind of makes sense because they hamper each other and most of them fall because one in front stumbles.
and the point about marathon runners is that they choose to run marathons. Horses don't choose to run and jump over fences that big.
I don't want to ban the National or horse racing, I know everyone who works with those horses loves them. But if fewer will die by having 30 horses instead of 40 and a couple of fences being a bit smaller, then is there an argument against that? |
Good points......there have been too many horses in the National for years in terms of it being safer for the horses. But the reasons why there are 40 horses are to make it more of a spectacle and that comes down to making the race more profitable and that is a sad state of affairs. Because there are 40 horses then by sheer definition many of them should not be in the race and even if they stood up would still not make the distance.
Greedy owners who take a punt have to take some of the blame (not saying all....just some). IMO....around half the field shouldn't be jumping those fences and trying to get around 4.5 miles at racing speed but a 20 horse National wouldn't be as profitable unfortunately and much less of a spectacle. Unfortunately it is now an institution and things are not likely to change drastically.
A few years ago they reduced the difficulty of a few of the fences and I certainly do not agree with a couple of pundits that I heard recently who said that it was "all or nothing" with this race. I think some more concessions could be made and even perhaps reducing the distance by say half a mile would help or reducing the field slightly. |
Mick Fitz was saying the changes made would make no difference.
Seems like he was right 
You're right though, whatever sport it is Money talks so things wont change drastically.
_________________
Nobody likes Grasses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Indestructible
Moderator
Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 15027
Location: Final Table
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:43 am
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
Next year the Grand National will be on Channel 4  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stowjon
Royal Flush
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 7242
Location: willingham
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:31 am
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
| Indestructible wrote: | | Next year the Grand National will be on Channel 4 |
why the sad face indy it makes no difference does it?
_________________
"There's not enough hippies to save our lives, We need more hippies" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Dean
Straight Flush
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 3117
Location: with position on you
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:38 am
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
| WBPP wrote: | | The Dean wrote: | | oneshotbob wrote: | Interesting point by RSPCA man today that there are simply too may horses in the race. This kind of makes sense because they hamper each other and most of them fall because one in front stumbles.
and the point about marathon runners is that they choose to run marathons. Horses don't choose to run and jump over fences that big.
I don't want to ban the National or horse racing, I know everyone who works with those horses loves them. But if fewer will die by having 30 horses instead of 40 and a couple of fences being a bit smaller, then is there an argument against that? |
Good points......there have been too many horses in the National for years in terms of it being safer for the horses. But the reasons why there are 40 horses are to make it more of a spectacle and that comes down to making the race more profitable and that is a sad state of affairs. Because there are 40 horses then by sheer definition many of them should not be in the race and even if they stood up would still not make the distance.
Greedy owners who take a punt have to take some of the blame (not saying all....just some). IMO....around half the field shouldn't be jumping those fences and trying to get around 4.5 miles at racing speed but a 20 horse National wouldn't be as profitable unfortunately and much less of a spectacle. Unfortunately it is now an institution and things are not likely to change drastically.
A few years ago they reduced the difficulty of a few of the fences and I certainly do not agree with a couple of pundits that I heard recently who said that it was "all or nothing" with this race. I think some more concessions could be made and even perhaps reducing the distance by say half a mile would help or reducing the field slightly. |
Mick Fitz was saying the changes made would make no difference.
Seems like he was right
You're right though, whatever sport it is Money talks so things wont change drastically. |
I think he is right to be honest in that it wouldn't make a great deal of difference. What is really sad about the whole affair is that there is too much emphasis on money making and too much personal interest and less interest in the welfare of the animals. No matter what the pro national brigade say (I am not anti-national by the way) I am positive that more can be done that is in the horses interests and not other peoples.
Going off on a slight tangent.....I have two cats that I rescued from shelters. I always used to put collars on them until someone once told me a horrible story about how they found their cat dead inside a bush having strangled itself to death on its own collar after getting it hung up.
It then made me realise that putting collars onto cats acted more in the owners interests than the animals and the collar just basically made sure that the owner got their property back and I took them off straight away and never put them back on. I know owners love their animals and want them back if they get lost and is why many of them do it but I felt horrible after hearing that story as it made me feel quite selfish.
_________________
Poker columnist at www.poker.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moosey
Straight
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 327
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:51 am
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
It a horse race.
It involves risk.
A bit like life.
Get over it.
