Grand national

I respectfully disagree. Once the jumps races are done away with the abolitionists will turn their attention to flat racing without a doubt. It will be on to the next 'cause'.

 

You might be correct about the abolitionists as they obviously want to abolish! I'm stating my view about jumps racing. I think its too dangerous and on balance cruel even though I bet on it. That's all. I would have no qualms at all about jumping being phased out. Flat racing is far safer so I can live with that (and continue to bet!) so my disgruntlement would stop there.

 

Abolitionists? That’s a new word on me. I relate that more towards slavery. Abolish the abolitionists.!!

 

Context, dear boy. Context!

 

Plenty of people within racing dislike the National. Unlike Cheltenham, it purely exists so Grandma can put a 50p each way bet on.

Too many horses and the first jump occurs way too late in the race. Most of the deaths could be solved by reducing the field to a decent size (what exactly is the point of a 200-1 shot?) and having an early fence to slow the field down.

 

I'd go a step further. It's a rowdier crowd and more raucous occasion being on a Saturday. The 5:15 start doesn't help and the distance. They should start near the 3 mile 1 start. Take in the 3 jumps up the home straight then do one full circuit of the National course. That would be spectacle enough.

I don't think the number of runners is a factor.

 

No point pandering further to these people. They will always want more. They can't win the argument by conventional means so they trample on the rights of others to participate or view.

 

The problem with horse racing and protests is that you have the extremists on the one side who want it banned and don't care what laws they break as long as they get their way and on the other side you've got the gambling addicts who have such a strong addiction that they need the racing to continue at whatever cost and they will never ever meet in the middle because one group is scared that negotiation will mean horses are still at risk and the other side is scared if they negotiate then it will still mean less chance to gamble and They're scared that if they lose one out of a million race then they might lose another and another and another until they can't feed their addiction anymore. They're addicts remember

 

So they have to be one or the other? OK!

 

No but that's the extremists on both sides

 

I don't think "we can't abolish/reform it because then people might want to abolish/reform other things" is a good argument.

 

It is a statement about the approach to take, not the merits or otherwise of the argument. The argument that horseracing is inherently cruel should be rejected outright, in my view. Simply making minor concessions to appease the lawbreakers is not the wisest way forward - again, in my view.

 

What about the argument that the Grand National is inherently cruel?

 

So my 90 year old nannan who used to like a £1 on grand National is an addict? You don’t half talk some fuking ***** at times you

 

I disagree.

 

How many horses would need to die for you to regard it as cruel out of interest?

 

I disagree with the emotive way you have framed the question. I do not wish to see any horses die, and I am mindful of the numerous measures taken to help prevent that over the years. But horseracing (including national hunt racing ) is lawful, generally well-regulated and overseen by veterinary specialists. It is really for you - as a person opposed to it - to make the case to persuade me that it should be banned, is it not?

 

Do away with the fences but have snipers round the course shooting jockeys picked at random by a computer . That way you can bet on the race and bet on which jockey’s going to get shot ( money going to good causes obviously)

 

My case is that the Grand National should be abokished/significantly reformed because it consistently kills horses, and horses breaking bones and then having to be euthanised is cruel.

The question may be framed in an emotive way, but it's a fair question is it not? I'm presuming there's a fatality rate which you would regard as too high, I'm just wondering where that line is for you.

 

Given that the efforts of all concerned are to minimise any accidental deaths it's not something I have considered, or would propose to consider. Do you have an answer to your own question?