Belmont- The graveyard of champions

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

Does a welt hurt? Because horses will come back with them after an aggressive whipping.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am with you. I hope the steroids thing gets looked at very hard. The horse's bodies being too big for their ankles to support their weight seems like a probable bad issue and a good candidate for the broken leg syndrome. As for the whipping I too wonder how much it hurts them? I am a MAJOR animal lover so I hope no one takes this the wrong way....but I think their skin is probably pretty darn thick and maybe the "whipping" is more like a pat on the wrist? I have gotten into major issues taking up for animals in the past, as I go way overboard in most instances, so I hope no one thinks I am not one that doesn't care about animals. I love them almost more than humans.....As for being ridden by midgets I couldn't say anything on that issue....but I would guess that would be the least of any problems....

[Archive]

Posted By: David Goff

Do you know there are steroids with therapeutic purposes? Some horses are on steroids for that reason. It helps with allergies, chronic inflammation and other conditions as well. Every state where racing exists has laws which prohibit the use of performance enhancing drugs in race horses- and ALL race horses are tested before and AFTER every race, every single time they run, throughout their entire careers. There is a long list of prohibited substances, and it's the trainer's responsibility to know what is and is not allowed- and those horses who test positive for illegal or banned substances can be barred from racing permanently. In addition, there are stiff penalties for people involved in such behavior- and these can and do range from fines, to loss of licensure, to jail time in many cases. Any prize monies won by horses with illegal drugs in their systems become forfeited automatically. I know that Kentucky state law forbids performance enhancing drug use in race horses. So I don’t know why everyone thinks that every single race horse is on performance enhancing drugs. There may be a few trainers that cheat, but majority of them are clean and look out for their product as do Jockeys. I can't believe someone would say that Kent was disgusted with Big Browns performance. If he thinks something is wrong with him, he will let up on him and after the race get off as quick as he can so the doctors can look him over. More than likely Big Brown did not want to race Saturday. Horses are like people sometimes. If they don’t want to do something, they just wont do it. It doesn’t mean he is on drugs.

My dog died of cancer last year. He was on steroids to slow tumor growth. Did I abuse him for feeding him steroids? By the sounds of this thread, I did...just my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Funny how people that support causing injury to others will always use euphemisms to rationaize and lessen the pain inflicted. Now getting whipped repeatedly is described as being flicked with a shoe horn. Paul, if it was your backside that was being whipped I doubt you'd describe the whip as a shoe horn.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

If whips don't hurt, what is the rationale for suspending jockeys for "aggressive use of the whip"?

Also, the quote below, is from an AP interview with Larry Jones, the trainer of the tragic Eight Bells:

"I don't think we need to make (the whips) out of foam rubber, but you could get to a happy medium where you know it's not going to hurt them and the horse would still know what you want them to do."

Sounds like Jones believes that whips hurt.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

David, you're just deflecting the issue. Dutrow claimed he gave Big Brown Winstrol even though a) he didn't believe he needed it; and b) he didn't even know what it did for Big Brown. Yes, there are good reasons to give humans and animals steroids even though they can cause damage to a body over a period of time. Such was not the case with Big Brown. I don't know too many individuals who would want to take steroids just for the heck of it.

Now tell us next how great the whip feels.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

Yes, I guess a welt would hurt. So would a twisted ankle, a raspberry on your ass from sliding, throwing 100+ pitches every 5th day, getting elbowed going up for a rebound, etc.. You really can't compete in any "sport" without at least a slim chance of injury.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

Quit twisting Jeff. I'm certainly not in favor of causing injury to animals for sport and I did say "smack" and not "flick". From my perspective it just doesn't look like it hurts them that much. Maybe it does, I don't know. If it is proven to hurt them, then I'm in favor of banning the practice.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Goff

I am sure the whip does hurt, but maybe not as bas as some may think. If it would greatly hurt the horse, wouldn't the horse fight back or maybe bite the jockey. I don't know, but when I watch a race and see the jockey whip the horse, I just see the horse run faster. I don't see him/her get hurt.

As for Dutrow, I mentioned some trainers cheat and I was referring him to that comment. He is an arrogant &^%& and I was glad to see him lose. Now if it were Nick Zito, D Wayne Lukas, or Bob Baffert training Big Brown, it might be a different story.

Oh well, we will have to wait another year for a chance at a triple crown.

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

Congrats to Big Brown for winning two crowns. I hope he is well.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

Though it's been pointed out before, it seems it has to be said again While humans, aware of the possibility of injury, make the decision to indulge in sports, animals do not - they are forced to compete.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

Yes Bob, I am aware. I think that most race horses, given the choice, would choose to run for glory. My limited experience with horses tells me that if a horse doesn't want to do something, then they simply won't.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

Respectfully Paul, I doubt that horses understand the concept of "glory".

