Is horse-racing acceptable because it’s an upper-middle class sport?


4:56 pm - April 14th 2012

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Euclides Montes

I must admit, I’m not your average animal rights campaigner. But the question of whether horse-racing is a cruel sport always bothered me, and the recent controversy over whipping only reinforced my discomfort.

At the Grand National today, once again we face dead horses and a ‘winner’ flogged to within half an inch of its life.

At Cheltenham earlier this year, five horses lost their lives, prompting the RSPCA to call the deaths “the unacceptable face of horse racing.

The response from the British Horseracing Authority restated their commitment to minimise danger to the animals. The spokesperson went on to say: “Like most competitive sports, racing carries risk. No one wants to see valuable and valued racehorses injured.”

But how often do these ‘accidents’ occur, and is the risk justifiable?

Well, according to Animal Aid’s Race Horse Death Watch, the answer is it happens far too often, with 37 horse deaths during the first three months of 2012 alone.

That’s one dead horse every other day this year. A number that can’t be dismissed as a statistical anomaly, since the website, set up back in 2007, has recorded 812 deaths, making this year’s figure average.

Suddenly, the annual perusal of the Grand National running list for the best dressed jockey, or the most inappropriate horse’s name doesn’t seem quite so funny anymore. Not to put too fine a point on it, these figures are staggering, and surely can’t be justified in a modern society in the name of entertainment.

It’s also hard not to draw comparison with two other controversial sports: bullfighting and dog fighting.

Perhaps the true reason why the consensus on cruelty in horse racing is so difficult to shift is more about class than cruelty. And, perhaps, more dangerously, the failure of that consensus to change also explains what makes turning a blind eye all the easier for the rest of us.

I’m willing to wager that horse racing will be a very different sport in years to come, and in a couple of decades we’ll look back embarrassedly at the inherent cruelty in the sport that we used to take for granted.

In the meantime, although not watching again, I’ll be thinking of the horses this weekend.


Euclides Montes tweets as @gatulino; his website is www.euclidesmontes.com

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Health ,Law

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


So a sport where animals are almost certainly maimed or killed (dog fighting/bull fighting) should be treated the same as a sport where most horses racing most races don’t die or get injured.

It is hard to draw comparisons to bullfighting and dogfighting, well at least legitimate comparisons. The suffering of the horses is not part of the sport. Nobody, but nobody, is watching horse racing to see horses die.

To be honest though I think, given the lives the horses live, it’s not such a bad thing. Racehorses are very well cared for most of the time, they usually retire from racing quite young and live out their days peacefully enough.

Also, let’s be honest about this, we eat much smarter animals than the horse for breakfast. On the scale of unpleasant things done to animals as part of British culture the racing of horses is almost irrelevant.

3. Giles Bradshaw

Why not compare horse racing to pet keeping? How many thousand healthy dogs are killed every year? But we don’t have calls for banning pets.

race horses are generally very well looked after.

4. Paul Newman

Not remotely convinced that horse racing is upper middle -class, ever been to a betting shop ? Neither are the proles spared as we saw from Caroline Heart Of Flint`s enthusiasm for closing the working men`s clubs in fact there is little New Labour despise more than the habits of working people and its deep hidden non conformist heart will never be at peace with gambling( unless its with our money).
As to the cruelty to animools . A f–k I could not give.. personally

It’ remarkably easy not to compare two sports whose clear aim is violence with a sport whose aim is non-violent. If you are having trouble with this I suggest you take a closer look at the sports’ names, wherein lie helpful clues.

“Is horse-racing acceptable because it’s an upper-middle class sport?”

Erm, you’ve never been to a horse race have you?

If you want to play the outdated class-war, then you should realise that the average punter at a racecourse is the classic working class stereotype.

The toffs in hats brigade are limited to a very few headline races per year.

Is horse-racing acceptable because it’s an upper-middle class sport?

No, because it isn’t one. Also: fox hunting, which is hardly the preserve of horny handed sons of toil, is almost as unacceptable as ephebophilia.

I’d say it’s acceptable because (a) there’s a lot of money riding on it and (b) the suffering of the creatures isn’t as evident as in bloodsports. It is pretty awful, though.

It’ remarkably easy not to compare two sports whose clear aim is violence with a sport whose aim is non-violent. If you are having trouble with this I suggest you take a closer look at the sports’ names, wherein lie helpful clues.

Really silly argument to make too – so its ok that a horse dies on average two days (and that’s the ones who do make it through the cut as racers) – that’s ok because the intention isn’t to *deliberately* kill them?

