Poll

7 votes (25%)
4 votes (14.28%)
10 votes (35.71%)
10 votes (35.71%)
2 votes (7.14%)
8 votes (28.57%)
6 votes (21.42%)

28 members have voted

unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 1689
August 26th, 2019 at 5:34:32 AM permalink
Quote: bobbartop

So brave, fight a bull with zero chance, for your amusement. As I said earlier, it stems from the sick ass Romans fighting gladiators to the death. Oh, and the crowds were amused.

Why not step up the game, make it so the bull and the matador each have a 50% chance of getting their guts ripped out on the ground. See how brave they are then. See what a real man is made of.



I get Rigondeaux‘s point though. The pig, the cow and the chicken also have zero chance. And their life is more brutal than the bull’s. Just an interesting cognitive dissonance in the population.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 300
  • Posts: 8278
August 26th, 2019 at 5:52:40 AM permalink
Quote: bobbartop

Bill, I've never been to New York in my life. But I know, I KNOW, that there were none more dedicated to horse racing than the fans in New York. Ever.

Coney Island alone had 3 race tracks at one time. Three!

It is hard for us today to comprehend just how popular horse racing and "betting the horses" used to be.

https://www.westland.net/coneyisland/articles/horseracing.htm
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
Joeman
Joeman
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 1731
August 26th, 2019 at 6:47:20 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

I voted against the Greyhound racing ban here, fwiw. It was a bad amendment and overstated the situation. The vast majority of dogs were not being mistreated, and dogs too old to race are getting adopted through a well- organized network.

The dogs loved racing - they're built for it, they're getting well-fed and cared for because they race better if they are. I didn't see the harm in it. Like most things, there are always idiots who abuse the situation and make the whole sport look bad, but imo that's a question of standards and enforcement among humans, not animal abuse in general.

Agreed. I voted against the amendment as well. I have strong opinions about amending the (state) constitution via popular vote, but I'll save that for another site!

Went to the local dog track a few months ago with a group of retired greyhound owners (dogs were retired, not necessarily the owners). They were in favor of dog racing! Babs is right, the dogs are doing what they absolutely want to do the most -- run!

And they do make great pets. The ones that my friends own are very sweet and peaceful. I think banning racing does these dogs a disservice.

Unfortunately, with all of the tracks in the state closing at once, I fear there won't be enough volunteers to adopt all the dogs. I hope it doesn't come to it, but I could see where some will have to be euthanized. Sadly ironic that an amendment that supposedly was to protect animals will end up doing more harm to them than if it never passed.
"Dealer has 'rock'... Pay 'paper!'"
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 168
  • Posts: 9037
August 26th, 2019 at 9:35:29 AM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

Coney Island alone had 3 race tracks at one time. Three!

It is hard for us today to comprehend just how popular horse racing and "betting the horses" used to be.

https://www.westland.net/coneyisland/articles/horseracing.htm



In the 1950s, Queens had three competing tracks. Belmont, Aqueduct and Jamaica Downs. All three operated independently as competitors. New York State decided to bring all the tracks together into a quasi-government agency. They decided to rebuild Aqueduct and shut it down for several years. From what I've heard, many Aqueduct patrons were moving to Long Island in the housing boom, and the idle rich didn't care for Jamaica because nearby public transportation allowed too many working people. When Aqueduct reopened, with its own subway stop and a dedicated highway exit, the agency decided two tracks three miles apart was overkill. A year or two later, they shut down Belmont for several years so in short order, they went from three competitive tracks to a single one. My Uncle says by the time Belmont reopened, people had moved on and it's been declining ever since . In the late 70s and into the 80s, Belmont started doing concerts trying to attract young people with very mixed results.
Aqueduct exists only because the casino needs an operating racetrack, while Belmont has a couple of decent crowds a year.

How does the money breakdown on casino and internet wagering? If I bet $50 on a horse online, does that go into the NYRA mutual pool or is there a different pool? Does a winning horse owner benefit from money bet anywhere but at the track?
Maybe I'm not seeing the economics correctly. Perhaps you can explain how the money bet outside of NYRA funnels back to horsemen?
My impression is the industry is in a death spiral. Central Florida used to have countless horse farms that are now retirement villages.
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
  • Threads: 30
  • Posts: 2537
August 26th, 2019 at 11:19:27 AM permalink
Quote: unJon

I get Rigondeaux‘s point though. The pig, the cow and the chicken also have zero chance. And their life is more brutal than the bull’s. Just an interesting cognitive dissonance in the population.



And when's the last time a deer took out a guy with a hunting rifle?

I've done a fair amount of fishing. Them fishes had no chance to hurt me.

So, if the idea is that the hunted animal should have a chance to retaliate, it seems like the bull gets the best shot. Maybe that is part of the ceremony. A way to give the animals a chance to get us back, though not much of a chance.

To me though, the bottom line is that either animal suffering matters or it doesn't. If it does, then racing and bullfighting are the least of our concerns. If it doesn't it doesn't. Might be something future generations look back on and think we were a bunch of barbarians.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 163
  • Posts: 9561
August 26th, 2019 at 11:40:03 AM permalink
Bow hunting 9 foot Kodiak bears seems more sporting.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
bobbartop
bobbartop
Joined: Mar 15, 2016
  • Threads: 123
  • Posts: 2540
August 26th, 2019 at 12:39:38 PM permalink
Quote: Rigondeaux

And when's the last time a deer took out a guy with a hunting rifle?

I've done a fair amount of fishing. Them fishes had no chance to hurt me.

So, if the idea is that the hunted animal should have a chance to retaliate, it seems like the bull gets the best shot. Maybe that is part of the ceremony. A way to give the animals a chance to get us back, though not much of a chance.

