Why Won't You Say Nup to The Cup?

fantombloo on 31/10/2019 - 14:14
Last edited 31/10/2019 - 14:15

There's been plenty of mainstream coverage recently about the ugly stuff that goes on in horse racing and associated industries. This is as good as any place to look into it. There have for a long time been more comprehensive treatments like this but until it hits the telly no-one wants to believe it. (Both those links are from organisations that aren't driven by animal rights at all).

Imagine: Millionaires buy a horse, get trophies for their performance, then when the horse can't live up to their ever exceeding expectations they are popped off for a bullet, or whatever undignified death is cheapest. Break a leg? Get a bullet. Lose a few races race? Get a bullet. Millionaires - like our fave Gerry Harvey - that could easily sustain hundreds of horses if they saw them as anything but commodities and investments.

And that's aside from the fact that these horses are being bred purely to satisfy our whims for entertainment and are pushed hard their whole lives.

There are so many better things to get dressed up and pissed for on a Tuesday. Why would you partake in anything this vile industry offers?

Entertainment Melbourne Cup

Comments

    • crentist on 01/11/2019 - 15:10
      +1

      You're right, they can all be vile in their own way. Bit pointless to mention ALL the ills of the world at once though.

  • Seraphin7 on 31/10/2019 - 15:06
    +1

    Please. The cherry picked examples you've tossed up (and those contained in the links) are exactly that. The vast majority of racehorses are treated extraordinarily well, just like any other horse used either in a work or pleasure setting. You could argue that racehorses are possible treated, on average, better than many other horse cohorts out there.

    The racing industry brings an enormous level of economic activity to our nation, including to regional areas that often otherwise struggle to attract such activity. Of course some horses suffer injuries as a part of racing, much in the same way as horses used for police work, farm work, pleasure activities, etc. Some of these injuries unfortunately result in the horse being euthanised. Unfortunately this is a by-product of having domesticated animals and is ultimately no different to equivalent outcomes for household pets.

    Yes, unfortunately there are isolated incidents of maltreatment. The point is these are isolated and in no way reflect on the general and typical standard in the industry.

    • kahn on 31/10/2019 - 15:18
      +14

      Won't someone please think of the hat industry?

      • Daabido on 31/10/2019 - 15:20

        Isn't that rabbit pelts?

    • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 12:33
      +15

      Wrong.

      Vast majority of racehorses are just looked after poorly and killed off because they are not fast enough. The horses you see being treated well are the tip of the iceberg and cream of the crop.

    • Diji on 01/11/2019 - 14:36
      +5

      Yeah, nah, this is a load of shit that reeks of astroturfing.

    • Scantu on 01/11/2019 - 16:35

      lump more sand around that head my friend

    • vindictus on 03/11/2019 - 06:10
      +1

      There are not enough resources to treat thousands of horses a year "like kings". You are incredibly naive of the facts of the industry.

  • Cluster on 31/10/2019 - 15:19
    +3

    No one gives a thought to the thousands of horses bred for racing that are simply not fast enough. They'll end up as dog and cat food.

    • Diji1 on 31/10/2019 - 18:19
      +3

      It seems likely that horse have no idea what's coming if they are euthanised away from slaughterhouses and death is painless. I'm not sure what the problem is.

      In the wild animals typically take minutes or hours or days to die. For example, if they break a limb they starve to death ( … or pass away due to dehydration which usually comes first).

      If a predator gets them - well hopefully it'll be over quickly. Many large predators such as bears just paralyse their prey by breaking the spinal cord and then start eating at the back. Mercy killing is just a waste of calories and the meat stays fresh longer if the animal is alive after the first helping.

      • fantombloo on 31/10/2019 - 21:27
        +1

        Cool logic. Kill people in comas, under general anaesthetic, while they're sleeping, or even with a quick stab in the back - because they have no idea what's coming.

        More cool logic - animals prefer being castrated, dehorned, broken, raced, confined their whole life, etc. than maybe being killed in the wild, maybe, by a lion, maybe. "Live free or die!" - apparently not.

        • HighAndDry on 01/11/2019 - 09:36
          +6

          You seem to have a problem understanding that animals aren't people.

          • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 12:20
            -2

            @HighAndDry: Can tell you've zero science background.

            Animals are people…Humans are in the animal kingdom phylum classification.

            • HighAndDry on 01/11/2019 - 12:25
              +6

              @[Deactivated]: Lol.

              Humans are animals != Animals are human.

              Can tell you've no logic background?

              • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 12:27
                -1

                @HighAndDry: errrr maybe double check your logic first.

                Humans are animals = Animals are human

                But not all animals are human.

                • HighAndDry on 01/11/2019 - 12:28

                  @[Deactivated]:

                  But not all animals are human.

                  Uh-huh. So human animals are human? Thanks for the tip. Would never have guessed.

                  • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 12:35

                    @HighAndDry: Going by your comments, thought it's probably best to ELI5 to you. Now you can tell your mummy what you learnt today :)

                    • Seraphin7 on 01/11/2019 - 12:43
                      +2

                      @[Deactivated]: And there is the siren call of the "progressive" … just resort to ad hominem attacks when your argument starts falling apart.

            • trapper on 01/11/2019 - 12:55
              +2

              @[Deactivated]:

              Animals are people

              Rat is an animal. Rat is a person?

              • fantombloo on 01/11/2019 - 14:26

                @trapper: Personhood is a legal and/or moral prescription. Animal is a well defined scientific classification.

                Most pets are granted personhood - we call our pets "he" and "she" and "they", not "it."

                Most other animals are not granted personhood since that makes it easier to treat them as inanimate objects without their own interests, or even as chattel. Killing it is much easier than killing her.

                The fundamental idea of animal rights is ascribing personhood to all sentient beings. That doesn't mean they are human, nor need the right to drive cars, or anything other than that their own interests belong to themselves and are not violated for unnecessary reasons.

                Yes, a rat is a person. Maybe not to you, but to their mother, to their offspring, and to themselves, they are a person. They are a person to me too - I'm not interested in drinking with them but TBH I'm not interested in drinking with you either, and that does not make you any less of a person. If they violate my own interests, like come into my house, I'll deal with them commensurately just as I would deal with you commensurately if you came into my house.

                • trapper on 01/11/2019 - 14:37
                  +5

                  @fantombloo: We call our pets he or she because they are male or female, not because they are people.

                  Yes, a rat is a person.

                  Well… I guess this explains a few things… :/

                • p1 ama on 02/11/2019 - 00:23
                  +4

                  @fantombloo:

                  Personhood is a legal and/or moral prescription.

                  Yes, but animals are not people - legally nor morally. This works both ways - animals cannot give consent and are not given the same rights as humans, but they are not given the same responsibilities either. For instance, if an animal "steals" from you, they do not face trial. They do not face the same moral standard as humans do.

                  Most pets are granted personhood - we call our pets "he" and "she" and "they", not "it."

                  The very idea that they are pets means that they are not people. Would you keep a person as a pet?

                  The fundamental idea of animal rights is ascribing personhood to all sentient beings. That doesn't mean they are human, nor need the right to drive cars, or anything other than that their own interests belong to themselves and are not violated for unnecessary reasons.

                  This is not true. Animals fundamentally do not have rights because they cannot uphold the responsibilities that come with those rights.

                  Your rights are not free, they come with responsibilities you have to uphold as part of the social contract for getting those rights. You have a right to not be killed, that comes with the responsibility of not killing others. Animals do not have this kind of social construct and therefore, cannot fit in with our system of rights and responsibilities.

                  That said, should we have laws to protect animals? Of course. I'm not saying that we should be cruel or that we can do whatever we want to animals. Not at all. However, the truth is that animals can be owned by humans, they can be bought and sold, they are not "people" in the definition of the word, they do not fit into our system of rights and responsibilities. Therefore, we cannot treat them the same way that we treat other humans.

                  • fantombloo on 02/11/2019 - 00:44

                    @p1 ama: People =/= persons.

                    Some individuals - babies, children, the neurologically atypical, those with damaged bodies, many in poverty - cannot live up to these "responsibilities" you demand yet are still afforded rights. Sometimes these vulnerable individuals are in fact afforded even more specialised rights. So are many pets in individual circumstances afforded rights. Being a recipient, or patient, of moral and/or legal rights is fully a human construct.

                    At various times in history much of society has denied rights to people of color, women, homosexuals, Jews, non-Partisans, etc. This is all arbitrary. Again, rights are a human construct. We are free to make them what we want.

                    If rights are there to protect interests then it only makes sense that they are applied to those who have interests - ie, sentient beings. The only non-discriminatory qualifier that then remains is that of sentience itself. The most fundamental rights we all want is to live free from the unprovoked harm of others, to own our own bodies and experiences, and to not be someone else's property. Who are you to declare that other animals don't want that or deserve that any more than you do?