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

My guess is that most horses enjoy the racing. Greyhounds enjoy the race, as no one's riding or whipping them-- they're just chasing. Most sled dogs enjoy pulling the sled. I don't think steroids should be used, except for legitimate medicinal reasons. Obviously there can be abuse of race horses and dogs, and I'm against that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"but when I watch a race and see the jockey whip the horse, I just see the horse run faster. I don't see him/her get hurt."

If that sentence doesn't crystalize this debate I don't know what would.

Edited to add: guys, with all respect, your claims that the horses love to run, love the glory, etc. sounds frighteningly similar to the rationale provided by Scott Elkins as to why cock fighting is ok.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Goff

Bob

Do not underestimate these athletes. Horses know when they lose and when they win. They all want to be the center of attention.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Goff

That is just my opinion Jeff...

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Jeff, if the races horses were being forced to do something they didn't like, I'd be against it. Horses enjoy running, it's hard to argue against that point. Whether they like or dislike this particular kind of running is the question. Do I think a sport built on the backs of animals is problematic and has the potential for animal? Yes. Do I put the animals' welfare comes before the sports' money and television ratings? Yes.

To some outsiders, dog sled racing appears to be abuse of the dogs. But those who know the sled dogs know most can't wait in the morning to be put in their harnesses to run. Those who us who own dogs know you can figure out what a dog loves and hates to do. As with humans, dogs have different personalities, temperments and not all like the same things. I'm sure there are dogs who would dislike pulling a sled with other dogs.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

Jeff,

With all respect back at ya, are you serious? That's a pretty big stretch. Now if someone offers an opinion that differs from yours re horse racing, you immediately lump people in with cockfighters?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Paul, all I said was that Elkins' excuse for cockfighting is that they 'love to fight.' And now the horse people are saying that 'horses love to run' which is being used as a reason why it's ok to run them around the track on 100 degree days, while being whipped (albeit with a shoehorn says you) and after they are shot up with steroids. Just because the horses don't fight back does not suggest tnat they are in any way agreeing to such treatment.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

If race horses love the glory, love to race, love the attention, lets make it the real deal....

Horses line up, no gear on them, no jockey, the gates open, and the first one that chooses to run around the track twice and finish in front at the post - all in search of attention glory and the sheer love of racing - gets a nice crystal dish it can display in it's stall....which of course it chooses to return to every night after spending the day grazing un-fenced in the greater pastures.

My money's on the more likely result: Some horses going one way, some the other, some necking, some screwing, lots of grazing, and not one of them 'choosing' to race for any of the said motivations. I'd like to see the greatest horsetrainer/whisperer in the world sell the idea of racing to a horse in search of these obviously human and un-horse like traits. Horses don't have an inbuilt drive to 'chase' and bring down prey, which is what greyhounds are responding to when they run after the lure. They're not in it for any of these aforementioned humanistic desires arbitrarily given them to justify the weirdness of it all. Which of course is simply to allow us to compete in yet another arena because we've exhausted the human arenas or our imagination.

Oh, and if by chance you think racing a great industry for the horses themselves because every now and then the public can get excited about one 'Superhorse', tell that to every broken down horse that didn't know the stakes - being sold off if it's super lucky as a pony for a rich kid, if it's kinda lucky as a polo horse to a rich stiff who doesn't beat it for not performing, or if it's as usual - finding its way inside your can of dog food. I'd love to see the statistics on how many horses get to live out their lives and die of natural circumstances - not junked because they didn't make the grade or couldn't be afforded any longer by a fickle family, but I guarantee they would horrify the most casual and un-informed followers of horse racing, which most on this forum are.

The whole thing is sick.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

You have to think one way or the other, racing is pretty stressful on a horse. Their ankles are too thin, they are pushed to the limit of their speed, they are shot up with drugs, and they are whipped to run faster. If a horse had a choice, I think he would prefer grazing. Of course that is just a guess.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Goff

Thoroughbreds are bred to run right from the time they are born. That's all they want to do. If you are ever in Central Kentucky, be sure to check out the horse farms. The horses run and run all the time. Of course they graze, but the majority of the time they run.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Your injury point is a good one, Barry. Though one would have to compare the injury rate of racers versus the injury rate non racers before one could draw a valid conclusion. If one doesn't know the normal injury rate of non-racers, including idle grazers, it's impossible to say that injury rate of racers is higher.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Thank you, but I don't think I mentioned injuries.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

Good point Barry.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Goff

OK...I have more important things to worry about now.

