Vikings Message Board.Com

http://msn.foxsports.com/horseracing/st ... se-racing-

One of the worst pieces of journalism I have seen in a LONG time.

You don't watch FOX News much?

I really don't see how that statement is possible, unless this is the first piece of journalism you've read in a long time. Sounds like something one would say to sound smart, but is utterly ridiculous in this context, unless you want to back it up with, you know, reasons why it is a bad piece of journalism.

I dont follow horse racing much either, but I think PETA is out of line for wanting the jockey punished. IF they want to make change, why isolate an individual jockey, try changing the sport perhaps. Are these horses exploited to an extent, probably, but IMO, given the time and money invested in these horses, PETA could make better use of their time/energy. Limit the frequency of races for an individual horse, remove the whip from training races, shorten the race, ect. Calling out an single jockey who didnt break any current rules is a joke to me.

PETA could always make better use of their time, IMO. I once wrote them an email explaining in detail why I, a long-term vegan and animal rights activist, could never support their organization. They sent me a fund-raising email in reply.

It doesn't change my opinion that, if we are to watch animals race for sport, they shouldn't be put in situations that would compromise their lives, unless there is some sort of free will/choice involved, which I doubt to any meaningful extent.

As I don't watch the sport, I don't know what the meaningful changes would be. Those suggestions will have to come from someone else.

purple guy wrote:I dont follow horse racing much either, but I think PETA is out of line for wanting the jockey punished. IF they want to make change, why isolate an individual jockey, try changing the sport perhaps. Are these horses exploited to an extent, probably, but IMO, given the time and money invested in these horses, PETA could make better use of their time/energy. Limit the frequency of races for an individual horse, remove the whip from training races, shorten the race, ect. Calling out an single jockey who didnt break any current rules is a joke to me.

There could definately be changes made to make the sport safer although that may or may not have made any difference in this situation, pretty tough to tell. I am always in favor of making sports safer and I believe that most sports could and probably will be made safer over the years. I am sure that the owners and trainers support most measures to do this as well as they have a huge amount of time and money invested in the animals.

TrenchGoon wrote:
There was an article in the Washington Post yesterday which pointed out how common it has become for horses to die from this sport. I'd say this is a problem. It's not dog fighting, but it's nothing to ignore either.

so what should be done about it?[/quote]

Don't know enough about the sport to say. They were speaking on TV today about possibly changing the surfaces where they run. Obviously, the problem could also have to do with the number of races run. But that's just speculation on my part. Hopefully, someone who knows something about the sport can take the issue on and do something about it.

I live in Kentucky and while I'm not a fan of racing and know little about how the process works in detail I do see lots of things in the media about it.

Horses are trained like you'd train yourself if you were going to run kind of. They have training schedules, etc. Heck, there was even a recent story about the use of steroids in the horses and how one "great" trainer in particular is might have used them.

The reason people are going after the jockey, from what I understand, is that the was indication earlier in the race that the horse was having problems but the rider kept on her anyway.

I think one of the issues is the age of the horses, they're very young. 1-3 years old I think so their bones aren't fully developed. Like most of you, I don't follow horse racing much but this is what I've heard.

This might've just been a freak accident. I think they interviewed the vet and he said he's never seen two ankles simultaneously break like that before.

Colinito wrote: It doesn't change my opinion that, if we are to watch animals race for sport, they shouldn't be put in situations that would compromise their lives, unless there is some sort of free will/choice involved, which I doubt to any meaningful extent.

Is it possible for an animal to have free will to any meaningful extent?

Colinito wrote:You don't watch FOX News much?

I really don't see how that statement is possible, unless this is the first piece of journalism you've read in a long time. Sounds like something one would say to sound smart, but is utterly ridiculous in this context, unless you want to back it up with, you know, reasons why it is a bad piece of journalism.

Well, I suppose because most people who have any sense don't need it explained to them. He makes simple statements that aren't simple, and spouts nonsense about what might, maybe, could have been, if.

It's OK to train horses to race but not OK to train dogs to fight, because the frequency of death and pain is much lower in horse racing.

Does one even have to respond to this nonsense? Oh, I guess so.

Dogs are kept in cages not much larger than they are. They are starved, beaten, forced to fight other dogs. Used to kill other animals. The entire PURPOSE of the damn "sport" is for the dogs to fight, and could easily end in death. Horses are raced to race, where death is an unintended consequence, and should death not occur most likely the animal is fine and uninjured, not brutally maimed, disfigured, not given medical care, and forced to do the same in the near future, if not just shot and buried immediately afterward.

Did we call Vick a thug so we would feel superior?

No, we called Vick a thug because he hung, eletrocuted, and tortured animals. Last I checked Jockies don't hange, electrocute, starve, and finally intentionally kill horses...unless you belong to PETA, than it appears they do.

The truth is that if nothing had been done, if no race had been held, then those horses would have lived.

Wow! I was under the impression wild horses died, sometimes after days of flopping around on that broken leg. Or get sick, get no care etc. But it's all clear to me now, no races, no death! It's that simple! What's the number for PETA? I want to join this well thought out crusade!

The entire article is complete brain washed nonsense. I agree they should change to the more safe surface, but the idea Dog Fighting = Horse Racing is so ridiculous all weight given to the article should be almost ignored, you're using an argument that is so out there it devalues whatever points you actually have that make sense...