Would have more creedance if the same people moaning moved a petition on Downing Street to ban angling for example. Suffocating slowly for anglers relaxation / pleasure after being pulled in with a hook in ya lip. Surely that makes running round a track and getting a bit out of puff look like a walk in the park and a bolt through the head exceptionally humane.
Strange how we value some animals lives so much more highly than others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Dean
Straight Flush
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 3117
Location: with position on you
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:18 am
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
| moosey wrote: | It a horse race.
It involves risk.
A bit like life.
Get over it.
Would have more creedance if the same people moaning moved a petition on Downing Street to ban angling for example. Suffocating slowly for anglers relaxation / pleasure after being pulled in with a hook in ya lip. Surely that makes running round a track and getting a bit out of puff look like a walk in the park and a bolt through the head exceptionally humane.
Strange how we value some animals lives so much more highly than others. |
The discussion was about THE GRAND NATIONAL not angling, fox hunting or anything else. I don't recall anyone saying how they valued a horses life more than any others. People react to the National more not because they value a horses life more than a fish but because it is shoved down their throats by way of the media every year and it hits people harder.
_________________
Poker columnist at www.poker.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheBlueBoy
Straight Flush
Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 3652
Location: All over it.
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:22 am
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
| Anyone who knows a bit about horse racing will be well aware that the owner of the winner of the National was John Hales, the guy who owned One Man, who was killed at Aintree in 98, when falling in the 2 1/2 mile race on the Friday, things like that happen, he accepted it as part of the sport and carried on ploughing money into the sport. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheBlueBoy
Straight Flush
Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 3652
Location: All over it.
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:26 am
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
| Anyone who knows a bit about horse racing will be well aware that the owner of the winner of the National was John Hales, the guy who owned One Man, who was killed at Aintree in 98, when falling in the 2 1/2 mile race on the Friday, things like that happen, he accepted it as part of the sport and carried on ploughing money into the sport. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moosey
Straight
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 327
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:44 am
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
| The Dean wrote: | | moosey wrote: | It a horse race.
It involves risk.
A bit like life.
Get over it.
Would have more creedance if the same people moaning moved a petition on Downing Street to ban angling for example. Suffocating slowly for anglers relaxation / pleasure after being pulled in with a hook in ya lip. Surely that makes running round a track and getting a bit out of puff look like a walk in the park and a bolt through the head exceptionally humane.
Strange how we value some animals lives so much more highly than others. |
The discussion was about THE GRAND NATIONAL not angling, fox hunting or anything else. I don't recall anyone saying how they valued a horses life more than any others. People react to the National more not because they value a horses life more than a fish but because it is shoved down their throats by way of the media every year and it hits people harder. |
Thanks for the heads up The Dean and informing me what the discussion was about , I was totally UNAWARE.
I had also foolishly failed to see the caveat you had personally applied to the thread that the DISCUSSION ON THE GRAND NATIONAL could not involve wider speculation involving HARM and or DEATH caused to other animals through human pursuits and indeed parallels drawn with other SPORTS to emphasize a POINT OF VIEW.
(At this point I do have to stand by my assertion that capitalizing things does make one look like a complete and utter tool , anyway back to the DISCUSSION ...)
Please don't bring the Media into this thread as it is a discussion ONLY about the Grand National. Fence height, Landing areas and number of runners for example are all valid points that can be admitted the the thread. The Media and Fishing are NOT valid arguments and or relevant to the discussion ( delete as appropriate ) Seriously just LOL@you.
If you were a runner in the National you would certainly be sitting astride one seriously high horse, so I am sure you would get round just fine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oneshotbob
Full House
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 1273
Location: York, United Kingdom
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:11 am
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
Fish < horse.
Horse > most people.
_________________
@oneshotbobby on twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Dean
Straight Flush
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 3117
Location: with position on you
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:31 am
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
| moosey wrote: | | The Dean wrote: | | moosey wrote: | It a horse race.
It involves risk.
A bit like life.
Get over it.
Would have more creedance if the same people moaning moved a petition on Downing Street to ban angling for example. Suffocating slowly for anglers relaxation / pleasure after being pulled in with a hook in ya lip. Surely that makes running round a track and getting a bit out of puff look like a walk in the park and a bolt through the head exceptionally humane.