                    Therefore, we cannot treat them the same way that we treat other humans.

                    Who's asking for that? Just treat them as sentient individuals, not as mere resources. You don't need to exploit or kill them to survive, thrive even, so why would you?

                    I'm not saying that we should be cruel or that we can do whatever we want to animals

                    That's exactly what you're saying, except you want to be the arbiter of what's allowed and what's defined as cruel. If killing an animal unnecessarily is not cruel, then what possibly is? How would you like others to make the same decisions on behalf of your own life?

                    • p1 ama on 02/11/2019 - 01:53
                      +2

                      @fantombloo:

                      Some individuals - babies, children, the neurologically atypical, those with damaged bodies, many in poverty - cannot live up to these "responsibilities" you demand yet are still afforded rights.

                      Yes, but in those cases, their rights are curtailed to reflect the fact that they do not have the same responsibilities.

                      For example, parents are responsible for their children and when children commit a crime, they do not face the same level of responsibility that adults do.

                      At various times in history much of society has denied rights to people of color, women, homosexuals, Jews, non-Partisans, etc. This is all arbitrary. Again, rights are a human construct. We are free to make them what we want.

                      Yes, and that is the entire point of what I'm trying to say. Animals and humans are not the same because they fundamentally do not have the same rights. Would you consider owning a pet slavery? If not, then what's the difference between owning a pet and owning a slave back in the 1800s?

                      The only logical conclusion is that a pet is not human, and therefore, does not have the same rights as humans do.

                      The most fundamental rights we all want is to live free from the unprovoked harm of others, to own our own bodies and experiences, and to not be someone else's property. Who are you to declare that other animals don't want that or deserve that any more than you do?

                      The fact that animals do not understand this idea.

                      For example, if we were face to face, why wouldn't you hurt me or why wouldn't I hurt you? Because we both understand that we should not harm each other. We have the right to not be harmed and we have the responsibility to not harm others. My right to not be harmed is complemented by your responsibility to not harm me and vice versa.

                      Animals do not have the same level of understanding. If you put a lion in a cage with a dog, do you think that they both understand that they have the responsibility to not attack each other? Animals do not have the same moral framework as humans do. That's why animals cannot be tried in court for committing crimes.

                      Who's asking for that? Just treat them as sentient individuals, not as mere resources. You don't need to exploit or kill them to survive, thrive even, so why would you?

                      I agree. But you're the one saying that animals are people or persons or whatever…etc.

                      That's exactly what you're saying, except you want to be the arbiter of what's allowed and what's defined as cruel. If killing an animal unnecessarily is not cruel, then what possibly is? How would you like others to make the same decisions on behalf of your own life?

                      I actually agree with you here.

                      Where we disagree is not in how we should treat animals, but rather, simply the philosophical discussion of whether animals are "persons" by whatever arbitrary definition you choose for the word.

                • fourofjacks on 02/11/2019 - 00:38

                  @fantombloo: If a rat is person and a cat is a person.
                  Is the cat a cannibal if he eats the rat?

                • Eeples on 02/11/2019 - 19:32

                  @fantombloo: A company in a person.

            • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 14:13

              @[Deactivated]: I hope you haven't been diddling the… "people".

      • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 12:23
        +2

        It's just unnecessary, you can't control what happens in the wild but it's different in society.

        I really don't see the need to breed animals for the sole purpose of whipping them into exhaustion and heart attacks. Seriously it's the 21st century, there's plenty of enjoyable things to do instead of having to resort the barbaric and archaic leisure activities. Those horses are basically slaves, like the gladiators of rome back in the days.

        • trapper on 01/11/2019 - 12:57

          for the sole purpose of whipping them into exhaustion and heart attacks.

          That's not the sole purpose, there is also cat food production. :)

      • Diji on 01/11/2019 - 14:41
        +1

        It seems likely that horse have no idea what's coming if they are euthanised away from slaughterhouses and death is painless. I'm not sure what the problem is.

        What are you even saying? It's ok to kill something if it's painless? Euthanasia for humane purposes is totally different to breeding something for profit and entertainment and killing it off when it under performs.

  • jelko on 31/10/2019 - 15:19
    +5

    I don't have a problem with horses being killed after their usefulness has ended. As long as it's done humanely of course. If an animal suffers during their life then that's uncalled for as well.

    • unelectric on 01/11/2019 - 10:23
      +2

      Humane slaughter… that's an oxymoron if ever I heard one. Also, does life really have to be measured in utility?