To me though, the bottom line is that either animal suffering matters or it doesn't. If it does, then racing and bullfighting are the least of our concerns. If it doesn't it doesn't. Might be something future generations look back on and think we were a bunch of barbarians.




I'll say it one more time. Bull fighting stems DIRECTLY from the ancient Romans when they fought gladiators to the death, for the crowd's amusement. They were sick fcks in 300 B.C., and so is anyone who gets his kicks watching the blood for amusement in 2019 A.D. Have you also gone to modern day slaughter houses and watched them kill cows, pigs, chickens, FOR YOUR AMUSEMENT? Take the kids with you. Buy them some cotton candy.

I think I'm running out of things to say.
'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.
mcallister3200
mcallister3200
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 2189
August 26th, 2019 at 12:47:18 PM permalink
I mean lots of people watch MMA for amusement, we’re definitely still barbaric, humans always will be.
Gialmere
Gialmere
Joined: Nov 26, 2018
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 1403
January 23rd, 2020 at 8:30:51 PM permalink
From the MrCasinoGame news thread...
Quote: MrCasinoGames

23. More work to be done' with Santa Anita fatalities back in spotlight
California (racing) - Horse Racing Nation - http://bit.ly/38K64oj


So three horses died on three consecutive days last weekend at Santa Anita. That's five deaths so far this year. The point here is not this news story, but rather the fact that this story is now news. A horse can no longer die at Santa Anita without it being announced on (at the very least) the local media outlets.

Quote: LAist

Animal activist Patrick Battuello says he's not sure why the media picked up on the story this year, but that he thinks the attention marks a change.

"Santa Anita is the tipping point, in my estimation," he says. "Santa Anita has changed everything, and I don't think it's ever going back."


How did this happen? We're told that last year was a disastrous season for the famous track, but was it? Statistically it was an average number of deaths at the facility. In fact, statewide, the number of racehorse deaths in California has been declining the last several years. Why is it now, all of a sudden, big news? Well, Mongolian Groom's demise at last year's Breeders' Cup certainly didn't help...

Quote: USA Today

The 37th death took place down the final stretch of the final race of one of the sport’s marquee events and was televised by NBC.



...and yet deaths at Santa Anita were already national news months before this tragedy.

The real reason to the "Why Now?" question seems to be simply that the times they are a-changin'. We live in an age where animals are one step away from having the standing under the Constitution (Article III) to bring lawsuits. (You might recall the 2018 PETA lawsuit on behalf of a monkey that took a camera selfie which went viral. Who gets the money?) A generation ago, the death of a racehorse was seen as an event that sadly happened on occasion in the sport, like a NASCAR crash. Today, however, well...

Quote: ABC 7

News of the death came as protesters returned to the park to once again call for a ban to the sport of horse racing.

The sport, they said, too often results in injuries, and euthanization, to the horses.

"They call these horses equine athletes," said protester Andrew Lesser. "They're nothing more than equine gladiators."


The racetrack response...

Quote: Santa Anita Press Statement

"Santa Anita remains committed to transparency, Our safety statistics and incident reports are publicly available on our website at SantaAnita.com/safety. Home to 2,000 horses, Santa Anita Park is one of the largest equine training facilities in the United States. Horses raced or trained at Santa Anita Park more than 420,000 times over the last year with a 99.991% safety rate.''


No doubt the safety stat is true ... but does it really matter? The activists will not stop until the number is 100%, and the only way to achieve that is to ban racing. This is why I think horse racing is doomed and that those aged 40 or less will live to see it die. Yes, its business model is healthy. Yes, people love its pageantry (they way they once loved the pageantry of the circus and its animals). But, with the trajectory ethics is taking in the 21st century, the sport will simply no longer be tolerated.
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
Ayecarumba
Ayecarumba
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
  • Threads: 236
  • Posts: 6763
January 23rd, 2020 at 8:57:44 PM permalink
Quote: Gialmere

From the MrCasinoGame news thread...

So three horses died on three consecutive days last weekend at Santa Anita. That's five deaths so far this year. The point here is not this news story, but rather the fact that this story is now news. A horse can no longer die at Santa Anita without it being announced on (at the very least) the local media outlets.


How did this happen? We're told that last year was a disastrous season for the famous track, but was it? Statistically it was an average number of deaths at the facility. In fact, statewide, the number of racehorse deaths in California has been declining the last several years. Why is it now, all of a sudden, big news? Well, Mongolian Groom's demise at last year's Breeders' Cup certainly didn't help...



...and yet deaths at Santa Anita were already national news months before this tragedy.

The real reason to the "Why Now?" question seems to be simply that the times they are a-changin'. We live in an age where animals are one step away from having the standing under the Constitution (Article III) to bring lawsuits. (You might recall the 2018 PETA lawsuit on behalf of a monkey that took a camera selfie which went viral. Who gets the money?) A generation ago, the death of a racehorse was seen as an event that sadly happened on occasion in the sport, like a NASCAR crash. Today, however, well...


The racetrack response...


No doubt the safety stat is true ... but does it really matter? The activists will not stop until the number is 100%, and the only way to achieve that is to ban racing. This is why I think horse racing is doomed and that those aged 40 or less will live to see it die. Yes, its business model is healthy. Yes, people love its pageantry (they way they once loved the pageantry of the circus and its animals). But, with the trajectory ethics is taking in the 21st century, the sport will simply no longer be tolerated.


Maybe in the USA, but in other countries, animal racing thrives. It comes back to the local culture. Will bull riding, rodeos, or even show jumping also be banned?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci

  • Jump to: