Grand National is daft and I won't return, says devastated owner (From Gazette & Herald)

Iit's not only the horses who suffer - think of the number of lives which have been ruined through addiction to gambling.

What a ridiculous statement to make when you have entered the horse in the first place.Nobody forces anybody to race horses and anybody knows that steeplechase horses get killed on a regular basis...Try racing them on the flat perhaps ??

i can t believe that this bloke can be so naive.horses are injured and euthenised every day after training accidents so to have him make out that this is a big surprise takes some believing.

smudge1 wrote:
What a ridiculous statement to make when you have entered the horse in the first place.Nobody forces anybody to race horses and anybody knows that steeplechase horses get killed on a regular basis...Try racing them on the flat perhaps ??

And what a ridiculous statement you have made too. Just because he has entered the horse in the race (which experts said had been made safer) does not mean that he was expecting the horse to be killed or seriously injured. Thousands of people are killed and injured on our roads every year - it doesn't mean that when you get behind the wheel of a car you expect it to happen to you.

Have some compassion - can you imagine how the family must feel - not only have they lost a treasured member of their family (as my understanding is that they considered the horse to be a pet), they have to live with the guilt of entering the horse in the first place.

Oh, and by the way, your assumption that flat racing is safe is incorrect - not that long ago a horse broke its leg in the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, just by running, and the last time I watched that race there wasn't a fence or jump in sight!

For what its worth, I think the National in its current format has had its day, and not before time - too many horses are killed regularly in this one race. It is sad, however, that it is likely that the mood for change will be driven, not by the number of horses killed, but by the fact that one of them, Synchronise, was a star horse and current Gold Cup champion.

There is little point in saying to someone it's your own fault for entering a horse in the race. What we should be doing is making sure that the likelihood of losing 2 horses again in one race is reduced to a negligible one.

I bet the steeplechase wasn't daft if the horse had won...

Horse no chance of making any more money so they put it down.Shame on YOU Mr Nelson. Not willing to spend your money on vets bills and let i hobble around a field for the rest of its days

My family pet was a dog. I wouldn't send it to play on a busy road because I could see that would be dangerous. Steeplechasing is dangerous. I suspect Mr Nelson knew that. So why send his 'family pet' to the race? Could it be something to do with the prizemoney? Crocodile tears, Mr Nelson? Or are they genuine because you've lost a money-making machine? PS Angryandfrustrated: get real. As long as millions of people continue to wage millions of pounds on horseracing the sport will continue.

smudge1 wrote:
What a ridiculous statement to make when you have entered the horse in the first place.Nobody forces anybody to race horses and anybody knows that steeplechase horses get killed on a regular basis...Try racing them on the flat perhaps ??

Fair point. This chap entered his horse for a race which occasionally produces 4-legged fatalities. HE knew the risks that HE was exposing his horse to. HE could have saved its life by simply not entering the horse. If his horse had won this guy would be shooting a completely different story praising the National and jump-racing.

Yeah he thinks it's 'daft' now that his horse has been put down but didn't think it so daft when he entered it!! There has been controversy surrounding this race for years, and this year especially. I don't have any sympathy for him at all, it's a cruel race and should be banned. Watching something where animals are injured is no better than bear baiting or bull fights. It's not my idea of entertainment.

Yorklies wrote:
Horse no chance of making any more money so they put it down.Shame on YOU Mr Nelson. Not willing to spend your money on vets bills and let i hobble around a field for the rest of its days

Nothing to do with the amount of money made by the horse - be idignant by all means, but don't show your ignorance. Virtually every vet in the land (and I would stay well away from those who wouldn't) would put down a horse, whether or not a race horse, family pet or one of the ponies you see tethered up at the roadside, if it had a broken leg. This is because horses and other 4 legged creatures of this size (cows etc) are 99% of the time UNTREATABLE - it is impossible to plaster a leg of a horse in most cases as they are rendered incapable of getting up off a floor. A horse (or other large 4 legged creature) cannot spend 6 weeks or so on the floor because it would be cruel to the horse and it makes them very, very susceptible to blood clots and pneumonia. It is for this reason that unlike cats, dogs and other small creatures, you do not see a three legged animal running around a field because if they could survive on 3 legs, there would be no need to put them down if they broke a leg!

To Grumpy Old Man - not once in my posting did I say that I thought horse racing would be stopped or banned - I said that the days of the National (ie 1 race only) in its current format are likely to be numbered.

And to ReginaldBiscuit - the owner eccepts that if the horse had won, his outlook would be different by the quote in the story from him, "" If he had won I would have paraded him down the street. But now I will never enter the race again."

For the avoidance of doubt, I think the National is a race that will ultimately be changed beyond all recognition, and indeed should be. However, hindsight is the world's most exact science, and generally it's not until things go very wrong that we review the decisions we have made. I challenge anyone to say hand on heart that they have never had one of those , "why on earth did I do that?" moments and it is for this reason that I have compassion for the Nelson family..

