Connecting Singles^® Forums100% Free Online Dating

I own horses and I love horses and I found this on msn.com.I read it and I somewhat agree with it.Now I would like to know everyones thoughts on it.Good or bad.Agree or disagree I do not care.I know though after so many deaths now in horse racing I am starting to look at it a different way.



Well, I don't know about you, but I sure won't watch the Preakness the same way now. Big Brown will go for the second leg of the Triple Crown, but my thoughts will be with the filly who should be challenging him.

Eight Belles is dead. She broke two ankles after finishing second in the Kentucky Derby, and since horses can't live after that kind of injury (for various reasons), she was euthanized on the track.

Eight Belles is dead. It is strangely appropriate that the second-place finisher is the one who died.

If Big Brown had broken his ankles after winning, he would have been the biggest story in America this morning. There would be many calls to rethink the sport of horse racing. There would be a national conversation about whether horse racing is a worthy sporting endeavor or unfit for a civilized society.

If a horse had broken his ankles after finishing last, it would have been one paragraph in newspaper stories — a footnote. Fans would not have paid much attention, because it would be easy to separate the death from the reason we watch the Kentucky Derby — to see who wins.

But when the second-place finisher breaks down and must be euthanized on the track, it becomes a nasty little thought that you can't get out of your head. You might just find yourself blocking it out and concentrating on the winner, but that will only bring guilt.

Why? Why do we put racehorses at risk for our own amusement? Where do we draw the line? I have done zero polling on this issue, but I suspect most people would agree with this statement:

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.

Heck, that's how I have long felt. But what is an acceptable fatality rate? If Churchill Downs goes to an increasingly popular synthetic racing surface, which is believed to reduce injuries, will we feel better because we're doing something?

According to The New York Times, "Dr. Mary Scollay, a veterinarian at Calder Race Course, organized an equine injury reporting system for more than 30 tracks and has found that fatality rates have been lower on synthetic surfaces: 1.47 fatalities per 1,000 starts for synthetic surfaces against 2.03 per 1,000 for dirt tracks."

This is not just about horse racing. It cuts to the heart of our relationship with animals. It is a relationship that, for most of us, is steeped in denial.

Hunters love deer but also love to kill them. Chick-Fil-A cannily uses a cow as its spokesman — eat some chicken and you'll save the big lug. The quintessential American scene is the backyard barbecue, with slices of cow on the grill and the family dog playing catch. I'm not judging — I have two cats and eat meat. But try making sense of any of this.

Last summer, I joined most of the Western world in excoriating Michael Vick for his dogfighting operation. My feelings on Vick haven't changed. But I wonder, more than ever, about the level of outrage. Did we call Vick a thug so we would feel superior?

(continued below)

There is only one other major sport where we understand that the participants are risking death. That, of course, is auto racing, and it brings its own brand of denial. While we subconsciously tell ourselves that racehorses are just animals, we also tell ourselves that racecar drivers have a choice. They don't have to race. They choose to. It is a risk they are willing to take, and it seems almost un-American to try to stop them.

With horse racing, we pretend that it is perfectly normal for a horse to sprint 1¼ miles down a track with a jockey on her back and a whip in the jockey's hand.

In our minds, racehorses fall somewhere between Michael Vick's dogs and our own pets. They are there to entertain, but we fall in love with the best of them.

And when Barbaro or Eight Belles dies, we tell ourselves that nothing could have been done. The truth is that if nothing had been done, if no race had been held, then those horses would have lived.

We don't like to admit that. We'd prefer to think that these deaths are part of life instead of just a part of racing. We say that Eight Belles was "euthanized," as though we did her a favor.

But on the official Web site of the Kentucky Derby, the death of Eight Belles was neatly squeezed into a single sentence, in the fifth paragraph of a story about Big Brown's historic win.

Some favor.

http://msn.foxsports.com/horseracing/story/8105724?MSNHPHCP&GT1=39002

My own thought on horse racing is the same for animal racing, or sport, in general. It doesn't seem right that we use these animals as some form of amusement. I don't like it, but then again, I am but one person who has never been involved or seen horse racing. But as for me, I'd not participate in it or condone it. True, hunters love deer...maybe it's like so many things in life. Some people love others or things so much that in a way, that turns destructive for some reason or another.

Just my opinion.

couldn't agree more. in the uk we have the grand national. 40 horses, 30 fences - to be completed TWICE over a 4 mile distance. this REALLY pushes horses to their limits. the chair..........a relatively easy 6 ft ( used to be 8 ft i think) jump but little do the horses know that there's a huge ditch at the other side. every year we used to hear of horses dying or having to be put down during and after the race. bookies would lay odds on the amount of horses which would actually FINISH the race. i remember one year when there was only about 6 horses managed to finish. the big question is.......WHY??? what gives peple the right to treat animals in this way? even after jumping all those fences the horses have to endure being flogged half to death to get a bit more out of them towards the finishing line. sure, they've made the course safer in recent years but anything that distance with that many fences is a gruelling affair for any horse. as for racing drivers, yes they make their own decisions - but would they still be so keen to drive if they had someone whipping them half to death while they're racing?

I hope you don't mind my popping in but I just had to respond to this post. I'm also a horse owner and horse lover. I quit watching steeplechases and horse races a few years ago because it just began to sicken me. So glad there are others who agree.

I'm sorry.... these animals are athletes! Just like we hear about soccer players dying on the field or runners burning their heart out from adrenalin.... these horses love to run.. they wouldn't be where they are without it! They may not be human... and they may be trained. but they aren't forced to be the best at what they do.. they do it because they love it too. Just as I wouldn't stop players from playing soccer or football or using the example she put in the article race car driving, I wouldn't stop horse racing. true you might save a life.. but isn't it the quality of life that matters? None of us have any guarantees on longevity, we do have a choice on what we do with the time we have... animals given the choice are no different.

Another point, most of those horses would never have been born if not for racing, it's what they were bred to do. So which is worse, for them to die pushing themselves past their limit, or to never be born? I really have no opinion on the issue, just a thought.

Go to the thoroughbred racehorse rescue website and you might get another opinion. They are not always well treated (often euthanized if they lose because their too expensive to keep), then they are shoved into a starting gate and whipped continuously. Horses are "flight" animals. They do love to run, but they also run as their only means of defense. Really can't say they enjoy "our" sport.