Grand National 2016 - - WARNING: contains graphic pictures and videos of injured and dying horses

Le Reve ** Strong stayer and has recaptured form since being fitted with blinkers; acts on any going. (40/1)

Silviniaco Conti **** Has class and although sometimes quirky must come into the reckoning; solid jumper. (12/1)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/racing/2016/04/09/grand-national-2016-tips-expert-guide-to-aintree-runners-latest/

Original Quill wrote:   Now, as to pets.

Vicious?  Cruel?  Inhumane?  

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:   Now, as to pets.

Vicious?  Cruel?  Inhumane?  

Well quill that's interesting. When I rescued that greyhound j thought I was doing a good thing and making a dog happy - taking it from a cold kennel outside, to my warm and comfy home (remember the matching dog bed with my sofa? Hahahaha)

I've since learned that lots of greyhounds are institutionalised and are unhappy being taken into homes.

Who are we to say what makes a dog happier?  

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:   Now, as to pets.

Vicious?  Cruel?  Inhumane?  

Well quill that's interesting. When I rescued that greyhound j thought I was doing a good thing and making a dog happy - taking it from a cold kennel outside, to my warm and comfy home (remember the matching dog bed with my sofa? Hahahaha)

I've since learned that lots of greyhounds are institutionalised and are unhappy being taken into homes.

Who are we to say what makes a dog happier?  

I think you recognize I'm being factitious.  We think it's cruel to race horses, but carefree and fun-loving to throw a stick for a dog.  That whole picture is fraught with contradiction.  It's really brought about by PETA.  Ethical treatment of animals??  Have you ever discussed ethics with a goat?  A dog?  A horse?

The whole Sea World controversy brings this to the fore.  http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/09/seaworld-end-orca-whale-shows-san-diego  They are going to end the orca shows; but they are going to keep the orcas in captivity.  They say they will die in the open ocean.  Their answer: stop breeding orcas.

Let's go back.  We wouldn't have orca shows if there weren't orcas in captivity.  We wouldn't have horse races if there weren't horses in captivity.  We wouldn't have greyhound racing if there weren't dogs in captivity (greyhounds are the oldest breed in existence, going back to the ancient Egyptians).  I admit there are some ugly methods when orca shows, horse racing, or greyhound racing goes commercial; I, myself, have rescued two greyhounds from track life in Arizona.  But most of it isn't commercial.

All of the horses raised by my daughters, and every girl like them, who participated in the dressage shows and hunting and jumping events, were just pets.  They were loved and cared for, just like that black labradore.  They are pets--no different from the black lab that you throw a stick for.  Now try to tell me that throwing a stick for a black lab is exploiting animals.

Now all I say does not apply to cock-fighting or dog-fighting...or any other kind of brutality.  That is precisely the way I feel about boxing, wrestling, kick-boxing or any other kind of physical brutality.  You can champion prostitution if you like, too; after all, it's consensual.  But it is essentially wrong, wrong, wrong to abuse the physical body and call it competition.  It's consensual; but it's immoral.

eddie wrote:I worked in a betting shop years ago, when it wasn't all tills and all the settling was done by calculator and brain matter.

I never really liked racing much, but I do admit, I used to put on the odd bet.

I also wear leather lol so can't really preach in about animal rights.
If you both feel that strongly, why do you eat meat?

eddie wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
They are. 
Also what about all the products tested on animals?

Exactly. If you're that keen on aninal rights you have to look at everything you buy.
I think the Palmolive brand test on aninals and they make thousands of products.

Lord Foul wrote:well   IF they wern't absolute hypocrites

MOST veggies/vegans would die the first time they got a bad infection/needed surgery/

they would have NO pain releif in the little surgery that they could have /none in child birth and non at the dentist.....

they would never have antibiotics
and anything more advanced would be right off their scale....


they could never have any vaccines

no anti malarials if going abroad

TECHNICALLY speaking they could never use artificial fibers
and even natural fibers like cotton would be off the list

all the plastics for their shoes (cant use leather) wuld be forbidden to them

they would have to go about naked, unshod and prey to every disease and distemper going.

they would have no furniture (plastics and wood)

or even a house......again plastics and wood primarily

certainly not drive or even own a bike...

Lord Foul wrote:well as to that.....

its unnecessary, doesnt actually acheive anything, and produces nothing.

and results in te regular deaths of horses.....


of course if horse racing was banned 1000's of horses would be destroyed within weeks.....