Oh, and one last thing. Race horses themelves make very little money for their owners by way of prize funds because of the costs of keeping them, the exercise regime they need and the the specialised food they eat, not to mention the cost of vet and insurance fees. Owners make money on their horses (but only if they are half decent racers) from betting on them and stud and mare fees etc.

My sympathy to the owner and his family who must be absolutely gutted at their loss. I don't know enough about racing to say whether the GN should be banned or not, and I'm sure the feel guilty enough for entering their horse for the race. I'll bet that All About Pete was spoilt rotten all his life and will be sorely missed.

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

smudge1 wrote: What a ridiculous statement to make when you have entered the horse in the first place.Nobody forces anybody to race horses and anybody knows that steeplechase horses get killed on a regular basis...Try racing them on the flat perhaps ??

And what a ridiculous statement you have made too. Just because he has entered the horse in the race (which experts said had been made safer) does not mean that he was expecting the horse to be killed or seriously injured. Thousands of people are killed and injured on our roads every year - it doesn't mean that when you get behind the wheel of a car you expect it to happen to you. Have some compassion - can you imagine how the family must feel - not only have they lost a treasured member of their family (as my understanding is that they considered the horse to be a pet), they have to live with the guilt of entering the horse in the first place. Oh, and by the way, your assumption that flat racing is safe is incorrect - not that long ago a horse broke its leg in the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, just by running, and the last time I watched that race there wasn't a fence or jump in sight! For what its worth, I think the National in its current format has had its day, and not before time - too many horses are killed regularly in this one race. It is sad, however, that it is likely that the mood for change will be driven, not by the number of horses killed, but by the fact that one of them, Synchronise, was a star horse and current Gold Cup champion. There is little point in saying to someone it's your own fault for entering a horse in the race. What we should be doing is making sure that the likelihood of losing 2 horses again in one race is reduced to a negligible one.

How naive you really are with such obvious statements that a child could have written,Its no wonder you are angry & frustrated with your life. QUOTE.......What we should be doing is making sure that the likelihood of losing 2 horses again in one race is reduced to a negligible one...(and how do you propose to do that ...another ridiculous statement) or perhaps you would have the horses walking round the course and going round the jumps !!

What's all the argument about. Close this slaughter house called Aintree and the argument wouldn't exist. Th ey say they've made it safer, which proves that it wasn't safe in the first place. It's got nothing to do with love of horses. The horses are simply money making machines for the greedy. Who would be cruel enough to expose a pet to known dangers? Not an animal lover.

plenty of horses are injured and put down because of training accidents
and plenty of horses break their legs and loose their lives on the flat

if millions of pounds was being bet on dog fighting or **** fighting it wouldn't make it acceptable would it ?

* cockerel

Im amazed at some of the heartless cruel responses on this thread. I read an article on this horse in a magazine at a friends house the other week. Also the BBC did a big feature on him before the race. They were both very touching the owners came across as a lovely and sweet couple. Not in the slightest bit mercenary and i am sure that they are devastated by their loss. I think given time to grieve there perspective on the race may change. Though i can certainly understand that the pain at the moment must be intense and who could blame them for not wanting to go through that again.
'
It might be worth mentioning that According to pete was brought down by another horse falling rather than the fence its self.
'
Mr & Mrs Nelson you have my deepest sympathies.

smudge1 wrote:

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

smudge1 wrote: What a ridiculous statement to make when you have entered the horse in the first place.Nobody forces anybody to race horses and anybody knows that steeplechase horses get killed on a regular basis...Try racing them on the flat perhaps ??

And what a ridiculous statement you have made too. Just because he has entered the horse in the race (which experts said had been made safer) does not mean that he was expecting the horse to be killed or seriously injured. Thousands of people are killed and injured on our roads every year - it doesn't mean that when you get behind the wheel of a car you expect it to happen to you. Have some compassion - can you imagine how the family must feel - not only have they lost a treasured member of their family (as my understanding is that they considered the horse to be a pet), they have to live with the guilt of entering the horse in the first place. Oh, and by the way, your assumption that flat racing is safe is incorrect - not that long ago a horse broke its leg in the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, just by running, and the last time I watched that race there wasn't a fence or jump in sight! For what its worth, I think the National in its current format has had its day, and not before time - too many horses are killed regularly in this one race. It is sad, however, that it is likely that the mood for change will be driven, not by the number of horses killed, but by the fact that one of them, Synchronise, was a star horse and current Gold Cup champion. There is little point in saying to someone it's your own fault for entering a horse in the race. What we should be doing is making sure that the likelihood of losing 2 horses again in one race is reduced to a negligible one.

How naive you really are with such obvious statements that a child could have written,Its no wonder you are angry & frustrated with your life. QUOTE.......What we should be doing is making sure that the likelihood of losing 2 horses again in one race is reduced to a negligible one...(and how do you propose to do that ...another ridiculous statement) or perhaps you would have the horses walking round the course and going round the jumps !!

Dear oh dear - make a point against you and you end up resorting to personal insults - I'm naive and only capable of child like comments - insulting me doesn't make your lack of compassion any better nor your argument any stronger.

Try speaking to someone who knows about horseracing before launching into what some would say is your childlike response to my posting that the race should be made safer.