FFS.

9. Hodge Podge

@2 Monglor “Also, let’s be honest about this, we eat much smarter animals than the horse for breakfast. On the scale of unpleasant things done to animals as part of British culture the racing of horses is almost irrelevant.”

Some of us don’t. So you should either go veggy, or play the nutrition card and stop using animals you don’t feel you need.

If it was a class issue, fishing for fun would be illegal.

Would it not be easier and more reasonable just to request fewer horses take part in the Grand National and that the fences be lowered?

11. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells

bullfighting

Why do they call it bullfighting, I never saw Cus D’amato rush into the ring with a giant multicoloured dishcloth whenever Mike Tyson got hit.

12. Giles Bradshaw

“Really silly argument to make too – so its ok that a horse dies on average two days (and that’s the ones who do make it through the cut as racers) – that’s ok because the intention isn’t to *deliberately* kill them?”

well let’s compare it to other activities where there is no intention of killing – keeping pets for instance – 10,000 healthy dogs are killed every year – slightly more than 37!

Why pick on horse racing?

@12

For a start, 37 is so far this year not ‘in a year’. Regardless, there are fewer horses for racing than there are pets so without any attempt to normalize the two figures, the figures are meaningless. Also, you are working on the assumption that people don’t think healthy dogs being put down is a bad thing – most people probably do.

The difference, also, is that no one is paying to watch the dogs be put down.

I could go on but, tl;dr – your argument is stupid.

@2:

“It is hard to draw comparisons to bullfighting and dogfighting, well at least legitimate comparisons. The suffering of the horses is not part of the sport. Nobody, but nobody, is watching horse racing to see horses die.”

Given the number of deaths cited above, it’s perfectly legitimate to say that the suffering of horses is inherent in the sport. Just because it’s not the sole purpose of it, doesn’t mean it’s not inherent.

“To be honest though I think, given the lives the horses live, it’s not such a bad thing. Racehorses are very well cared for most of the time, they usually retire from racing quite young and live out their days peacefully enough.”

Just because the horses have an otherwise acceptable lifestyle that isn’t justification for riding them to death. You seem to paint a rosy picture where horses retire and relax in a picturesque field and dance around with their horsey friends all day long. That picture doesn’t really work when you have a concept of reality.

“Also, let’s be honest about this, we eat much smarter animals than the horse for breakfast. On the scale of unpleasant things done to animals as part of British culture the racing of horses is almost irrelevant.”

Remember when you said comparing horse racing to bullfighting was not a legitimate comparison? Pot, meet kettle.

Eating animals serves a clear function, and the UK attempts to make slaughtering humane. I should say that as a vegan I disagree with this practice as well, but there is clearly a massive difference between cruelty for the sake of entertainment and cruelty for nutritional purpose.

15. Shatterface

I’m not a horse racing fan – in fact, I have no interest in any sport – but the idea that the Grand National is ‘upper-middle class’ is just bollocks. In fact, it’s the only time of year I see most of my very-working class Irish family who come over here just to watch it.

A bit of a pisser that HBO’s superb Luck was cancelled due to the deaths of three horses while the Grand National goes on year after year.

Let’s ban smoking in pubs; then let’s demonise smokers full stop; then let’s whack a minimum spend on a pint, which we can raise higher and higher, and try to demonise drinkers with it; then let’s try and get horse racing banned.

Why do the political class want to ban working-class pleaures?

17. Badstephen

The British public has a love affair with the Grand National. Unfortunately it’s a love affair with a dangerous, exciting but ultimately abusive boyfriend. Every year, the race tearfully assures us that this time it’s really, really changed. Every year we trustingly forgive it but the moment it smells horseflesh – bam! – it just can’t control itself.

I once went to watch a horse race – the Grand National in 1961. The experience seemed incredibly boring to me so I’ve not been to watch another horse race since. If the upper-middle classes enjoy watching horse racing, I can only say that confirms my suspicions.

Where does this ”upper-middle class sport” come from? Because it’s called the Sport of Kings? Really, that’s stretching it a bit, even if our Royals and the one’s from the UAE are big fans and players in it.

It was said that 600,000 people watched the race today, and my local bookies was full of people – and none of them looked particularly upper-middle class.

Pity about the horses dying, but that’s about it. A pity.
Accidents happen and it’s dangerous.

@3: “But we don’t have calls for banning pets.”