10's 1000's of ordinary folks (stable hands etc) thrown out of work (to be labeled scroungers)
the rural economy further destroyed (of course we KNOW thats actually the aim of these (mainly) townie anti types)

and a hole of about 100 million plus a year lost to the economy


add to that that this would then be chalked up as a victory and further legitimise the over entitled, self entitled self opinionated

"I dont do it so I dont see why YOU should" brigade and we can see where its going cant we

nicko wrote:How about horses that have unseated their riders?

They could stop running and walk off the course, but they don't, they keep running and jumping because they appear to like it!       Just thought i'd mention that.

Raggamuffin wrote:The Grand National is too difficult for the horses - it's not like the usual kind of race. It's deliberately made difficult for the horses in order to entertain the people who are watching, and so the people who are placing bets get a kick out of seeing horses struggling with those jumps. Do they have no shame when they hear that a horse has been killed? I guess not because they place bets the following year.

Daily Mail wrote:How throwing Fido a stick could kill him... Vets warn dog owners how playing fetch can cause 'horrific injuries'
By COLIN FERNANDEZ FOR THE DAILY MAIL

Next time you're walking your dog and throw a stick for it to fetch, beware.

The popular practice can cause them 'horrific' injuries and even kill them, leading vets have warned.

Dogs can choke, bleed to death, or die of lethal infections after catching sticks, they say.



Owners should instead throw appropriately-sized rubber balls, frisbees or plastic bones to ensure their pet's health and safety.

Dan Brockman, professor of small animal surgery at the Royal Veterinary College, said he has treated dozens of serious injuries and infections caused by dogs stabbed while rushing after a sharp - and filthy - stick.

He said: 'When I see people throwing sticks for their dogs in the park I just get so frustrated. I want to go and tell them to stop.'

In a study, he details cases of dogs paralysed when a stick stabs them in the back of the throat and damages the spine; dogs speared in the chest by a spinning stick; and dogs which die a slow, painful death as infection spreads from wood splinters lodged in a wound.

Not only is the risk to the dog's health severe, but the cost of treatment can be prohibitive.

The professor said: 'I have seen injuries that have cost up to £5,000 in treatment fees but where the dog has still died in the end.'

He added: 'The problem is that sticks are sharp and very dirty.

'As the dog runs on to them or grabs them in its mouth, the end of the stick can easily pierce the skin, going through it to penetrate the oesophagus, spinal cord, blood vessels or the dog's neck.

'Commonly, small or sometimes large pieces of stick break off and remain inside the neck. These sticks are usually covered in bacteria, fungi, and yeasts.

'In addition, the stick enters the body through a bacteria-laden site, the mouth, carrying those germs into the wound too.'

Even throwing a ball to a dog could put its life in peril, he said. 'You must make sure the size of ball is right for the dog.

'I have had to operate on dogs that have swallowed tennis balls.'

Original Quill wrote:Yeah, but poor FTL just started an innocent thread about a colorful sport.  Now you've editorialized, with the warnings.

Hmmm...not your fault, eds, but it just shows to go you that you never know where a thread is going.

Original Quill wrote:Yeah, but poor FTL just started an innocent thread about a colorful sport.  Now you've editorialized, with the warnings.

Hmmm...not your fault, eds, but it just shows to go you that you never know where a thread is going.

Original Quill wrote:Even dog fetching is fraught with peril...

Daily Mail wrote:How throwing Fido a stick could kill him... Vets warn dog owners how playing fetch can cause 'horrific injuries'
By COLIN FERNANDEZ FOR THE DAILY MAIL

Next time you're walking your dog and throw a stick for it to fetch, beware.

The popular practice can cause them 'horrific' injuries and even kill them, leading vets have warned.

Dogs can choke, bleed to death, or die of lethal infections after catching sticks, they say.



Owners should instead throw appropriately-sized rubber balls, frisbees or plastic bones to ensure their pet's health and safety.

Dan Brockman, professor of small animal surgery at the Royal Veterinary College, said he has treated dozens of serious injuries and infections caused by dogs stabbed while rushing after a sharp  -  and filthy  -  stick.

He said: 'When I see people throwing sticks for their dogs in the park I just get so frustrated. I want to go and tell them to stop.'

In a study, he details cases of dogs paralysed when a stick stabs them in the back of the throat and damages the spine; dogs speared in the chest by a spinning stick; and dogs which die a slow, painful death as infection spreads from wood splinters lodged in a wound.

Not only is the risk to the dog's health severe, but the cost of treatment can be prohibitive.

