Jump to content

Horse Racing


Recommended Posts

My sister-in-law's horse is a thoroughbred that won about $100,000 before retiring, due to an injury from which it recovered, but did not permit running at the competitive level. The horse was sent to a farm (I believe in Pennsylvania) run by a foundation that provides for the care and retirement of these magnificent animals. Some of the horses live out their years on the farm. Others are sold as recreational horses to owners such as my sister-in-law. She has started to train the horse for dressage and says that he is very cooperative, despite the fact that he was bred for running. My SIL is also basically anti-horse-racing (athough she has never explained to my satisfaction why horse-racing is cruel and dressage is not :lol: ) but will pull out the copy of her horse's pedigree, which includes such luminaries as War Admiral, at the drop of a hat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Moving this over from the Barbaro thread.   Horse racing is a sport and Barbaro was an athlete. He was bred to be a race horse.   He was a great horse that had a too short career.   I personall

Isn't a horse also "a piece of machinery built by man" through careful breeding? Actually, Stone seems to make an accurate analogy as both 'machines' are driven/controlled by man, and the man (driver/

That's a good incentive, too! Except they don't know about the knackers until it's too late.

So, do you consider it "positive" eugenics or "negative" eugenics. If you choose the latter, why?

 

(Abortion is not eugenics, by the way.)

 

horse breeding, by definition, would be positive eugenics. the positive eugenics is negative(read this as an adjective) in my eyes because it has led to the breeding of thoroughbreds which are genetically created to run for the pleasure of gamblers in a world that doesnt care enough about them when they are sick, injured and retired.

 

re abortion is a form of eugenics, i see it as negative eugenics. why? say, there is a genetic screening and one finds that the fetus is not 'considered' viable(could be anything..downs syndrome..or just the state of being female in some parts of the world), the abortion that is carried out to eliminate the potential life because of it's inferiority is negative eugenics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a world that doesnt care enough about them when they are sick, injured and retired.

 

I know of people who spend millions of dollars to provide safe, healthy and happy retirements for these animals at the end of their careers.

 

your arguments would be so much more persuasive if they did not always contain a hyperbolic and false premise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some horses that are more athletic than others

 

Or, they may have different athletic abilities, depending on how they are bred and trained. My SIL's horse (see above) was bred and trained for running, but is now learning dressage. My niece's horse is a different breed, a German something or other that was bred for dressage and is very different in configuration.

 

Does the thought of horse shows, dressage, jumping, or just hacking bother you, too, FB? Do you think horses should just breed naturally and play in some field of your imagination? What's your point? These are domesticated animals and have been for centuries, like cows. If cows lived the way youeem to imply that you think horses should live, it is doubtful that there would be any of the dairy stores you wrote about last week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is your own paradigm.

 

There are some horses that are more athletic than others, just like humans. Some humans run for the bus, others run around a track. Just like horses. And as for the training, point me in the direction of one great human athlete that trains on his own and doesn't complete a training regiman put together by another human.

 

I really don't think it is my paradigm, obviously. I am sure some horses run faster than others, just as some eat more, but I think this makes specific horses neither athletes nor gourmands, just as I don't think snakes lazy because they lie around all day.

 

There is nothing unusual in athletes training alone. But the point is that it makes sense to say that a boxer, out running, is getting into shape for his bout. A horse cantering about a meadow on its own is not practising for anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a world that doesnt care enough about them when they are sick, injured and retired.

 

I know of people who spend millions of dollars to provide safe, healthy and happy retirements for these animals at the end of their careers.

 

your arguments would be so much more persuasive if they did not always contain a hyperbolic and false premise.

 

ron johnson, give me figures? if that is true, there would be no race horse meat for human or pet consumption. maybe only those who are capable of spending millions of dollars to provide retirement facilities for their lucrative assets should be allowed to own them? something in the purchase agreement(if there is something like that) that legally binds them to the responsibility for the care of race horses after retirement. of course, this is not completely satisfactory, BUT it is one step towards ending the callous treatment of abandoned animals past their usefulness.

 

re your second point, maybe you are right. it is not conscious, i can assure you. maybe i have a trigger happy, untrained manner of arguing. i will work on fixing it because it is only detrimental to my agenda if i end up turning people against me rather than making them see my point of view as valid.

 

1) From what (little) I know, you are mistaken about your factual premise.

 

2) I see your point in that narrow situation.

 

elaborate re point #1? how am i mistaken about my 'factual premise'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to save getting the Admins out of bed, there is no way a discussion of abortion is going to get by the guidelines.

 

Might I also point out that "eugenics" is being misused in this discussion. The term does not refer to animal breeding of any kind whatsoever. It relates specifically to the breeding of humans for certain traits. Since it's both irrelevant, and somewhat inflamatory, why not just talk about horses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't think that a race horse that can run a mile in 1 minute and 33 seconds is more athletic than a race horse that runs a mile in 2 minutes?

 

And who told the boxer to go run to get in shape? And hit the heavy bag, etc? Just because a human may not be accompanied during the actual training doesn't mean he hasn't been instructed. Even Tiger Woods has a fitness trainer and a swing coach.

 

Is Tiger Woods a better athlete than Phil Mickelson?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very hard to put a negative spin on Faustian's love for animals, as it is very admirable. But I generally find that people who have such deep feeling, to the point of equating their importance to people, don't work with domesticated animals as do farmers, ranchers, breeders, etc. These people tend to be much less sentimental about the life and death of animals. Not to say they are heartless or uncaring about the animals in their charge. They just understand that animals serve a purpose, and most domesticated animals serve a human purpose.

 

For instance, on ranches and farms, dogs are not just pets to loll around; they are working animals with a specific job. They work and earn their keep, as do horses, cats, dairy cows and humans.

 

Racehorses are bred to race. They wouldn't exist without the intervention of human owners. They are fed and sheltered by humans, all expenses are paid by their owners and the owners do this because the horses can hopefully earn their keep in some way. These are not horses that can live in the wild or fend for themselves without human help. It's sad sometimes to see tragic stories of horses that are hurt beyond repair. Or horses that are turned out after they are too old. But the alternative is that they never would have lived at all.

 

I am one of those people who don't feel that bad about Barbaro's death. I feel a little bad that he was forced to linger in pain after what was a fatal injury. He should have been put down long ago. Frankly, I feel worse for some of the poor Central Park carriage horses who never get to run free and have to breathe the fumes of the City. But I'm also realistic about their purpose. We all have to work for a living.

 

Edit: It's hard to keep up with the fast pace of these threads. By the time I've formulated any sort of response, you guys are 4 pages past me! Let me tread back to see if I've repeated anyone or my arguments squashed before I've posted them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are missing my point, which is that there is nothing absurd in the idea of an athlete training him or herself, whereas to speak of an animal training itself would be purely metaphorical.

 

No, I don't think faster horses are more athletic than slower horses, just as I don't think tortoises are less athletic than hamsters. I think that it is a mistake to speak in those terms.

 

I know nothing of golf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, we're missing points. My and Wilfrid's hesitation is applying the word "athlete" to a horse. The one that runs faster is faster. The use of the word athlete for a horse is questionable (to us).

 

The discussion about whether golfers, race car drivers, chess players, etc., are athletes is long and unnecessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Stone a little bit. A category mistake, although as ever it's hard to pin down exactly what's wrong with it...

 

But it does seem to me that describing a horse as "athletic" is queer* in the same way that describing a cat as "acrobatic" or hamster as "flexible" or a gorilla as "buff" or a tortoise as "unathletic" would be queer.

 

I think words like "athletic", "acrobatic" and so on are really for talking about humans doing something a bit above and beyond what humans are normally expected to do. In other words, maybe I can run for a bus, but that doesn't count as athletic. I'd be athletic if I could run a mile in four minutes.

 

When you take those good old words and start applying them to animals doing just what those animals normally, for the most part, in good health, do, then I think you're dreaming up a new usage for the words. And arguments built on ad hoc neologisms are on shaky foundations.

 

Also, note, animals don't train to do any of these things. Dogs don't train to walk to heel. They are trained by people. Big difference.

 

 

 

*Oxford ordinary language usage, no sniggering.

Veterinarians DO discuss Equine Athletes PERFORMANCE AND SOUNDNESS OF THE EQUINE ATHLETE and their athletic traits. It seems a perfectly normal usage of the word athlete and athletics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...