TrenchGoon wrote: Is it possible for an animal to have free will to any meaningful extent?

Of course, to many of the same degrees that we can. If an animal does and goes where it pleases, it is free will. There are always external influences limiting their and ours, and life is no pretty picnic any way you slice it, so I don't expect Shangri La, but yeah.

Demi wrote: Well, I suppose because most people who have any sense don't need it explained to them. He makes simple statements that aren't simple, and spouts nonsense about what might, maybe, could have been, if.
Does one even have to respond to this nonsense? Oh, I guess so.

Dogs are kept in cages not much larger than they are. They are starved, beaten, forced to fight other dogs. Used to kill other animals. The entire PURPOSE of the #### "sport" is for the dogs to fight, and could easily end in death. Horses are raced to race, where death is an unintended consequence, and should death not occur most likely the animal is fine and uninjured, not brutally maimed, disfigured, not given medical care, and forced to do the same in the near future, if not just shot and buried immediately afterward.
No, we called Vick a thug because he hung, eletrocuted, and tortured animals. Last I checked Jockies don't hange, electrocute, starve, and finally intentionally kill horses...unless you belong to PETA, than it appears they do.
Wow! I was under the impression wild horses died, sometimes after days of flopping around on that broken leg. Or get sick, get no care etc. But it's all clear to me now, no races, no death! It's that simple! What's the number for PETA? I want to join this well thought out crusade!

The entire article is complete brain washed nonsense. I agree they should change to the more safe surface, but the idea Dog Fighting = Horse Racing is so ridiculous all weight given to the article should be almost ignored, you're using an argument that is so out there it devalues whatever points you actually have that make sense...

Thanks for explaining it Demi, I just couldnt bring myself to do it so I am glad you did. I doubt that it will have any impact on those that needed to hear it though. *shrugs*

Colinito wrote:I don't follow horse racing either, for those who do, are the horses into it? I mean, do they know they are engaging in sport and do they thirst for victory?

Interesting philosophical question.

I know for a fact (beyond a reasonable doubt) that sled dogs (e.g. the husky and malamute) derive a lot of satisfaction and enjoyment out of pulling sleds. It is something innate in their being. There have been instances where mushers have fallen off their sled and the dogs have run themselves to death.

purple guy wrote:I dont follow horse racing much either, but I think PETA is out of line for wanting the jockey punished. IF they want to make change, why isolate an individual jockey, try changing the sport perhaps. Are these horses exploited to an extent, probably, but IMO, given the time and money invested in these horses, PETA could make better use of their time/energy. Limit the frequency of races for an individual horse, remove the whip from training races, shorten the race, ect. Calling out an single jockey who didnt break any current rules is a joke to me.

PETA frequently pisses me off. They should be an advocate for veganism and other causes I believe in, but instead they just give us vegans a bad name by sounding so shrill. Please don't take them seriously. There are plenty of good reasons to protect animals and to eat a vegetarian diet, but if you listen to PETA too much, you'll forget them all.

Demi wrote: Well, I suppose because most people who have any sense don't need it explained to them. He makes simple statements that aren't simple, and spouts nonsense about what might, maybe, could have been, if.
Does one even have to respond to this nonsense? Oh, I guess so.

Dogs are kept in cages not much larger than they are. They are starved, beaten, forced to fight other dogs. Used to kill other animals. The entire PURPOSE of the #### "sport" is for the dogs to fight, and could easily end in death. Horses are raced to race, where death is an unintended consequence, and should death not occur most likely the animal is fine and uninjured, not brutally maimed, disfigured, not given medical care, and forced to do the same in the near future, if not just shot and buried immediately afterward.
No, we called Vick a thug because he hung, eletrocuted, and tortured animals. Last I checked Jockies don't hange, electrocute, starve, and finally intentionally kill horses...unless you belong to PETA, than it appears they do.
Wow! I was under the impression wild horses died, sometimes after days of flopping around on that broken leg. Or get sick, get no care etc. But it's all clear to me now, no races, no death! It's that simple! What's the number for PETA? I want to join this well thought out crusade!

The entire article is complete brain washed nonsense. I agree they should change to the more safe surface, but the idea Dog Fighting = Horse Racing is so ridiculous all weight given to the article should be almost ignored, you're using an argument that is so out there it devalues whatever points you actually have that make sense...

Well said Demi. Vick tortured , starved, and eventually hung his dogs. These horses are worth millions, the thought the trainers/owners ignore or mistreat them is obsurd IMO. Now, MAYBE some have poor training tactics, or are more forceful than otheres, but to give the entire sport a black eye based on the exception isnt fair.
I train dogs, trial them, they love it. Im not forceful nor do I use pain to train. I use repitition and positive reenforcement. No e-collar, nothing like that, yet I compete at a fairly high level. Horses I dont know too well, but they are here for a reason. The dogs I have, LOVE what they do. When I get home, they cant wait to "kennel up" and go train. Get pissed when we leave early. Animals are smarter than we give credit, IMO, Labs LOVE to retrieve, pointers love to point, and Id bet horses love to run.
The means might not be right, but that doesnt make the sport entirely wrong.