    • dengziyi on 03/11/2019 - 11:38

      If only we could do that with humans as well… Killing them when they are no longer useful…

      Euthanasia of a suffering animal is very different to killing it based on what you value as useful

      • 2ndeffort on 04/11/2019 - 00:17

        We kind of do that already just perhaps more subtly. Those with more money tend to have access to better medical treatment, better living conditions etc. Getting money in the first place is OFTEN (not always) a reflection of your utility to someone or something, an employer, a partner etc etc. Outlive your utility and the money dries up or at least is significantly curtailed leading potentially to lower income and resulting poorer health outcomes.

  • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 15:21
    +7

    Break a leg? Get a bullet.

    This kinda betrays your ignorance on the subject. Horses can't breathe unless they're standing. Standing means their leg will never heal.

    For a horse with a broken leg, the only alternative to a bullet is a slow death by suffocation.

    • raptormesh on 31/10/2019 - 18:01
      +1

      Then I guess they can hold their breath for hours on end? https://www.petmd.com/blogs/thedailyvet/aobriendvm/2014/nove…

      • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 18:37
        +2

        Sigh.

        It turns out that horses do not require a lot of REM sleep — roughly two to three hours a night, typically in short bursts of ten to twenty minutes at a time. A typical night as a horse will involve grazing, snoozing standing up, and short periods of lying flat out to get some serious shut eye.

        Let me know when a broken leg heals in twenty minutes.

        https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-a-horse-heal-a-broken-leg

        • raptormesh on 31/10/2019 - 20:00
          +1

          From your link "They can’t lie down for more than a few hours at a time". I am not disagreeing with the rest of your comment btw, just that horses can't breathe unless they are standing.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 12:37
      +6

      Just stop racing horses to exhaustion and maybe you'll get less horses with broken legs being shot to death.

      Have a think about it. It may actually work.

    • Diji on 01/11/2019 - 14:42
      +5

      So let's stop breeding the animals for the sole purpose of participating in activities which wind up with them breaking their legs, perhaps?

    • dengziyi on 03/11/2019 - 11:39
      +3

      I don't think OP is arguing not to kill the horse if their leg is broken. They are arguing that people shouldn't have to shoot a horse because it broke its leg for drunken human entertainment.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 15:25
    +2

    Well, let's face it, thevofa wouldn't be satisfied at that and would just move on with their next entitled demand.

    • Cluster on 31/10/2019 - 15:27
      +14

      'Entitlement' and its closely related cousin 'privilege' are two of the most overused trigger words in modern discussion about a topic. Don't like what your opponent has said? Just say they're entitled and privileged. Done.

      • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 15:30

        Entitled is an adjective, entitlement is a noun. I sidestepped that deftly.

        Ooh it's council rates and land tax time today. :( I wonder how many people who tell me what to do will be contributing?

        • dengziyi on 03/11/2019 - 11:41
          +4

          You know what's entitled? Gambling on a animal's life and not caring where or how it came about.

          • [Deactivated] on 03/11/2019 - 14:45

            @dengziyi: Do you use public roads, originally cleared by workhorses or live on land cleared with animal labour and where are those records kept?

        • crentist on 03/11/2019 - 23:30
          +1

          Damn dude did you choose to have money instead of a conscience?

          Because it’s not actually a choice. I don’t know why you would think they are mutually exclusive. You can have both.

          • [Deactivated] on 04/11/2019 - 09:36
            -3

            @crentist: A conscience is just unsophisticated slave morality and a particularly weak basis for your subjective superiority complex. What have you done for animal welfare in the last year or do you just self appraise your off the scale EQ and slactivise online?

            • crentist on 04/11/2019 - 16:58
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: I dunno, nothing? Eating less meat? Does that meet your standards? It doesn't really matter because dedication to a cause isn't actually a requirement for having an opinion in support of it, and gatekeeping is unrelated to the validity of an argument.

              You seem to just want to dismiss thevofas argument by saying their expectations are too high (entitled demand) while also criticising their dedication with your own ridiculous standards (use of public roads, with records) and bringing up completely unrelated matters to deflect and search for any personal marks against their saintliness (abortion), which again is another ridiculous standard you've created to dismiss them, and ignore what they are saying.

              Which comes off as simply wanting to crap on a thread about a social issue for no particular reason, because you haven't refuted the argument at all or said what you don't like about it, just criticised the OP personally with a bunch of assumptions and false standards. I'm not sure if you are doing it for fun, or because you just don't like thinking someone is telling you what to do, but either way seems bratty and entitled.