The professor said: 'I have seen injuries that have cost up to £5,000 in treatment fees but where the dog has still died in the end.'

He added: 'The problem is that sticks are sharp and very dirty.

'As the dog runs on to them or grabs them in its mouth, the end of the stick can easily pierce the skin, going through it to penetrate the oesophagus, spinal cord, blood vessels or the dog's neck. 'Commonly, small or sometimes large pieces of stick break off and remain inside the neck. These sticks are usually covered in bacteria, fungi, and yeasts. 'In addition, the stick enters the body through a bacteria-laden site, the mouth, carrying those germs into the wound too.'

Even throwing a ball to a dog could put its life in peril, he said. 'You must make sure the size of ball is right for the dog. I have had to operate on dogs that have swallowed tennis balls.'

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yeah, but poor FTL just started an innocent thread about a colorful sport.  Now you've editorialized, with the warnings.

Hmmm...not your fault, eds, but it just shows to go you that you never know where a thread is going.

I know. I thought the same thing about FTL lol and thought about splitting the topic.....
It does need a warning though, 4ever is right.

I don't think we've ever had a thread that has stayed on topic!

HoratioTarr wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:well   IF they wern't absolute hypocrites

MOST veggies/vegans would die the first time they got a bad infection/needed surgery/

they would have NO pain releif in the little surgery that they could have /none in child birth and non at the dentist.....

they would never have antibiotics
and anything more advanced would be right off their scale....


they could never have any vaccines

no anti malarials if going abroad

TECHNICALLY speaking they could never use artificial fibers
and even natural fibers like cotton would be off the list

all the plastics for their shoes (cant use leather) wuld be forbidden to them

they would have to go about naked, unshod and prey to every disease and distemper going.

they would have no furniture (plastics and wood)

or even a house......again plastics and wood primarily

certainly not drive or even own a bike...

Those who support blood sports, and that is surely what horse racing is, always trumpet on about vegetarians and wearing leather and cosmetics and how your kids would suffer horribly if not for animal testing. They always have to try to find some reason to justify something as unnecessary as horse racing.

You can't even begin to compare the quest for stamping out disease against putting a bet on the National.    

Lord Foul wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:



Those who support blood sports, and that is surely what horse racing is, always trumpet on about vegetarians and wearing leather and cosmetics and how your kids would suffer horribly if not for animal testing. They always have to try to find some reason to justify something as unnecessary as horse racing.

You can't even begin to compare the quest for stamping out disease against putting a bet on the National.    

so you wish to be "selective" huh?

cherry pick your veggie/vegan principles

so you can sit there criticising someone for doing whatever/ from a standpoint of falsified morality


IT has little to do with BLOOD SPORTS.....

and everything to do with intellectual and moral honesty

IF you say "YOU" are wrong for eating meat and I'm a goody two shoes for not doing so.....

then you cannot in any way do any of the other things I have mentioned and retain one ounce of crediibility

thats why aside from those who merely dont like the taste or need to for medical reasons. I consider ALL veggies/vegans as sanctimonious nut jobs, with a penchant for, as said being VERY selective in their arguments....

and , one just knows that when faced with a veggie/vegan in full whinge, you are going to be subjected to the largest dose of childish mawkish anthropomorphism outside of a disney movie  

NOW as for the subject of the O/P

the bar is set too high with this race...with the results we have seen year after year....It is wrong and should be changed....but blood sport it isnt (logically, since there is no intent to gratuitously and pointlessly harm any of the horses, unlike say fox hunting).

eddie wrote:I always wanted a horse when I was a child. He sounds lovely horatio.

I hate the way the (some) Irish dispose of greyhounds after they've finished their racing careers; they hang them from trees and cut their ear off - the one that's been tagged - so they can't be traced back to the owners.

Sick and cruel.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:



Those who support blood sports, and that is surely what horse racing is, always trumpet on about vegetarians and wearing leather and cosmetics and how your kids would suffer horribly if not for animal testing. They always have to try to find some reason to justify something as unnecessary as horse racing.

You can't even begin to compare the quest for stamping out disease against putting a bet on the National.    

so you wish to be "selective" huh?

cherry pick your veggie/vegan principles

so you can sit there criticising someone for doing whatever/ from a standpoint of falsified morality


IT has little to do with BLOOD SPORTS.....

and everything to do with intellectual and moral honesty

IF you say "YOU" are wrong for eating meat and I'm a goody two shoes for not doing so.....

then you cannot in any way do any of the other things I have mentioned and retain one ounce of crediibility

thats why aside from those who merely dont like the taste or need to for medical reasons. I consider ALL veggies/vegans as sanctimonious nut jobs, with a penchant for, as said being VERY selective in their arguments....

and , one just knows that when faced with a veggie/vegan in full whinge, you are going to be subjected to the largest dose of childish mawkish anthropomorphism outside of a disney movie  

NOW as for the subject of the O/P

the bar is set too high with this race...with the results we have seen year after year....It is wrong and should be changed....but blood sport it isnt (logically, since there is no intent to gratuitously and pointlessly harm any of the horses, unlike say fox hunting).

Where did I criticise you for anything?  

I don't see any sport that involves cruelty is right because it's done for entertainment.    I don't even link being veggie or vegan to that kind of cruelty.    Do you?  If you do, you're the fucking nut job.
I didnt     even some meat eaters would agree with you on this subject....however....

It's a fact that horses die in their hundreds each year within the racing world.   And that's not counting all those who end up as dog food before their time, and who suffer as a consequence of some human hell bent on making money.   Because a horse that can't win, or run, is no use to any of them.  


and the millions of animals of various sorts that die to provide you with artificial whatever.....(as a consequence of environmental damage)???

eddie wrote:Horatio, how come you've given up meat? Meant to ask back there but forgot.

Lord Foul wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Where did I criticise you for anything?  

I don't see any sport that involves cruelty is right because it's done for entertainment.    I don't even link being veggie or vegan to that kind of cruelty.    Do you?  If you do, you're the fucking nut job.
I didnt     even some meat eaters would agree with you on this subject....however....

It's a fact that horses die in their hundreds each year within the racing world.   And that's not counting all those who end up as dog food before their time, and who suffer as a consequence of some human hell bent on making money.   Because a horse that can't win, or run, is no use to any of them.  


and the millions of animals of various sorts that die to provide you with artificial whatever.....(as a consequence of environmental damage)???

my point is being a veggi/vegan is an all or nothing stand point...logically it HAS to be...it admits NO exceptions....
you cannot say I'm a veggi/vegan for ethical reasons....and then in the same breath admit to condoning (by the use therof) processes which also kill/exploit animals....

you cant say I'm a veggi/vegam for ethical reasons ...but I dont care about the damage done making my rayon/whatever fibers
or for that matter my cotton or wool fibers......

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:Horatio, how come you've given up meat? Meant to ask back there but forgot.

I'm having a problem with my tum.   For some reason, meat is disagreeing with me.  Gives me really bad indigestion sometimes, so I'm giving up meat and bread, which also disagrees with me.  No other reason.

Lord Foul wrote:commercial bread give me "bloat"

the home baked variety that missus makes is totally different....

mind thats 50% spelt flour ...

and kinda ...yummmy

ohhh cheese n gherkin sarnies   I GOTTA go eat....NOWWWWWWWWW

eddie wrote:If you get a chance try Corn pasta, much nicer than the wheat variety.

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I'm having a problem with my tum.   For some reason, meat is disagreeing with me.  Gives me really bad indigestion sometimes, so I'm giving up meat and bread, which also disagrees with me.  No other reason.

You may get a craving for it but stick with it as you'll notice lots of positive changes.

If you want any good food tips - ie what products are nice and what aren't - drop me a PM X
Or rags. She doesn't eat meat either

Raggamuffin wrote:I clicked on the last post in this thread only because I have a question. The thread title now says that the thread contains graphic pictures and videos, but does that mean that they're embedded in posts? If so, that could mean that someone might not click on the thread at all and miss a lot of interesting posts.

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I clicked on the last post in this thread only because I have a question. The thread title now says that the thread contains graphic pictures and videos, but does that mean that they're embedded in posts? If so, that could mean that someone might not click on the thread at all and miss a lot of interesting posts.

There are graphic photo's...and any video can't be viewed unless your click on it...so eddie was a dear and updated the topic title. 

Just skip over any that see a photo rolling up your way and DO NOT click on the video to view!!!  I've had to deal with quite enough of animal cruelty in my life time --- don't need any more nightmares regenerated.

4EVER2 wrote:Odd how that POV about an image is just so subjective...

I'm able to view the human body images and it causes me deep heart ache {even those images of those poor young kids} but show me an image of a tortured animal and my sleep period will be embedded with night mares from past life events.

Original Quill wrote:

Tell me pets don't have fun.  Lol.