Reduce the height of the fences making it less of a challenge for the horses to jump would be a start in making the race safer - less horses would fall. Also, in a lot of cases it is not the fences that bring the horses down - it is other horses that are loose (because they have unseated their rider) or who have fallen that bring others down, the latter being the case in respect of this horse. By significantly reducing the field, you reduce the risk of this happening, so although the race would be quicker (because of the lower fences), the fences would be easier for the horses to jump and there would be less additional obstacles (such as fallen horses and jockeys) to bring them down. Finally, shorten the race so that there are less fences for the horses to jump and therefore less chance for the horse to fall and injure itself.

I'm no expert, but they seem like sensible suggestions to start to try and improve safety and a little more constructive than your (albeit sarcastic) suggestion that the horses should be walked around the course.

So £200,000 is very little money is it Angry and Frutrated? That's what it's all about.

TheTruthHurts wrote:
Im amazed at some of the heartless cruel responses on this thread. I read an article on this horse in a magazine at a friends house the other week. Also the BBC did a big feature on him before the race. They were both very touching the owners came across as a lovely and sweet couple. Not in the slightest bit mercenary and i am sure that they are devastated by their loss. I think given time to grieve there perspective on the race may change. Though i can certainly understand that the pain at the moment must be intense and who could blame them for not wanting to go through that again. ' It might be worth mentioning that According to pete was brought down by another horse falling rather than the fence its self. ' Mr & Mrs Nelson you have my deepest sympathies.

Well said and something that I tried to reflect in the 2nd para of my first posting. Unfortunately, there are those in the world that would need a dictionary to even try and understand the word compassion, let alone show any.

bolero wrote:
So £200,000 is very little money is it Angry and Frutrated? That's what it's all about.

£200000 is a huge amount of money if it's cash in the bank, from which you have no expenditure to make. However, if you know anything about horse racing, you would know that this horse would have cost the Nelsons significantly more than £200k in its lifetime for the reasons I gave earlier. I was making the point that the prize money a horse wins is not what generates the money to which several posters have referred on this thread eg Grumpy Old Man who specifically refers to prize money. It is the associated betting and breeding rights that generate money, and only if the horse is a winner. On your average day at a jump meeting, the prizes for winning a race can be as little as a few hundred pounds which wouldn't be enough to cover the transporting of the horse, its food for the week and the wages of its stable lad or lass.

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

smudge1 wrote:

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

smudge1 wrote: What a ridiculous statement to make when you have entered the horse in the first place.Nobody forces anybody to race horses and anybody knows that steeplechase horses get killed on a regular basis...Try racing them on the flat perhaps ??

And what a ridiculous statement you have made too. Just because he has entered the horse in the race (which experts said had been made safer) does not mean that he was expecting the horse to be killed or seriously injured. Thousands of people are killed and injured on our roads every year - it doesn't mean that when you get behind the wheel of a car you expect it to happen to you. Have some compassion - can you imagine how the family must feel - not only have they lost a treasured member of their family (as my understanding is that they considered the horse to be a pet), they have to live with the guilt of entering the horse in the first place. Oh, and by the way, your assumption that flat racing is safe is incorrect - not that long ago a horse broke its leg in the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, just by running, and the last time I watched that race there wasn't a fence or jump in sight! For what its worth, I think the National in its current format has had its day, and not before time - too many horses are killed regularly in this one race. It is sad, however, that it is likely that the mood for change will be driven, not by the number of horses killed, but by the fact that one of them, Synchronise, was a star horse and current Gold Cup champion. There is little point in saying to someone it's your own fault for entering a horse in the race. What we should be doing is making sure that the likelihood of losing 2 horses again in one race is reduced to a negligible one.

How naive you really are with such obvious statements that a child could have written,Its no wonder you are angry & frustrated with your life. QUOTE.......What we should be doing is making sure that the likelihood of losing 2 horses again in one race is reduced to a negligible one...(and how do you propose to do that ...another ridiculous statement) or perhaps you would have the horses walking round the course and going round the jumps !!

Dear oh dear - make a point against you and you end up resorting to personal insults - I'm naive and only capable of child like comments - insulting me doesn't make your lack of compassion any better nor your argument any stronger. Try speaking to someone who knows about horseracing before launching into what some would say is your childlike response to my posting that the race should be made safer. Reduce the height of the fences making it less of a challenge for the horses to jump would be a start in making the race safer - less horses would fall. Also, in a lot of cases it is not the fences that bring the horses down - it is other horses that are loose (because they have unseated their rider) or who have fallen that bring others down, the latter being the case in respect of this horse. By significantly reducing the field, you reduce the risk of this happening, so although the race would be quicker (because of the lower fences), the fences would be easier for the horses to jump and there would be less additional obstacles (such as fallen horses and jockeys) to bring them down. Finally, shorten the race so that there are less fences for the horses to jump and therefore less chance for the horse to fall and injure itself. I'm no expert, but they seem like sensible suggestions to start to try and improve safety and a little more constructive than your (albeit sarcastic) suggestion that the horses should be walked around the course.