              But maybe I'm wrong about your dedication to fighting against social activism. What have you done in the past year to shut down public protests and promote the horse racing industry, or do you just self appraise your amazing lack of hypocrisy and conscience and pick online fights with anyone who brings up anything that seems a bit "lefty"

              • [Deactivated] on 04/11/2019 - 18:54
                -1

                @crentist: You might be fighting. I'm not, as I will be doing whatever I please, exercising diversity, inclusiveness and curiosity to the max. :) As some feedback, I think the far leftists should consider answering questions less defensively to better impose their beliefs on moderates just that little bit better.

                • crentist on 04/11/2019 - 19:27
                  +2

                  @[Deactivated]: Diversity, inclusiveness and curiosity are great, but I can't imagine they're your strengths at the moment. It can't be easy to consider new ideas if you reflexively criticise their delivery. It's a good point to make, but not the way you made it, which was critical of the person, not their point or their delivery, and defensive about them telling you what to do.

                  Inclusive, curious, and providing feedback would be "I understand what you are trying to say, this is why I disagree, but others may not listen at all because of these problems with your delivery…".
                  And not "I think you are entitled and unemployed and I don't want you to tell me what to do. And btw, it's because I don't like your delivery".

    • fantombloo on 31/10/2019 - 15:50
      +4

      You got that right. Until every cage is empty.

      • payton on 31/10/2019 - 17:21
        +2

        Better buy that eternal youth potion, it'll take awhile

      • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 13:10
        +1

        What's your view on abortion?

        [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 13:10 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
        • fantombloo on 01/11/2019 - 14:34
          +2

          Start another thread on it so as not to hijack this one and I'll gladly chime in.

          • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 14:40
            +1

            @fantombloo: You gladly chime in on most things. I wonder why you are deflecting on this one? I'll mark today on my calendar as the day I made thevofa speechless. A vegan not wanting to hijack a thread!

  • DarthAntz on 31/10/2019 - 15:26
    +3

    At least make it more sustainable and let the public know the disposed horse-racing horses become 'premium' dog food and glue that keeps the upholstery fixed to the roof of your car.

    I'm more against it because gambling brings out the worst in people. It should not be accepted and ingrained into any culture, or associated with being a 'cultural event'. Every bet is a bet against yourself and a poor financial decision. And you're paying for/contributing towards those hideous commercials.

    There are so many better things to get dressed up and pissed for on a Tuesday.

    A lot of people can do with getting dressed up more (and feeling/getting used to being presentable) and a lot less getting pissed on a Tuesday (dealing with pre-midweek blues).

    • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 15:30
      +2

      I'm more against it because gambling brings out the worst in people.

      Blame the people? Everything "brings out the worst" in people. Relationships, loud children, money problems, video games, internet, etc.

      At some point we'll realise people are the actual problem.

      • DarthAntz on 31/10/2019 - 16:49
        +1

        you are right, but specific to this event, its the gambling aspect that makes me nup the cup. Not going to nup the internet anytime soon ;)

    • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 15:48
      +2

      Every bet is a bet against yourself and a poor financial decision.

      So you think removing the ability to make the decision is better?

      Hmmmm…

      • Seraphin7 on 01/11/2019 - 14:03
        +2

        Comrade, you know people cannot be trusted to make wise decisions with their money. Better they give it all over to a controlling elite who are far better placed to spend their money for them.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 14:05
          +1

          Ah so wise yet so true.

          There is no afterlife so it falls upon us to make it heaven on earth.

  • SimbaGirl on 31/10/2019 - 15:34
    +7

    Lose a few races race? Get a bullet.

    A bit of a simplistic view and is often is not the way many of these horses end up at the abattoirs. Don't get me wrong, I have loved horses ever since I was old enough to remember, and the ABC's investigation was horrific to watch, but the old "right, this one's no good, take it out the back and shoot it" isn't quite the usual scenario. Many are passed on through different and often totally unsuitable homes before ending up at their final - and fatal - destination. Laura Cheshire, the female jockey who was the main rider for War End (one of the horses featured in the ABC story) gave a realistic view of the journey many of these horses go through:

    "The racing industry is failing racehorses. I have failed a racehorse. My heart is so broken. War Ends I tried to do the best thing for you after you were passed on and on and on," she said. 'Too many horses, not enough homes'

    Cheshire said War Ends started at a show home, then went to a horse dealer before ending up with an owner who sells horses for beginner riders before being purchased as a horse for a child. She said he was later passed on to two other owners and she had contacted his last known owner to offer to rehome him if there were any problems. Cheshire said he was not an appropriate horse for beginner riders, and said it is a common issue, that racehorses are sold to inexperienced riders.