Actually, you do. But it’s silly. Pets are generally taken care of very well. Race horses even better. Still, mortality rate of all things living is 100 %.

If you want to attack inappropriate treatment of animals, I propose you start with banning cat food which contains cereals and vegetables. A significant proportion of cat owners are middle-aged women, who like healthy food with vegetables, and because cat food is bought by cat owners who think their cats are like them, they buy cat food which contains vegetables. But cats are pure carnivores by nature, so vegetable food is bad for cats.

@20

So brutal cruelty is ok as long as most of the time they’re looked after? “The mortality rate of everything is 100%” sounds very clever but would probably never work as a defence in a murder trial. Take your logic and apply it to any other situation and you’ll realise how dumb it is.

As for your comments on feline nutrition, being ‘carnivores by nature’ does not mean vegetable-based foods are bad for cats. Being ‘bad’ would mean they do some harm, which they don’t – there are just better food options.

The British have a sentimentality about horses that’s second only to that of the Irish, possibly as some sort of vestige of pagan beliefs. This sentimentality about animals doesn’t extend to cows which are electrically stunned (if lucky) then shot in the head with a steel bolt to provide beef and leather. Horse meat isn’t bad if cooked properly and horse hide makes superb leather.

The difference in attitude to the death of animals as a by-product of the creation of entertainment for different classes can be seen in America as well where Michael Mann’s new series Luck was cancelled after the deaths of three horses and in Britain we now have the BBFC censoring scenes from old westerns like Duck You Sucker after decades of being shown uncut and even cutting Red Cliff despite the making of showing that the horse falls were created digitally and no animals were injured.

The TV viewing figure for the race today were much bigger than I said.
And don’t feed your cat too much dry food.They need the moisture in the canned food, or can get urinary problems.

How many horses would there have been in the UK a hundred years ago?
It’s a bit daft that we’re fussing so much about a few individual horses today.
It’s the way we’re going though to our mind-numbingly boring future.
Everything will be banned – but safe.
London University is thinking of closing down its campus bars.
Where I live, there are ”no street drinking” signs everywhere. Not just around night club areas, but all over the city. Ever blander, ever more CCTV and control.

@22

Oh, it’s this argument. Again.

There’s a difference between cruelty for entertainment and controlled cruelty for a purpose. A difference which you seem to acknowledge in passing but not quite understand.

25. Arthur Seaton

Got to echo Paul Newman above on this. I am pretty ambivalent on this issue, and very eager to sniff out hypocrisies favouring the upper and middle over the working classes where they exist.

But horse-racing is not a sport for the benefit of the upper-middle classes. A quick glance at the pub I was in this afternoon would showyou that.

I thought the class of the sport was decided by the class of its participants, rather than the class of its viewers.

27. Chaise Guevara

@ 16 test

“Let’s ban smoking in pubs; then let’s demonise smokers full stop; then let’s whack a minimum spend on a pint, which we can raise higher and higher, and try to demonise drinkers with it; then let’s try and get horse racing banned.

Why do the political class want to ban working-class pleaures?”

While I agree wholeheartedly with the principles behind your argument, I would like to point out that I am totally middle-class and yet am personally affected by all of those issues except the horse-racing bit. Middle-class people drink and smoke and get demonised for it too, you know. In fact, I’m currently half-cut and rolling a cigarette that I wouldn’t be allowed to smoke if I was down the pub.

28. Chaise Guevara

“Would it not be easier and more reasonable just to request fewer horses take part in the Grand National and that the fences be lowered?”

This. If the sport involves cruelty, the solution is to ban the cruelty, not the sport. For similar reasons, I avoid buying battery hens but haven’t stopped eating chicken.

National Hunt upper middle? Seriously?

Whippets still ok though I suppose

Really silly argument to make too – so its ok that a horse dies on average two days (and that’s the ones who do make it through the cut as racers) – that’s ok because the intention isn’t to *deliberately* kill them?

Pretty much yeah – since this debate is intrinsically based on some sort of equivocation between humans and non-humans – Mens rea is a perfectly acceptable and acknowledged concept in human-human interactions so why not between humans and non-humans?

And before you ask; yes horses do have ‘a choice’ – they can choose not to jump and the very fact they often do demonstrates that whatever behavioural pre-conditioning they may have undergone or whatever methods of coercion are used during the race they’re still capable of making value judgements or risk assessments about their own mortality.

If they think they’re going to die or get injured they refuse the jump. You can whip them prior to the race; you can whip them right up to the jump but come the jump they’re still capable of making a choice to refuse.