>>>>>>>>>Yawn

I know Pete. Lovely bloke, would do anything for anyone. I know it's a cliche, but its absolutely true in Pete's case

Don't be hard on him for this - owners have less to do with the racehorse than any of you would like to believe.

Pete liked a flutter, saved up over nearly 60 years of grafting under cars and invested in a racehorse for his retirement hobby.

It went wrong after going right for so long. He's more gutted about the horse than the money, I can assure you of that.

You're holding your own well A and F, good on you.

This comments facility has gone right down the pan lately, we are invited to have our say but more often than not you just get a load of childish abuse and name calling for your trouble.

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

Yorklies wrote:
Horse no chance of making any more money so they put it down.Shame on YOU Mr Nelson. Not willing to spend your money on vets bills and let i hobble around a field for the rest of its days

Nothing to do with the amount of money made by the horse - be idignant by all means, but don't show your ignorance. Virtually every vet in the land (and I would stay well away from those who wouldn't) would put down a horse, whether or not a race horse, family pet or one of the ponies you see tethered up at the roadside, if it had a broken leg. This is because horses and other 4 legged creatures of this size (cows etc) are 99% of the time UNTREATABLE - it is impossible to plaster a leg of a horse in most cases as they are rendered incapable of getting up off a floor. A horse (or other large 4 legged creature) cannot spend 6 weeks or so on the floor because it would be cruel to the horse and it makes them very, very susceptible to blood clots and pneumonia. It is for this reason that unlike cats, dogs and other small creatures, you do not see a three legged animal running around a field because if they could survive on 3 legs, there would be no need to put them down if they broke a leg!

To Grumpy Old Man - not once in my posting did I say that I thought horse racing would be stopped or banned - I said that the days of the National (ie 1 race only) in its current format are likely to be numbered.

And to ReginaldBiscuit - the owner eccepts that if the horse had won, his outlook would be different by the quote in the story from him, "" If he had won I would have paraded him down the street. But now I will never enter the race again."

Use google theres plenty of 3 legged horses put there. Not willing to put time and money into the nag.

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

Yorklies wrote:
Horse no chance of making any more money so they put it down.Shame on YOU Mr Nelson. Not willing to spend your money on vets bills and let i hobble around a field for the rest of its days

Nothing to do with the amount of money made by the horse - be idignant by all means, but don't show your ignorance. Virtually every vet in the land (and I would stay well away from those who wouldn't) would put down a horse, whether or not a race horse, family pet or one of the ponies you see tethered up at the roadside, if it had a broken leg. This is because horses and other 4 legged creatures of this size (cows etc) are 99% of the time UNTREATABLE - it is impossible to plaster a leg of a horse in most cases as they are rendered incapable of getting up off a floor. A horse (or other large 4 legged creature) cannot spend 6 weeks or so on the floor because it would be cruel to the horse and it makes them very, very susceptible to blood clots and pneumonia. It is for this reason that unlike cats, dogs and other small creatures, you do not see a three legged animal running around a field because if they could survive on 3 legs, there would be no need to put them down if they broke a leg!

To Grumpy Old Man - not once in my posting did I say that I thought horse racing would be stopped or banned - I said that the days of the National (ie 1 race only) in its current format are likely to be numbered.

And to ReginaldBiscuit - the owner eccepts that if the horse had won, his outlook would be different by the quote in the story from him, "" If he had won I would have paraded him down the street. But now I will never enter the race again."

Use google theres plenty of 3 legged horses out there. Not willing to put time and money into the nag.

And if your horse had won, what would you be saying then ?

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

TheTruthHurts wrote: Im amazed at some of the heartless cruel responses on this thread. I read an article on this horse in a magazine at a friends house the other week. Also the BBC did a big feature on him before the race. They were both very touching the owners came across as a lovely and sweet couple. Not in the slightest bit mercenary and i am sure that they are devastated by their loss. I think given time to grieve there perspective on the race may change. Though i can certainly understand that the pain at the moment must be intense and who could blame them for not wanting to go through that again. ' It might be worth mentioning that According to pete was brought down by another horse falling rather than the fence its self. ' Mr & Mrs Nelson you have my deepest sympathies.

Well said and something that I tried to reflect in the 2nd para of my first posting. Unfortunately, there are those in the world that would need a dictionary to even try and understand the word compassion, let alone show any.

I think that most people are showing compassion for the horses rather than the owners. You can't seriously think that they didn't know of the reputation of this race? The danger they were putting their horse in? He may well be a sweet old bloke who saved all his life to buy a race horse but he put it in a dangerous situation and it's the horse that's paid a higher price than he has. It's animal abuse at the end of the day, taking advantage of animals for human entertainment, and what sort of entertainment is it watching animals suffering?!

Why did you enter your horse into this "daft" race in the first place then?!

Buzz Light-year wrote:
You're holding your own well A and F, good on you. This comments facility has gone right down the pan lately, we are invited to have our say but more often than not you just get a load of childish abuse and name calling for your trouble.