    "The problem is there are too many horses and not enough homes," she said. "A lot of thoroughbreds they are bred to be athletes, they are highly strung horses, they need riders that can work them out and work with them." She said too many riders overestimate their ability. There are so many horses that need homes after racing that the homes that are available to those horses, are simply not good enough riders," she said.

    "They take these horses on … and all of a sudden 'this horse is too much for me, but I got it for free' or 'I got it for $500' so it is an expendable product so 'I'll just send this one to the doggers and I'll look for the next free one'," she said.

    I have seen this so many times over the years, with teenage girls and young women especially (and no, I'm not being sexist, I'm female!) who are starry-eyed at the thought of having a horse, end with a Thoroughbred that is way too much for them, suddenly the horse disappears one day, then "Look, I've got a new horse" and the whole cycle begins again. Hell, I went through it myself, having grown up in suburbia watching "My Friend Flicka" and reading endless pony and horse stories, but little riding experience, and ended up with a horse that should NEVER have been sold to a beginner. . I was very lucky not to have been seriously injured or killed. I was however fortunate enough to be able to sell him to a much more experienced rider and all ended well. There are many former racehorses who do end up in very happy homes, and often go on to compete in dressage, showjumping, eventing and the like and are very successful, or at riding schools where they are well cared for, and many do enjoy a peaceful retirement. But as Laura Cheshire said, it comes down to too many horses, too few suitable homes so the racing industry seriously needs to look at the overbreeding that the major cause of this issue.

    • MessyG on 02/11/2019 - 11:25
      +1

      Why blame the 'starry eyed female' - ie the person with zero experience over the one with the knowledge and the experience selling it to them? I don't think you can tell someone their view is simplistic and then go and make a comment like that. Inexperienced buyers (a far more rational and objective term) are not the source of the problem.

      • SimbaGirl on 03/11/2019 - 09:35
        +1

        Where did I blame the inexperienced buyers? if you'd read my post properly, you would have seen that I was one of those "starry-eyed females" - like many little girls, I grew up constantly reading pony books, watching anything on TV with a horse in it, but with no real idea about the realities of owning a horse or that there were people out there who would lie their backsides off - even doping a horse to make it appear quiet - to sell you a horse that was "bombproof", "ideal for a beginner" whereas the truth was very different and the horse was totally unsuitable, something you don't find out until later. Unfortunately, people like myself were - and will continue to be - an ideal market for these people. You spend years dreaming of having a horse, it's the only thing you want, the only thing you've EVER wanted, and being so desperate to have one of your own that you'll pretty much believe anything you're told by an experienced person (i.e. the seller) as you think you can trust them. And that's not "blame", it's just admitting that we make ourselves vulnerable.

        As long as there are these unscrupulous dealers/sellers out there, and an oversupply of horses that they can buy for next to nothing and onsell, this will keep happening. I'm much older and wiser now and have learned from bitter and painful experience - with the injuries to prove it - that you take everything with a grain of salt when it comes to buying horses.

        • dengziyi on 03/11/2019 - 11:54
          +1

          You're saying those stary eyes people are the demand right?

          When Cheshire describes the situation, she focuses on buyers and the lack of homes, but not on the supply - the huge amount of racehorses bred. Many which will not have a home.

          What MissG is saying is that everyone is focusing on the victims (the horses and the buyers) when actually the suppliers are the ones at fault.

          First, there shouldn't be such a huge oversupply.

          Second, if you know they're inexperienced, why give them the horse? Not only is it dangerous, but there's no good outcome except for the seller - they get rid of the horse.

          The industry is messed. Non-competitive horses' fates aren't always the bullet I'm sure, but it usually isn't a happy one.

          • SimbaGirl on 03/11/2019 - 12:24
            +2

            @dengziyi: Did either of you actually read the last sentence of my original post? Where I said "But as Laura Cheshire said, it comes down to too many horses, too few suitable homes, so the racing industry seriously needs to look at the overbreeding that is the major cause of this issue "??

            Second, if you know they're inexperienced, why give them the horse?

            Why? Because they can. Because those types of sellers don't give a rat's about what happens to the horse, or the person who buys it. They buy the horse for next to nothing, can make a profit out of it, and don't have to take any responsibility whatsoever for the horse once it leaves their premises - "what, the horse isn't quiet and threw your daughter off? Must have been something she did, the horse was perfectly quiet when we had it". They just keep turning these horses over, and making good money, as there's a neverending supply.

            It's dangerous? Yep, they know that … BUT THEY DON'T CARE. Not their problem. Buyer beware … there's usually no guarantees or warranties when you buy a horse, you bought it, it's now your problem. So the poor buyer now has to try to sell the horse to someone else - and if they have any conscience, they would only sell to an experienced rider. But again, too many horses, too few suitable homes, so it's no surprise many of these horses end up at the slaughterhouse.

            "Those people" don't provide the demand, but they sure as hell are part of the market that these sellers target - some of them may be lucky enough to end up with a suitable horse, but many don't, and it causes heartbreak and tragedy all round.

            In an ideal world, the racing industry should take responsibility for overbreeding and set up a system whereby horses who don't make it on the track or are retired are then passed to responsible, reliable people who can assess the horse and it's suitability for different levels of riders, and even provide further training or retraining as needed. Somewhere buyers can go where they know they're not going to be scammed, to deal with a trustworthy person who will be honest about the horse's suitability and match them up with the right horse, and who will take the horse back if things don't work out. Will it happen? Be great if it did, but I'm not holding my breath.

  • bobbified on 31/10/2019 - 17:37
    +12

    Why Won't You Say Nup to The Cup?

    I'm not going to say no to a day off work.

  • Ozbargainite on 31/10/2019 - 17:49
    +4

    We can't ban our way to utopia.

  • chumlee on 31/10/2019 - 19:13
    +1

    Ikea need a constant fresh supply of horses for their meatballs

  • DemocracyManifest on 31/10/2019 - 21:56
    +7

    Most of its the 'glamour' - the 'high class' scene - the plebs are drinking, socialising, and betting. You won't find these people hanging around on the sides of V8 supercars or the local crab races because its below them. Its all very strange, I helped set up displays once for Swarovski for a race day, had a sticky beak around Royal Randwick at the corporate boxes, most of the people there don't give a shit about the race, they are there because its 'the thing to be at'

  • HelpMeiCantSee on 01/11/2019 - 09:16
    -1

    I hate racing and think it, like most “sport” is a waste of time, however I LOVE that girls get dressed up for it. One of the few joys in like to spectate at the races…

  • QW3RTY on 01/11/2019 - 09:37
    +1

    I agree. Existence is pain. Let's kill all horses and end their suffering once and for all.

    • greater mimic on 01/11/2019 - 09:47
      +2

      Well let's not go that far, maybe just stop breeding them for racing

  • CocaKoala on 01/11/2019 - 10:26
    +4

    I'm not going to be analysing the morality aspect of it, but I never understand this "sport", and I'm perplexed that we have a public holiday citing this (not that I'm complaining). If you go there, it's a bunch of old hags wearing frocks, gowns, and silly hats with feathers and oversized sunglasses, accompanying their men who are pointing to a horse and screeching "hee hoo, ye go boy", betting and gambling. I just don't get it, but to each his own.

    Someone else might say this about me while I'm screaming like a 7 year old during the F1 season, and I'd perfectly understand it.

  • DingoBilly on 01/11/2019 - 10:51
    +4

    From my perspective there's a lot of things we do that make very little sense. Ultimately it's just a cultural thing - if you grew up with parents or friends doing it, then you'll likely end up doing it too. It's not so much about right or wrong, it's just that you've always done it so unless you really think about it you're not going to change.

    My family or friends were never in to it so I've never attended myself. But I've met others who love making a big deal out of Australia Day and since then it's been fun to get together and spend time together. Do I really care about Australia Day or think about the moral issues around indigenous people etc.? No - I just like spending time with friends and that's what makes it special.

    I imagine Melbourne Cup Day is the same for many.

  • Brianqpr on 01/11/2019 - 11:28
    +6

    Horse racing as an industry has an unhealthy amount of scumbags involved in it. Ultimately it exists to fuel gambling, largely done by those who can't afford it, and make money. Its no better than poker machines and about as interesting.

    Anywhere there's easy money, in particular if the govt is chipping in, there will be shady operators. Banking and finance (to a lesser extent now as its being more closely watched), real estate, aged care, child care, anything to do with gambling etc, etc.

  • daleyboy79 on 01/11/2019 - 11:48

    Slow horses get sent to the knackery and are turned into dog food or whatever. As long as the meat is utilised for a purpose whats the problem? Bet you most of those horses lived happier lives than the cow in the hamburger your eating!

  • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 12:39
    +5

    It's just unnecessary, you can't control what happens in the wild but it's different in society.

    I really don't see the need to breed animals for the sole purpose of whipping them into exhaustion and heart attacks. Seriously it's the 21st century, there's plenty of enjoyable things to do instead of having to resort the barbaric and archaic leisure activities. Those horses are basically slaves, like the gladiators of Rome back in the days.

  • trapper on 01/11/2019 - 12:48

    Not into horse racing.

    But as long as animals are treated humanely what's the problem?

    • crentist on 01/11/2019 - 17:56
      +3

      Yea no that's pretty much the exact issue that was raised.

      • trapper on 01/11/2019 - 19:05

        Well then we agree then I guess?

        Yes to racing. No to mistreatment.

        • buckster on 01/11/2019 - 23:32
          +6

          The issue is that mistreatment is rife

          • trapper on 04/11/2019 - 11:57

            @buckster: Doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater though does it. Just stamp out the mistreatment.

  • ldq on 01/11/2019 - 12:56

    WWI period boasts the largest population of horses historically. They died in millions too. In other words racing is probably the last reason to breed horses, without racing they are obsolete.
    What I despise about the Cup is how it promotes and glorifies betting which does a lot of harm to people.

    • crentist on 01/11/2019 - 18:04

      That seems to support the idea that there shouldn't be horse racing. Because breeding many of them solely for one specific, highly demanding purpose means that the ones that don't cut it can't be easily flogged off somewhere else.

  • billyb67 on 01/11/2019 - 13:04
    +2

    I've always hated this stupid thing, I don't give a crap about gambling and any sports associated with them..

    365 days of the year

  • karteej on 01/11/2019 - 13:08
    +10

    I don't support the horse / dog racing industry, mainly because the primary purpose of their existence is to be a part of the betting industry. The horse / dog racing industry are like the animal act based circuses, which usually attract the knuckle dragging set.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 13:17
      -1

      Which 'set' describes people who worship at the altar of Clueless star Alicia Silverstone and spaced out flower child Daryl Hannah?

      • CocaKoala on 01/11/2019 - 13:28

        Which 'set' describes people who worship at the altar of Clueless star Alicia Silverstone and spaced out flower child Daryl Hannah?

        May be I live under a rock, but what becomes of me if I knew either of these so called stars? Just curious.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 13:47

          The intellectual superiority complex regarding value judgements and personal choices might burst.

          • CocaKoala on 01/11/2019 - 13:49

            @[Deactivated]: Sorry, I meant "if I didn't know" in the previous question (that's why I said so called stars). :-)

  • iTaco on 01/11/2019 - 13:17
    +1

    Why can't they stipulate if you have a horse that races in X,Y,Z you have to take care of it and let it live out its natural life? You don't want to follow this, then you can't race?

  • RolandWaites on 01/11/2019 - 13:41
    +10

    Horse racing is a stupid industry that only exists to profit the wealthy horse owners and play on the susceptibility of the masses to gamble.

    • gimme on 01/11/2019 - 16:32
      -1

      Agree and pretty much applies to most sports. Yet I don't have a problem with that. I try to enjoy the sport and not be an idiot and gamble.

      • RolandWaites on 01/11/2019 - 16:41
        +2

        There are levels in non-animal racing sports at which people compete and spectate for the enjoyment, and not to win prize money or a bet.

        I'm not sure that's really a thing that exists much at all in animal racing communities.

  • This Guy on 01/11/2019 - 14:35
    +3

    These horses are being bred purely to satisfy our whims for entertainment and are pushed hard their whole lives.

    Why would you partake in anything this vile industry offers?

    Break a leg? Get a bullet. Lose a few races race? Get a bullet.

    Cleaned that rant up for you ;)

    I eat meat because I enjoy the taste of meat. How can I judge people who derive enjoyment from animals in other ways?

    When I buy meat I don't want to buy Jack's tenderloin or Jill's ribs to cook. Animals are a commodity. When a commodity has not further value it is converted into something with some. When jack and Jill sit around to long they get turned into compost. Same with race horses.

    How many of our Olympians are developed into leaders in other fields after their Olympic careers? As a society we have very little value for anything without a clear purpose.

    If you are serious about change, focus on changing the behaviors and mind sets behind this week's shocking problem. If you succeed you should prevent several future controversies of the week.

    Challenging peoples beliefs directly normally only strengthens them. Compassion and strength of character often works wonders.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join