Having said that THIS DEBATE IS BORING ITS BORING AND WILL ALWAYS BE BORING.

How about this Sunny: ‘Wild Horses’ are currently listed by the IUCN as ‘endangered’ and its quite possible they could one day become extinct. Horse racing allows a capitalist system whereby the ‘horsey species’ is propagated and kept from complete extinction. Would it be preferable, in your own philosophy, to ban racing and thereby possibly aid the annihilation of the horse?

And no this isn’t a hypothetical question (with horses anyway) there are plenty of species that are on the scale of endangered to extinct in the wild (but not in captivity) one furry example going down that path is the panda. If the only way to maintain that species is through captive breeding – and if the only long term method to pay for that captive breeding is through some means of ‘exploitation’ (sports, zoos etc) then is it *really* a bad thing if a few (or even dozen) of horses die a year at the grand national *if* it helps keep in place a system that perpetuates the species?

Because i genuinely can’t get a straightforward answer from the animal-rights brigade about the benefits of the ALF raiding Edinburgh Zoo freeing the Pandas and parachuting them into the wild (only for them to die because they don’t want sex) or the humans putting them into evil captivity in order to force them to procreate and/or reproduce because *we* want their species to continue (to reiterate: they can’t even be bothered to sex themselves into carrying on)

And if you do advocate interventionism how do you ensure that its what the animals want as opposed to anthropomorphism?

The utter ridiculousness of claiming horse racing is primarily a posh sport has been well dealt with above.

I’m completely baffled, however, as to how any carnivore can object to it on cruelty grounds. When horses die in races, it’s a rapid process that barely involves suffering (either they die immediately or are put down almost immediately), so the only thing you could plausibly object to is the killing itself. Which, if you’re a vegan, or *possibly* a vegetarian who doesn’t consume industrially-raised milk products, you might just about be able to do without being a ludicrous hypocrite.

32. Matt Wardman

A marvellously context-free set of outrage-generating stats, Euclides.

Let me help.

812 since 2007, is it? I’ll accept that stat.

In that time entries for horse races in the UK are approx 225k per year, or 1.5 million.

Which makes it a horse death every .. um .. 2000 entries.

Too high? Perhaps, but not high enough to justify existential outrage or to make the sport unnacceptable.

As for the ‘upper middle class sport’ line; that claim is just standard middle-class commentariat twattery.

Personally, I think the RSPCA should concern itself more with cruelty than posturing.

@31

Read previous comments before repeating the same tired argument that I’ve already explained is completely and utterly wrong.

Cruelty for entertainment and cruelty for a purpose are different things. Also, slaughtering is attempted to be humane and quick – horses deaths aren’t. Not sure where you get the idea that breaking a horses leg and then killing it half an hour later is quicker than pretty much instant death in a slaughterhouse?

34. Chaise Guevara

@ 33 Wyatt

“Cruelty for entertainment and cruelty for a purpose are different things.”

Ultimately, they come down to the same thing – cruelty for pleasure. I don’t see much difference morally between hurting an animal because you want to see it race and hurting an animal because you want to eat it.

It does seem pretty shifty that we’ve banned fox hunting when you can still buy chickens that have been tortured *their entire lives*. It’s not like we need chicken to live, or like the only way to raise chickens is in tiny boxes. I was in favour of the fox hunting ban at the time, but in retrospect it seems pretty hypocritical.

@ Cylux

“I thought the class of the sport was decided by the class of its participants, rather than the class of its viewers.”

Well I don’t agree with that definition, but even then that would make British horse racing very largely working class Irish, then, as they make up a massive proportion of the jockeys. I’m not sure if according to the odd reasoning behind this article that’s supposed to be a good or bad thing.

Horse racing has a very wide following, and ahuge working class one, as anyone who has spent numerous afternoons in their local bookies (guilty) could tell you.

Horse racing is not really my thing any more, but trying to make this a class issue either way or a pressing animal welfare one is a bit of a red herring.

I really can’t understand how anyone this side of sanity is able to cope with the sheer boredom of horse racing.

37. the a&e charge nurse

[36] “I really can’t understand how anyone this side of sanity is able to cope with the sheer boredom of horse racing”.
http://www.whatsonningbo.com/news-2114-pound-2-bet-on-the-horses-wins-british-man-steve-whiteley-pound-1-4-million.html

@37:

Too true but the proliferation of betting shops on high streets hardly suggests the business has come upon hard times.