Why thank you kind sir (on the basis that Buzz was a bloke!) - it's one of the reasons I don't post on here very often and a lot of us "old" posters have disappeared.

As for Mrs Honey - I have compassion for both the animal and the owner as they have/are both suffered/suffering in different ways. Unfortunately, animals have been "abused" by us humans in all sorts of ways, both for entertainment and necessity since we learned to stand upright and hunt. All you have to do is look at intensive farming techniques when it comes to chicken and beef farming and yet people carry on eating meat. People still visit the circus whether or not there are animals as part of the show and in the far east, dog is an acceptable protein.

The point I am making is that as a race, us humans have a lamentable record when dealing with animals. The difference between dog and c**k fighting and horse racing is that with the former 2, injury and death are expected. With horse racing, when considering the amount of horses that are raced each year, the death and serious injury rate is very low and therefore, it is easy to underestimate the risk. Unfortunately, this year's National has led to the death of 2 animals which as I have posted previously is something that does bother me and should be stopped. However, I feel very strongly indeed that compassion should be shown to both the distraught owner as well as the horse. If someone had said to Mr Nelson, "If you let your horse run in the National tomorrow it WILL die" do you think he would have let it run in those circumstances? Not to show him compassion insinuates that someone did say that to him and he let the horse go anyway, which we know didn't happen. And before I am battered with a large amount of abuse saying how did you know it didn't happen - if he knew he was sending his horse to it's death, he would have got the vet out to kill it at home - it would have been cheaper.

The worst thing that could come out of this is for nothing to be done at all about the race which is something that my previous postings have made clear I do not want to see happening.

oops - before the grammatical police come out, I should have said "its" with no apostrophe in the penultimate paragraph!

He didn't expect his horse to die but he knew there was a greater chance of this happening than with any other horse race. Even someone with no interest in horse racing couldn't fail to have come across all the controversy surrounding the race this year. 2 horses died last year and there are numerous injuries in addition. I wouldn't want any animal to be put at risk like that especially one I personally cared about. So OK he wasn't told his horse would die but he knew there was a chance of it. It's not like the horse gets a choice in the matter but the owner does. And yes, human's treatment of animals leaves much to be desired!!

I do not like the attrition rate of horse deaths at Aintree myself.
I can understand totally the owners being upset by the death of the animal.

However they allowed their asset/liability to run in the race and stood to gain financially if it did well by further races meetings prizes and huge stud fees.
They have to live with the decision either way.

It has been a feature of the race for years that horses are injured and put down, it had to have been a risk and thought about in the decision from day one.

I suspect they are more upset at seeing their investment gone and no return as if they were so worried about the horses welfare then they would never have raced in the first place!

I don't give a hoot where Angryand Frustrated puts his apostrophes but I'm afraid your argument does not stand up when viewed against animal cruelty and you're (note the apostrophe) losing it.

Or a sense of guilt that it's their fault the horse is dead for entering it into the race.

Yorklies wrote:

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

Yorklies wrote: Horse no chance of making any more money so they put it down.Shame on YOU Mr Nelson. Not willing to spend your money on vets bills and let i hobble around a field for the rest of its days

Nothing to do with the amount of money made by the horse - be idignant by all means, but don't show your ignorance. Virtually every vet in the land (and I would stay well away from those who wouldn't) would put down a horse, whether or not a race horse, family pet or one of the ponies you see tethered up at the roadside, if it had a broken leg. This is because horses and other 4 legged creatures of this size (cows etc) are 99% of the time UNTREATABLE - it is impossible to plaster a leg of a horse in most cases as they are rendered incapable of getting up off a floor. A horse (or other large 4 legged creature) cannot spend 6 weeks or so on the floor because it would be cruel to the horse and it makes them very, very susceptible to blood clots and pneumonia. It is for this reason that unlike cats, dogs and other small creatures, you do not see a three legged animal running around a field because if they could survive on 3 legs, there would be no need to put them down if they broke a leg! To Grumpy Old Man - not once in my posting did I say that I thought horse racing would be stopped or banned - I said that the days of the National (ie 1 race only) in its current format are likely to be numbered. And to ReginaldBiscuit - the owner eccepts that if the horse had won, his outlook would be different by the quote in the story from him, "" If he had won I would have paraded him down the street. But now I will never enter the race again."

Use google theres plenty of 3 legged horses put there. Not willing to put time and money into the nag.

Educate yourself -

http://www.guardian.
co.uk/sport/blog/201
1/sep/23/claims-five
-broken-leg-horse

You may then realise why virtually every vet in the country and western world have had little choice but to put the horse down.

This was a comment he made to the BBC - 'Talking about the race, Mr Nelson said: "If he'd have done well we'd have been chuffed for him, but it's a chance you take. You always think it's going to be someone else's horse."

So he knew there was a risk and that it was OK so long as it was someone else's horse that died!! Nice.

