Hey Irish Boy, I know nothing about horse racing so here's my question. I saw that horse turning its head down the stretch. Is that horse breaking its legs the jockey's fault? Seems like to break 2 legs it would be the jockey pushing it too hard and not "feeling" the horse saying there is a problem. Thoughts?

_________________
You know me like that.

I haven't ridden a horse nearly enough to be able to answer that question with any degree of authority, but judging by the comments of the Churchill vet, this seems like a very, very flukish thing. The jockey also indicated that everything seemed fine until they entered into the turn after the race, and then after he heard the break he couldn't pull her up to keep from any additional damage from being done.

I've seen the video a few times, and I don't think she was being urged particularly aggresively once the result was known with about half a furlong to go. Before that she was being driven with the same urgency that you would expect at that juncture.

The one question I'll have going forward, and I don't think this can be answered definitely one way or another; the track received a whole lot of moisture last night. They did a hell of a job getting it dry, but I wonder whether all the work hardened the track a little too much. I know the times early on today were abnormally fast, but they seemed to regularize later (the Derby was run at about an average final time, and if BB wasn't there it would have been dreadfully slow.) Was the track harder than normal? I have no idea. And she might have just taken a weird step; maybe she could have been walking on a marshmellow and it wouldn't have mattered.

One thing I do know is that the "dirt vs. synthetic" debate is going to reignite.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

All I know is I watch about 2 or 3 races a year but I thought the way that horse turned its head coming out of the last turn looked weird. But, again, I don't watch alot and maybe that's normal.

But, a horse breaking 1 leg seems like a fluke. But, breaking 2 legs seems like an error.

_________________
You know me like that.

I think it was one leg originally, and then the second leg occurred because she was still galloping and probably tried to awkwardly compensate to the other leg.

Watching the video, and not being sure about this, I think this happened at the spot you saw: she was viering to the inside on the turn, but she had a quickly tiring horse on her inside. The jockey needed to quickly lead her to the outside a bit before she bumped him. That's the look back you saw as she was being steered. As soon as they were passed the 19 horse he let her vier back to the inside, and she kept up with BB for the last furlong and continued a good while after the finish line. What you saw isn't too unusual, although it is more surprising considering she's a high-class horse with some experience not wearing blinkers. Still, she was only a three year old.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

These horses are born to run. That's what they are. If they break their legs they get shot.

Think about it, before man controlled the earth there were wild horses. They probably broke their legs then. Only, they suffered before they died or were eaten by predators.

It's sad. But there is nothing evil about this occurring.

I don't think the trainer would put the horse out there if there was a problem with the horse. Is that what your theory is Doc? I mean, there is nothing to gain from them doing that. Look, they have a dead horse now. Can't make any more money off the horse now.

No. My theory was that the jockey (who is a hired contractor) in a fever to win the Kentucky Derby pushed the horse beyond its limits. But, I don't know much about it and Irish Boy's opinion holds more weight than mine.

_________________
You know me like that.

Oh. I don't know. Maybe that could have happened. I'll defer to Irish Boy I guess. I also thought you were frowning on the whole notion of horse racing and why we have it as a sport as well.

I'll wait for HV to check in before making a final judgment. Definitely a damper on the day though. Losing money is one thing; losing a horse is much worse.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

I used to know an old horse guy. He said to me that while these horses are born to run they are physically abnormal for running.

That great massive body on those spinally little legs. He's says it's a shock to him that horses don't break their legs more often than they do.

Not at all actually. My brother is a race horse owner.

_________________
You know me like that.

Oh. I guess I misread your initial thoughts about "rich guys doing this cruel thing for their amusement." Sorry. That wasn't your point obviously.

I also came to the conclusion that you are a communist from reading this. Am I off base with that one too?

I think the rich guy thought was Ryan's. I'm all for rich guys. I'm from Kenilworth.

_________________
You know me like that.

Oh yeah. It was Ryan. I'm an idiot.

Im pretty sure you can replace Ryan's "rich snobs" with "people" and it wouldn't be any less true. I share your concern Ryan.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Horses break their legs. It's just an unfortunate physiological fact. They evolved towards having long, spindly legs so that they could be big and fast. Horses have been used for eons in armies, for sport, for hunting, all manner of things. Besides, they do everything they can to make the races as safe as possible; just from a money perspective, racehorses are an investment.

Football players have short life expectancies. So do boxers. Every time you watch an NFL game you are watching grown men shorten their lives for your entertainment. It's tough to remain a sports fan if you don't reconcile that brutal reality.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Football players and Boxers are making a concious decision and being compensated very well for those risks. I wonder if the horse is making the same willing decision to be a racehorse.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Football players and boxers are mostly dumber than rocks. Maybe they don't understand the true dangers either. Every time you watch an NFL you are watching stupid men shorten their lives for your entertainment.

Horses run. That's just what they do. If you leave wild horses in a field they will often race each other. Unfortunately, they also break their legs. They would break their legs if they were in the wild, just as they do now. For their efforts, thoroughbreds get treated extremely well, especially when compared to horses in the wild. They get immediate medical attention. Their health is monitored 24-7.

The argument against racing horses is a far harder one to make than the one against vegetarianism. With today's technology and food logistics, a healthy person can easily avoid eating meat. Those animals really have no choice in the matter; horses may compete in the wild, but no group of cows has ever competed to see which is tastiest.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Im hoping you didnt just compare the intelligence of a football player or boxer to a horse. Thats pretty denigrating and definitely relying on stereotypes and broad brushes.