Garages and pubs may be closing down by the dozens but there are more and more betting shops and estate agents on high streets, as well as charity shops. Draw the obvious conclusions. Try this in Saturday’s The Economist: Why betting shops are thriving:
http://www.economist.com/node/21552601

If state lotteries have been described as cover for a stealth tax on the working classes, how should we describe betting shops?

@35 Lamia
The participants have four hooves.
Apart from that, I think that you are completely right.

@34

@34

Not quite – while ultimately eating meat does come down to ‘pleasure’ the fact it serves a legitimate purpose makes it fundamentally different to horse racing.

More specifically, like I said, slaughtering is quick and relatively humane. Whipping a horse until it trips and breaks its leg and killing it half an hour later isn’t. Done right killing an animal is relatively painless, so the moral issue is more the long period of cruelty that happens in racing that just doesn’t happen in typical animal slaughtering. So, comparing the two just doesn’t work.

As for fox hunting, just because something is hypocritical (and in some ways, yes I agree it is) that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Not all animal rights can be improved simultaneously.

The late Robin Cook used to point out that horseracing employs more in this country than the auto industry.

“The late Robin Cook used to point out that horseracing employs more in this country than the auto industry.”

That’s a credible claim and only goes to show how small Britain’s auto industry has become. In the 1980s, the auto industry was the largest part of Britain’s manufacturing industry but that’s no longer so. Few appreciate that New Labour’s industrial policy was a great deal “drier” than that of the Thatcher governments during the 1980s.

Compare this statement from Gordon Brown in March 2010:

“He said the Iraq war had cost Britain £8bn and the total cost to the UK of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had been £18bn, on top of what he repeatedly stressed was an increasing defence budget.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8552593.stm

Of course, it is absolutely unthinkable for the government to have poured £18bn into the support of manufacturing instead. That would have ruinously distorted the allocation of resources . . .

Not quite – while ultimately eating meat does come down to ‘pleasure’ the fact it serves a legitimate purpose makes it fundamentally different to horse racing.

That doesn’t make any sense. We can survive perfectly well without eating meat, but choose to eat it because we like it. We can survive perfectly well without racing horses, but choose to race them because we like it. There is no difference.

Quote: Cut red meat intake and don’t eat ham, say cancer researchers
World Cancer Research Fund advises people to limit consumption of beef, pork and lamb and avoid processed meat
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/23/cut-red-meat-cancer-researchers

45. Chaise Guevara

@ 40 Wyatt

“Not quite – while ultimately eating meat does come down to ‘pleasure’ the fact it serves a legitimate purpose makes it fundamentally different to horse racing.”

That seems to rely on arbitrarily declaring that one is “legitimate” and the other isn’t.

“More specifically, like I said, slaughtering is quick and relatively humane. Whipping a horse until it trips and breaks its leg and killing it half an hour later isn’t.”

I wasn’t talking about slaughter, I specifically used battery chickens as the comparison. Slaughter is probably the best thing that happens to battery chickens. Put simply, I’d rather be the horse than the chicken.

“As for fox hunting, just because something is hypocritical (and in some ways, yes I agree it is) that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Not all animal rights can be improved simultaneously.”

True, but it does speak volumes about *why* something is banned. All else being equal, anyone who supports the fox hunting ban but eats battery hens/eggs obviously doesn’t actually care about animal welfare. So what is the real motive? Well, it could be class warfare, but that’s not certain – it might simply be that people are good at not-thinking about their own moral transgressions. Or that foxes are furry and look like doggies, making them cuter than chickens and therefore, to the human mind, more worthy of defending.

The main thing I draw out of this is yet another reminder of how many people are happy to impose bans on others that they wouldn’t accept on themselves.

@26 Cylux:

Yeah, that’s how I read it too. The class of the sport itself not those who watch it. As far as I know, horseriding lessons are very expensive (never mind owning one’s own horse) and in my experience have only been enjoyed by the better off. It’s not like you can learn horseracing at your local comp is it?

Maybe where the ‘upper middle class’ bit comes in is the trade in racehorses, which must be worth billions and is only participated in by the very rich. The ‘money to be made’ from racing horses surely doesn’t begin/end in a betting shop.

(And the betting on horseracing done by less well off people is surely responsible for as much money lost as won. Gambling isn’t exactly a way out of poverty, is it? Who *really* benefits from horseracing?)

“The class of the sport itself not those who watch it.”

We’re not seriously adhering to the fiction that the millionaires who play in the Premiership are in any meaningful sense ‘working class’, are we?

@13 –

— Regardless, there are fewer horses for racing than there are pets so without any attempt to normalize the two figures, the figures are meaningless.

Why have you tried to use them to jusrtify your argument then?

Also, you are working on the assumption that people don’t think healthy dogs being put down is a bad thing – most people probably do.

— Same as most people thinking horses being put down is a bad thing

The difference, also, is that no one is paying to watch the dogs be put down.

— No one pays to see the horses put down, they pay to see the race. Incidentally, its common practice for pet owbers to pay to see their dog being put down.

@47 john b:

Sorry, I don’t see what you’re getting at. I didn’t even mention football let alone draw any comparisons between it and horseracing!

Acceptable because its an upper class sport?!?!

What are you on? Firstly, have you seen the people at the Grand National? they aint upper class. Secondly, what has class got to do with it? Fox hunting was banned (upper class), there has also been a massive crack down on the racing of dogs (lower class) and their treatment.

This is an animal welfare issue. Stop trying to wrap it up in the colours of some class warfare you have invented.

51. Michael Walker

Absolutely idiotic to say Neptune Collonges was whipped to within an inch of his life.

Here is is the day after the race “within an inch of his life”:

http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Grand-National-champion-Neptune-Collonges-given/story-15829012-detail/story.html

Clearly not a horse in ill health.

Another case of “I don’t like it, let’s ban it”

“Like most competitive sports, racing carries risk. No one wants to see valuable and valued racehorses injured.” – Whoever said this is a walking PR nightmare for Horse Racing…

Like most competive sports? Well, most competitive sports involve human beings, who enter the sport at their own will – horses have no such luxury. They are made to run and train excessively, beyond their limits. They are unnecessarily whipped and fatigued.

I also read a similar comment by someone associated with the sport stating that the whip was painless for the horse. How ignorant. In what world would he know? Because the horse doesn’t exclaim: “bloody hell Patrick! Pack it in!”. There is literally no way for them to know, it’s mere speculation.

Of course it hurts them. They have nerve endings don’t they? End of. It’s getting to a point now where lives are being lost – this can not be ignored. If there was an issue where human lives were being lost, it would be dealt with in days. Fact.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Myrna McDow

    37 horses have died during racing this year alone – almost one every other day http://t.co/j7U7AGAy < and that's an average

  2. Keira Evans-Determan

    Is horse-racing acceptable because it’s a middle class sport? (Liberal Conspiracy): I must admit, I’m not your a… http://t.co/aFcJt0aM

  3. Panda

    Is horse-racing acceptable because it's a middle class sport? http://t.co/fkwcQHoM

  4. Marshajane Thompson

    RT @libcon Is horse-racing acceptable because it's a middle class sport? http://t.co/WLvP3rby < stupid headline. Racing mostly u/c and w/c.

  5. Claire O'Callaghan

    37 horses have died during racing this year alone – almost one every other day http://t.co/j7U7AGAy < and that's an average

  6. karen pearson

    37 horses have died during racing this year alone – almost one every other day http://t.co/j7U7AGAy < and that's an average

  7. Sam Benjamin

    37 horses have died during racing this year alone – almost one every other day http://t.co/j7U7AGAy < and that's an average

  8. Nathan Jackson

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/04/14/is-horse-racing-acceptable-because-its-a-middle-class-sport/

  9. McGinOxford

    37 horses have died during racing this year alone – almost one every other day http://t.co/j7U7AGAy < and that's an average

  10. Gene

    37 horses have died during racing this year alone – almost one every other day http://t.co/j7U7AGAy < and that's an average

  11. race news

    Is horse-racing acceptable because it's an upper-middle class sport … http://t.co/zQNuWjXj

  12. socalpv8

    Is horse-racing acceptable because it's an upper-middle class sport … http://t.co/QK9m6Lmg

  13. Dr Elizabeth Howard

    37 horses have died during racing this year alone – almost one every other day http://t.co/j7U7AGAy < and that's an average

  14. Elanin Vince

    http://t.co/8WZXPvbk mostly for the comments, but the article has some gems #headesk #vegan

  15. Elanin Vince

    http://t.co/8WZXPvbk mostly for the comments, but the article has some gems #headesk #vegan #banhorseracing #abolitionist

  16. Voracious Vegan

    Is #horseracing acceptable because it’s an upper-middle class sport? http://t.co/h2YO6uEh #banhorseracing #banthegrandnational #animalabuse





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.