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

Yorklies wrote:

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

Yorklies wrote: Horse no chance of making any more money so they put it down.Shame on YOU Mr Nelson. Not willing to spend your money on vets bills and let i hobble around a field for the rest of its days

Nothing to do with the amount of money made by the horse - be idignant by all means, but don't show your ignorance. Virtually every vet in the land (and I would stay well away from those who wouldn't) would put down a horse, whether or not a race horse, family pet or one of the ponies you see tethered up at the roadside, if it had a broken leg. This is because horses and other 4 legged creatures of this size (cows etc) are 99% of the time UNTREATABLE - it is impossible to plaster a leg of a horse in most cases as they are rendered incapable of getting up off a floor. A horse (or other large 4 legged creature) cannot spend 6 weeks or so on the floor because it would be cruel to the horse and it makes them very, very susceptible to blood clots and pneumonia. It is for this reason that unlike cats, dogs and other small creatures, you do not see a three legged animal running around a field because if they could survive on 3 legs, there would be no need to put them down if they broke a leg! To Grumpy Old Man - not once in my posting did I say that I thought horse racing would be stopped or banned - I said that the days of the National (ie 1 race only) in its current format are likely to be numbered. And to ReginaldBiscuit - the owner eccepts that if the horse had won, his outlook would be different by the quote in the story from him, "" If he had won I would have paraded him down the street. But now I will never enter the race again."

Use google theres plenty of 3 legged horses put there. Not willing to put time and money into the nag.

Educate yourself -

http://www.guardian.

co.uk/sport/blog/201

1/sep/23/claims-five

-broken-leg-horse

You may then realise why virtually every vet in the country and western world have had little choice but to put the horse down.

Why do i need educating
Its my Point of view .
If your small minded enough to believe everthing u read in a paper. then i think its u that needs educating.Two sides to every story The push the side they want to push

MrsHoney wrote:
This was a comment he made to the BBC - 'Talking about the race, Mr Nelson said: "If he'd have done well we'd have been chuffed for him, but it's a chance you take. You always think it's going to be someone else's horse." So he knew there was a risk and that it was OK so long as it was someone else's horse that died!! Nice.

I have always enjoyed reading your comments and I recall that on several points (Union Terrace I think) we have the same views, but enough is enough now.

"So he knew there was a risk and that it was OK so long as it was someone else's horse that died!! Nice."

Have you ever known someone who had a relative die in a car accident, or had been burgled and lost a very special personal momento? If not, you are very lucky. If so, I am sure that you would have heard them or a friend say, "you always think that it happens to someone else - not on your own doorstep" etc. It doesn't mean that they want or hope for another driver to die on the road or someone else to suffer the horrors of a burglary. It just means that they cannot truly believe it happened to them.

In this case, it is no different. Mr Nelson didn't want any horse to die, be it his horse or someone elses. He just never expected, or contemplated, that his horse would not only be brought down by another horse and not a fence, but that in bringing the horse down, it would be injured in such a way that it would have to be put down. Fair enough if you want to have a go about the fact that he should have known that there was a risk (as opposed to a certainty) that his horse may be injured, but don't try and "spin" something awful from a common phrase that a lot of people use when they have received shocking news. That does not shine you in a very favourable light, and as you appear to have read around the subject, you will know how upset this man has consistently been since it happened, not only for himself, but also for the owners and connections of Synchronise.

roskoboskovic wrote:
i can t believe that this bloke can be so naive.horses are injured and euthenised every day after training accidents so to have him make out that this is a big surprise takes some believing.

I quote from 'Angryand frustrated' earlier on:

"......(which experts said had been made safer) does not mean that he was expecting the horse to be killed or seriously injured."

Firstly, don't believe what 'experts' say, especially if they have some sort of vested interest in this organised horse-slaughter.
I think if he announced that "I expect this horse to be killed or injured", he'd be certified insane.
You go on to say:
"....Thousands of people are killed and injured on our roads every year - it doesn't mean that when you get behind the wheel of a car you expect it to happen to you."
A remarkably warped piece of comparative thinking, if I may say so.
But you are conveniently forgetting the part the horse plays in this so-called sport.
We can not be sure if it 'doesn't expect to be killed'; but it does not have as much say in the matter as the owner, or the hypothetical driver at the wheel, does it?

Lastly, you go on to say:

"What we should be doing is making sure that the likelihood of losing 2 horses again in one race is reduced to a negligible one."
The way to reduce the likelyhood is to not have this daft spectacle at all. But it's not about horses, is it? It's about making lots of money, and the horse, dead or alive, is an occupational hazard of this process.