Strange how we value some animals lives so much more highly than others. |
The discussion was about THE GRAND NATIONAL not angling, fox hunting or anything else. I don't recall anyone saying how they valued a horses life more than any others. People react to the National more not because they value a horses life more than a fish but because it is shoved down their throats by way of the media every year and it hits people harder. |
Thanks for the heads up The Dean and informing me what the discussion was about , I was totally UNAWARE.
I had also foolishly failed to see the caveat you had personally applied to the thread that the DISCUSSION ON THE GRAND NATIONAL could not involve wider speculation involving HARM and or DEATH caused to other animals through human pursuits and indeed parallels drawn with other SPORTS to emphasize a POINT OF VIEW.
(At this point I do have to stand by my assertion that capitalizing things does make one look like a complete and utter tool , anyway back to the DISCUSSION ...)
Please don't bring the Media into this thread as it is a discussion ONLY about the Grand National. Fence height, Landing areas and number of runners for example are all valid points that can be admitted the the thread. The Media and Fishing are NOT valid arguments and or relevant to the discussion ( delete as appropriate ) Seriously just LOL@you.
If you were a runner in the National you would certainly be sitting astride one seriously high horse, so I am sure you would get round just fine. |
There is no "high horse".......just you imagining things again.
If you recall you made a somewhat silly statement saying that people valued a horses life more than any other which prompted my response as it wasn't said by anyone. There may be some elements of society who do in fact have that view but it is certainly not universal through society or on this forum to which you took pains to infer.
Before you make replies like that then I suggest you go back and read the entire thread and then read your post if you want to LOL at anything.
_________________
Poker columnist at www.poker.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moosey
Straight
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 327
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Grand National |
|
|
| The Dean wrote: | | moosey wrote: | | The Dean wrote: | | moosey wrote: | It a horse race.
It involves risk.
A bit like life.
Get over it.
Would have more creedance if the same people moaning moved a petition on Downing Street to ban angling for example. Suffocating slowly for anglers relaxation / pleasure after being pulled in with a hook in ya lip. Surely that makes running round a track and getting a bit out of puff look like a walk in the park and a bolt through the head exceptionally humane.
Strange how we value some animals lives so much more highly than others. |
The discussion was about THE GRAND NATIONAL not angling, fox hunting or anything else. I don't recall anyone saying how they valued a horses life more than any others. People react to the National more not because they value a horses life more than a fish but because it is shoved down their throats by way of the media every year and it hits people harder. |
Thanks for the heads up The Dean and informing me what the discussion was about , I was totally UNAWARE.
I had also foolishly failed to see the caveat you had personally applied to the thread that the DISCUSSION ON THE GRAND NATIONAL could not involve wider speculation involving HARM and or DEATH caused to other animals through human pursuits and indeed parallels drawn with other SPORTS to emphasize a POINT OF VIEW.
(At this point I do have to stand by my assertion that capitalizing things does make one look like a complete and utter tool , anyway back to the DISCUSSION ...)
Please don't bring the Media into this thread as it is a discussion ONLY about the Grand National. Fence height, Landing areas and number of runners for example are all valid points that can be admitted the the thread. The Media and Fishing are NOT valid arguments and or relevant to the discussion ( delete as appropriate ) Seriously just LOL@you.
If you were a runner in the National you would certainly be sitting astride one seriously high horse, so I am sure you would get round just fine. |
There is no "high horse".......just you imagining things again.
If you recall you made a somewhat silly statement saying that people valued a horses life more than any other which prompted my response as it wasn't said by anyone. There may be some elements of society who do in fact have that view but it is certainly not universal through society or on this forum to which you took pains to infer.
Before you make replies like that then I suggest you go back and read the entire thread and then read your post if you want to LOL at anything. |
Recurring theme with you, to suggest people are imagining things.
I could speculate as to why that is but just detracts from an interesting thread and turns into an argument with someone who cant unemotionally debate something because they always think they are right !
Suggest you reread my post. 
What I actually said is that 'we' as in society as a whole, including myself in that statement and not specifically refering to any posts or opinions formerly expressed in this thread, value some animals over others. It would be silly to suggest that statement refers to a minority section of society or element as you refer to it, as quite clearly the overwhelming majority of people would agree some animals are valued in much higher regard than others for a variety of reasons.
So I am unclear but not concerned as to why my statement is silly. 'Silly' just falls with 'imagining' as a word The Dean uses to try to dismiss opinions differing from his own or seen as to belong to lesser intellect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