Like when is the new iPhone 3G going to come out. It has just be introduced...

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Having grown up in Dairy Country where the cows spent their summer days free to roam vast natural fields, I can tell you that cows prefer grazing to running and would consider it abusive to be forced to run around a track. Left to their own devises, cows stand, lie down or walk slowly.

When I was a kid, there were what we called 'cow paths,' which were narrow dirt paths made by a heard of dairy cows taking the same route over and over. As the area was hilly and tricky and cows prefer level ground and simple routes, humans would follow these convenient, neat paths.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

With respect David, I grew up around horses a little myself and my wife jumped them for a long long time. Her best friend looks after many of the horses of the rich and famous, so I've had a little exposure.....

Horses love to run. Absolutely.
Horses don't race eachother. Ever.
In the same way that they love to breathe, eat, and socialize, yes they love to run.
But it's not racing, it's never racing, and just because a few from selected bloodlines get to live a peculiarly specific lifestyle that is rewarded with better treatment when they do better, doesn't mean it comes naturally to them or they would choose it over regular horse life. Mabybe in a Harem or Herd you'll see some leadership by a Stallion or Mare when it's time to take flight, but they're not 'racing' eachother. They're all just acting as a herd and attempting to move away from a percieved threat, after all the last one out the back is usually the first one eaten in nature!
But racing is just a weirdness we thrust upon them, where we rigidly control their every experience so as to mold them pavlov-like to perform as we're asking.

I'm telling you, the further back you stand and look at it all - the weirder and more grotesque it seems.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Goff

Daniel
I respect your opinion, but being born and raised in Louisville, I will always follow horse racing. To me, its a beautiful sport. Either you are for it or against it. I guess there are no true winners on this debate..


7/11/2008--3G iPhone to be released

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Fair enough David, and one thing is undeniable for us both.
To see a horse in flight is a beautiful thing.


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Paul,

Jeff's point doesn't seem like a stretch to me. The result seems to be about the same. One participant winds up either dead or injured.

Then again, there is nothing as elegant or beautiful as 1,200 pounds of glue stumbling and falling before being shot in the head.

Respectfully,

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Ryan- If every single horse race ended with a horse having to be put down then you are absolutely correct.....So the cockfight analogy is not correct unless that happens as in cockfighting the loser is either dead or gets thrown away and dies (literally, from what I have seen on video)......

For the record...and I will state it again...I am 100% against cruelty to animals. I just think folks sometimes embellish and take things to extremes to make their case look good. Jeff L is the best there is at it....

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Leon,

Horse racing and cock fighting are obviously not EXACTLY the same. Let me know when you find another "sport" that has to execute participants to end their suffering from an injury sustained in an activity they didn't choose to participate in.

I guess you would only consider it cruel if EVERY single race featured the death of a horse? If not, what percentage of dead horses is acceptable? Be sure to factor in those non-winners who are auctioned off to become yummy horse meat.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

Huh? The goal of a cock fight(I assume) is a fight to the death. I'm pretty sure that's not the case with horse racing. If the horses were raced in an endless loop around the track to see who died first, then I could see your point. It seems some people are placing a higher value on the life of a horse than other animals. They don't seem to mind eating a steak or piece of chicken from a mass slaughterhouse, but all of a sudden get a conscience when horses are running around a track.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

You said:

"Jeff's point doesn't seem like a stretch to me. The result seems to be about the same. One participant winds up either dead or injured."


So I appreciate you acknowledging you are wrong, in as much as it's unusual for a horse to be put down, which is still atrocious, and will just leave it at that. At least we agree on something....See ya in Chicago.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Leon,

Can we also agree to have horse meat at the Net54 dinner? I hear Eight Belles is available.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Sorry, too late. I requested cockfight fajitas instead.........I am sure we will have fun again. I never mind having a good debate with friends..See ya there and take care...

[Archive]

Posted By: scott fandango

i was at belmont saturday and we got a good look at BB at the Paddock right before the race.....when we saw him,we said he looked exhausted..
HE HAD NO SWEAT or LATHER on his skin, it was BONE DRY....this poor horse was dehydrated....all the others horses had that sheen already, they looked ready to go....

couple that with the sand like dirt at Belmont, the cracked hoof, and the poor ride by Kent (he ran into another horse from behind at one point), and the DNF makes sense to me...

place went silent, it was very eerie....we were expecting him to collapse before the finish line and be given the eight belles treatment.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Scott- Thanks for sharing your first-hand knowledge.

So much for the argument that this is a "humane" "sport..."