Yorklies wrote:

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

Yorklies wrote:

AngryandFrustrated wrote:

Yorklies wrote: Horse no chance of making any more money so they put it down.Shame on YOU Mr Nelson. Not willing to spend your money on vets bills and let i hobble around a field for the rest of its days

Nothing to do with the amount of money made by the horse - be idignant by all means, but don't show your ignorance. Virtually every vet in the land (and I would stay well away from those who wouldn't) would put down a horse, whether or not a race horse, family pet or one of the ponies you see tethered up at the roadside, if it had a broken leg. This is because horses and other 4 legged creatures of this size (cows etc) are 99% of the time UNTREATABLE - it is impossible to plaster a leg of a horse in most cases as they are rendered incapable of getting up off a floor. A horse (or other large 4 legged creature) cannot spend 6 weeks or so on the floor because it would be cruel to the horse and it makes them very, very susceptible to blood clots and pneumonia. It is for this reason that unlike cats, dogs and other small creatures, you do not see a three legged animal running around a field because if they could survive on 3 legs, there would be no need to put them down if they broke a leg! To Grumpy Old Man - not once in my posting did I say that I thought horse racing would be stopped or banned - I said that the days of the National (ie 1 race only) in its current format are likely to be numbered. And to ReginaldBiscuit - the owner eccepts that if the horse had won, his outlook would be different by the quote in the story from him, "" If he had won I would have paraded him down the street. But now I will never enter the race again."

Use google theres plenty of 3 legged horses put there. Not willing to put time and money into the nag.

Educate yourself - http://www.guardian. co.uk/sport/blog/201 1/sep/23/claims-five -broken-leg-horse You may then realise why virtually every vet in the country and western world have had little choice but to put the horse down.

Why do i need educating Its my Point of view . If your small minded enough to believe everthing u read in a paper. then i think its u that needs educating.Two sides to every story The push the side they want to push

So you haven't bothered reading it then because if you had you would have educated yourself on the reason why a lot of leg breaks result in a horse (or as I have said before, any large four legged animal) having to be put down and you would not have made yourself look foolish.

I'm not small minded enough to believe everything I read altho' that comment is a bit rich coming from someone who tells me to google 3 legged horses, because if they are on the internet they must exist because no-one has ever heard of Photoshop or CGI graphics!

I'm educated enough to understand that there is no vet in the country that would put down a horse, in the full glare of the world's media unless there was very good reason for doing so which did not involve money. I suggest you read the article, written by a Guardian blogger, and not a member of the horse racing fraternity and therefore it does not "push the side they want to push".

If you don't believe what the 2 vets say in that article, then that's up to you - however, if you were to speak to the RCVS, and in particular, those that specialise in equine practice they would reiterate the comments made in that article.

I accept that there are 2 sides to every story. However, that is when there is no evidence upon which to form a conclusion - there is a standard to how horses with broken legs are treated by vets, not only in this country but across the western world.

Hang on a minute tho' - maybe the entire worldwide population of vets are in a conspiracy to put horses down unnecessarily to pacify the racing community, because of course the horses are worth nothing when they are put to stud or or a brooding mare. Quick, I must go and google it to see what the internet tells me about it ....................
................!

So we're all OK so long as we hold the same views as Angryand Frustrated eh? More frustrated than angry me thinks and no I definitely do not hold the same twisted views in this case. You are twisting everything that anyone else says in order to try and defend your own stupid arguments. They don't stand up I'm afraid. Horses are being sacrificed in order to satisfy the greed of the racing fraternity and shame on you all. 48 horses died so far this year I believe in the pursuit of financial gain not because they were admired for their beauty, or faithfulness. Twist this posting anyway you like AngryandFrustrated but I think you will find yourself in the minority on this one. Aintree is nothing more than a slaughterhouse for beautiful animals.

bolero wrote:
So we're all OK so long as we hold the same views as Angryand Frustrated eh? More frustrated than angry me thinks and no I definitely do not hold the same twisted views in this case. You are twisting everything that anyone else says in order to try and defend your own stupid arguments. They don't stand up I'm afraid. Horses are being sacrificed in order to satisfy the greed of the racing fraternity and shame on you all. 48 horses died so far this year I believe in the pursuit of financial gain not because they were admired for their beauty, or faithfulness. Twist this posting anyway you like AngryandFrustrated but I think you will find yourself in the minority on this one. Aintree is nothing more than a slaughterhouse for beautiful animals.

I am twisting nothing - I have made it clear that the National should be changed as the loss of horses is unacceptable. I am, however, a realist and there is no possibility either now or in the the near future that horse racing, or indeed the Grand National, will be banned.

However, I feel very strongly that there are postings on this site today which appear to want to castigate a man the posters have never met and about whom the posters have made assumptions regarding his character and lifestyle from behind the cloak of anonymity - in my world that is on-line bullying.

Never once have I said I support the racing fraternity, nor have I said that I don't care about the horses that die. However, when someone states, as if it is fact, that they are in it for the prize money, I feel obliged to point out that prize money is not the driving factor in racing. I also feel obliged to point out the inaccuracies about the treatment of horses with broken limbs as that has been used as a further excuse to **** Mr Nelson by.

I am all for reasoned and lively debate. I couldn't care if people agreed with me or not. I don't however, descend into personal comments and abuse, something that appears all too common on this site, evidenced by your own posting which refers to me being frustrated and as holding "twisted views".

To twist your posting, as you have invited me to do - Everyone's views are twisted unless they agree with Bolero.

The man knew what the risks are regardless of what happened. He just thought that the potential reward outweighs those risks, and this time he was caught.
I'm sure he's a lovely chap and he really did treat this horse like a pet, but regardless hoping that it doesn't happen to you is just plain silly. Like burying your head in the sand.