As for the vegeterian argument, I dont think they are the same. Its one thing to kill an animal for food, which Ryan says, but quite another to do it for one's entertainment.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Of course it's relying upon stereotypes. Any time we say X about group Y it has to be based off some stereotype. Stereotypes are just generalizations, and not all of them are false. But OK, I'll be more specific: some football players are dumber than rocks. Should those particular football players be kept from playing because they can't understand the dangers? At what point do we say someone is too stupid to decide?

As for vegetarianism vs. horse racing, there are a whole slew of differences, but most of them favor horse racing. Most animals raised for slaughter are kept in horrible conditions throughout their life. Racehorses aren't. Food animals are bred for the sole purpose of being killed, often early in life; racehorses very rarely die as a result of what they are bred to do. Sure, eating is essential while entertainment is not, but eating meat is no more mandatory for keeping a healthy diet than horseracing is mandatory for entertainment. Is a horse's life worth more than a pig's life or a cow's life? I can't think of a single comparison that favors animals for slaughter. I know I'd rather be a racehorse than a steer.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

We dont, and I still am failing to understand your point. Humans are humans, horses are horses, and there really is no correlation in intelligence between them, even the really dumb humans. In general, I dont think football players fail to realize the risks, I think they just see it as a worthwhile risk since it is a surefire way to make millions. I can understand why you would want to compare them to racehorses, but no matter how hard you try to come up with justifications, the fact is humans are capable of making decisions for themselves. I dont know much about horses, but I dont think they are capable of doing that, and even if they are, they cant, because they are owned by a human that dictates what they will do and be used for.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I would rather spend a day with a horse over Brian Urlacher. The horse is much smarter than #54.

I should add into this that it probably sounds like I am coming off as someone who is really against horseracing. Im not against it at all. My original point was that whether the sport is for rich snobs or common folks, it doesnt change the moral question one bit. I just said Im concerned, like Ryan, about this happening again yesterday. Its pretty sad.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

If man never captured wild horses then horses would be extinct by now.

Similarly, I am not a vegetarian.

You reject the intelligence standard, saying that even if there are some humans that are too stupid to understand the risks, they are still human and allowed free choice. That's a fair point, and I agree with it.

You've rejected the intelligence standard and chosen the choice standard instead. That's not an appropriate standard when applied to animals. We restrict the free choice of animals in millions of ways, a lot that are much worse than racing. Animals for slaughter don't get to choose that fate. Pets don't choose their families. Work animals don't choose to be work animals, deer don't choose to be hunted, and racehorses don't choose that life. If one were to take an absolutist stance- that all animals have some right to choose the life they decide to lead- there are going to be a whole bunch of things we have to throw out besides horseracing in order to be consistent. Indeed, it's a little bit silly to even think about the fre choice of animals. And I, for one, am not giving up my burgers.

Is horseracing potentially dangerous? Yes, it is. But it's a lot less dangerous than being a foodproduct animal, or a deer in October.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

I agree with you on the silliness of free choice for animals, and the potential Pandora's box it would open up in relation to all other things in our society. I too, am not willing to give up my burgers. I didnt choose the choice standard solely, I only brought it up in your analogy of football players and racehorses. Of course racehorses dont have free choice, and I agree they shouldnt, and probably couldnt. But athletes do and thats the difference in feeling sympathetic for one or the other.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I think man should capture Brian Urlacher and race him against animals for our entertainment.

When he's not racing we should lock him in a zoo so kids can feed him.

The race:
After watching the replay a couple of times, Big Brown did what he was supposed to do and Kent D. rose a masterful race and the best horse won. The connections made a very smart choice putting him on the outside. My pick, along with Pyro, was caught in the sea of horses at the start, made one big move but hung and finished up the track. Even with a good start, he wouldn't have been able to compete with Big Brown but might have been able to make a check.

As for Eight Belles, as soon as they said she was down, I knew the final chapter to that book. I actually thought it was a heart attack at the time. I've been watching horse racing for a long time and you never want to see that happen, but it does - more than you'd think. With all the advances in track surfaces, there's one thing that can't change, a horse's skeleton. When they run, there is a point in time where a single leg takes the force of their 2000 lbs on to it. One wrong step/move and the unthinkable happens. This isn't about whether the horse chooses to run. The horse is an animal and animals naturally run. Sure you can debate whether they were meant to run out of gates and be bet on, but animals run. That's what they do. They compete against each other within their groups. They want to be the best.

My rant is done. Looking ahead to the Preakness, Big Brown's bounce back will be a question mark but with the shorter race and tight turns, it's had to fathom anyone being able to run with him in two weeks if he runs this race right back.

I keep hearing Big Brown is a lock for triple crown if he stays healthy, but isnt there a reason noone has won the triple crown in like thirty years? Seems like every Derby winner is predicted to win the triple crown.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

There are no other competitive horses this year. Plus, Big Brown won going away after a tough trip. He didn't luck into the win.

There've been a lot of close calls. If War Emblem breaks better in the 2002 Belmont, he would have done it. Charismatic probably should have in 1979. There've been a few others. Some of it is luck, and a few horses will skip the Preakness and just gun for the Belmont and look to unseat him. I just don't know what else those horses can hope for, unless he breaks bad from the gate or something.

Speaking of the Preakness: I hate it. It's the crappiest of the three races, and there's a whole bunch of other races on the calender that I consider much more important/interesting. If I had my druthers, I'd say the triple crown should go 1.) Kentucky Derby, 2.) Belmont, 3.) Travers Stakes. It would extend the schedule, the horses could go in fresh for each one, and they could avoid the crappy Pimlico racetrack.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Big Brown is the best of a mediocre lot of 3 year olds. He has the most natural ability I've seen in a 3 year old since Fusaichi Pegasus or Point Given.