Apologies offered for unecessarily and rather confusingly quoting 'roscoboskovic' above.
Note to Editor:
The ability to use HTML and edit would be most appreciated!

Rest in Peace, Pete.

"I am, however, a realist and there is no possibility either now or in the the near future that horse racing, or indeed the Grand National, will be banned."
says Angryandfrustrated.

If that be true then it can only be because of the amount of toffs and their money involved in the whole miserable spectacle.

"He was part of the family" ... Really??!.. But yet you had him destroyed. Let's hope one of his kids doesn't fracture a leg bone.

Why did he mean so much to you? - "He had won £200,000 in prize money".

Are we seriously supposed to feel any empathy for anything other than the horse here?! The owners know the dangers of this type of race but they all take that gamble because of the vast amount of money at stake! He could have said, "No, we love this horse - like one of the family and I'm not prepared to take that gamble with his life" but he didn't. He wanted the money more.

Hope you're proud of that decision.

".....Julian Thick, managing director of Aintree Racecourse, said: "We are desperately sad at these two accidents...."
This man could not really have a more appropriate name...

I cannot believe the amount of horrible remarks most posters on here have made. I'm sure the family thought long and hard about whether or not to enter the race & must've been so very proud to own such a gorgeous horse, sadly for them their worst fears came true. RIP Pete & Synchronise

Entering the race according to his words was "a fairytale" and now it is daft! LOL make your mind up if it had been somebody elses horse and not his killed I wonder if he would still have been saying the race was daft!

Urgh.

For lords sake, read the article most of you!

He's already said if his horse had won, he'd be parading it down the street!

So yes he would have had a different outcome.

And no they physically couldn't fix the poor horses leg - almost all leg injuries on horses (or indeed big animals like them - ie cows) are fatal.

He entered his horse because, like most people think - it won't happen to you. There are hundreds of motor accidents (inc cyclists) and yet you think it won't happen to you.

Cut the guy some slack - he obviously feels bad enough about without all you guys digging about it.

My sympathies to this man... and everyone else out there who's made a decision about something they've regretted - which I'm pretty sure, is all of you.

I think there is a difference between getting in a car and entering a horse into a race blighted by controversy because it is so known to be dangerous. To compare the 2 is just stupid. Perhaps if you'd compared it to skydiving or car racing.

I honestly don't care how anyone puts it, the logic of this is he knew it was dangerous yet he still entered his horse into the race. He's upset because it died, yes I get that, but at the end of the day it's his fault! I would feel awful and upset if I'd risked my pets life and it died as well!! I'm not going to feel sorry for the man no matter how upset he is because he entered the horse into the race!!!! End of!!! The logic is there for all to see! I've never mentioned anything about money or greed or speculated what his motives may have been. All I've done is point out the facts. It's the horses I feel sorry for not the owners.

Horses love to run. Its in their nature ,especially when they are in a herd. Has anyone ever seen wild horses run? Yeah, they may be whipped, but it doesn't hurt the animal. The whips are cushioned so they don't cause any pain. Plus the fact you would be able to see if it caused pain as it would leave a mark. Money has got nothing to do with this. All race horse owners know exactly what they are letting themselves in for. As for the injury, once a horses leg is broken, that's it. It takes years to mend a horses leg and any way, if they had kept him alive, he would have been prone to all sorts of illnesses and infections, such as pneumonia. This was indeed such a sad loss and I feel so so sorry for the owner who has clearly lost a friend and a valued member of the family.

Mr Turvey a gelding (as stated in Pete's press statement) will never make a fortune in huge stud fees!

Horses do love to run, but jumping is not natural for them. They rely heavily on the rider for prompts as they can't actually see the point at which to jump. Sure there may be some horses which seem to be natural jumpers but it is not a natural thing for them to do. Otherwise they'd all be jumping out of the fields they're kept in! I am passionate about animal rights which is why my opinions on this topic are so strong, I hate to see animals being taken advantage of. I'm not against people keeping horses as there can be a wonderful bond that both enjoy but racing and in particular jumping just for people's entertainment is wrong.

Most of the time the posters in these comments sections make me despair of human life, so thanks to A&F for trying to be measured and sensible. Too many people with knee-jerk, extreme reactions without considering the shades of grey in an argument.

Just out of interest, can those of you above who think the GN is cruel confirm to me that you are all vegan or at least vegetarian? Because I completely commend your love of animals but think that the death of 36 horses over 50 years pales into insignifcance next to the ones that have died to make your tea.

Rich owners in a toff sport aimed at taking the last pennies out of poor people while murdering horses. Anyone who backs this race needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.

York Bob I can confirm that I've been vegetarian for over 20 years.

Horse racing is not a toff sport however TerryYork, I mean the gypsies love it and they're hardly toffs!!

smudge1 says...
12:37pm Mon 16 Apr 12

Yawn”

And the winner is..... AngryandFrustrated!!
!

This race, and the other bad ones like at Cheltenam certainly should be banned. Not acceptable as a "sport".

Thoroughbreds are bred to run. They are one of the fastest horses on this planet!