Pangloss Posted May 5, 2008 Posted May 5, 2008 As you may have heard, the Kentucky Derby ended in tragedy yesterday when the second-place horse, a female named Eight Belles, possibly overburdened by an extremly fast pace set by a male who won by over 4 lengths, collapsed on two broken ankles and was immediately euthanized. Animal rights activists promptly leapt on the issue, bringing up the usual litany of concerns (many of which are valid, IMO), and pressed the current presidential candidates to speak out on the issue. At which point somebody remembered that two days earlier Hillary Clinton, in one of those standard publicity moves on the campaign trail, had stated that she was going to place a bet on Eight Belles. I tell you what, I almost feel sorry for Mrs. Clinton sometimes. She's won the last, what, eight primaries, and yet she just can't seem to catch a break. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/peta-writes-to.html
john5746 Posted May 5, 2008 Posted May 5, 2008 I tell you what, I almost feel sorry for Mrs. Clinton sometimes. She's won the last, what, eight primaries, and yet she just can't seem to catch a break. It looks like she has strong ankles though.
swansont Posted May 5, 2008 Posted May 5, 2008 At which point somebody remembered that two days earlier Hillary Clinton, in one of those standard publicity moves on the campaign trail, had stated that she was going to place a bet on Eight Belles. What was the bet? To win, place, show, or be euthanized?
ecoli Posted May 6, 2008 Posted May 6, 2008 My guess, is that the horse was euthanised for insurance money. From what I understand, the insurance companies only pay out if the horse is too injured to be healed. They don't want to have to pay for recurring hospital visits.
john5746 Posted May 6, 2008 Posted May 6, 2008 My guess, is that the horse was euthanised for insurance money. From what I understand, the insurance companies only pay out if the horse is too injured to be healed. They don't want to have to pay for recurring hospital visits. In this case, I disagree. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Horse-Racing-2248/2008/5/Race-Horse-Broken-Legs.htm Many people think they let these horses go because they can't race. Race horse owners in this game have more money than the average horse owner and can afford to pay, and will, like in Barbaro's case to save the horse. Eight Belles was more likely to be saved because in fact that filly would have been a very valuable breeding mare. It's simply too much for a young horse to go through a long hard recovery and they are sure to suffer. A horse needs to stand to eat and digest properly. The filly broke both front ankles and they could have been so badly shattered that surgery to rebuild the joint may have been impossible. As sad as it may be, it's best for the animal to be put down because otherwise it would suffer through treatment. Also, it may never heal properly. Barbaro had 3 good ankles and he did not make it, so the filly's chances were much slimmer. A harness may work well for less complicated injuries like simple bone fractures, but not for a shattered ankles. Horses will develop what is called "founder" if they can't put weight on their feet. Proper circulation in the foot is necessary for a healthy hoof. Founder is very serious because the coffin bone, which is the equivalent to the last bone in your finger, will rotate down through the bottom of the foot as the foot becomes week. She would be at very very high risk for founder while healing. In my opinion, it would have been inhumane to try and keep her alive for breeding purposes. It's rare for a filly like her to come along and beat 18 top colts in the country on the biggest day in horse racing. I just couldn't enjoy the great performance of Big Brown because it was over shadowed by the tragedy of that beautiful filly.
Pangloss Posted May 6, 2008 Author Posted May 6, 2008 It's really hard to imagine death being a better option than life with a crippling affliction, but perhaps that's because we're used to humans not having that problem -- we have all sorts of options. But I think if veteranarians and other objective observers feel it's best to go that route, then I can only trust their judgement. I just don't know enough about it. (Gee, skepticism about a subject I can't comprehend all the variables on. I can't imagine where else I might apply THAT reasoning!)
CDarwin Posted May 6, 2008 Posted May 6, 2008 It's really hard to imagine death being a better option than life with a crippling affliction, but perhaps that's because we're used to humans not having that problem -- we have all sorts of options. It seems to be more than just a crippling affliction. If a horse can't stand it can't digest and it will starve to death. It's more of quick death due to euthanasia vs long, slow death due to starvation.
Pangloss Posted May 6, 2008 Author Posted May 6, 2008 Well you can prop a horse up in various ways. But I can only assume that much thought has been devoted to the subject, and that there are many variables preventing or hindering the use of the obvious alternatives. The Barbaro case was certainly an interesting example. As I understand it there was also another horse that broke a leg in the trials before the Derby last week, and he has been given a 50% chance to live. Clearly this is not an unfamiliar problem in the industry. As I say, I'm willing to go with the opinions of experts. It does sound like they have sufficient motivation to not euthanize if they can help it.
Rev Blair Posted May 7, 2008 Posted May 7, 2008 Well, Hunter Thompson told us the Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved over three decades ago. He was right then, and this sure hasn't changed things. I wonder if Hillary and Bill puke on their white shoes like those rich folks in the Thompson piece? My guess is that they do. Regarding the horse being put down though...that doesn't to a horse like that unless it's what is best for the horse most of the time. At that level of racing, it's even more true. That mare could have turned out prize foals from a variety of stallions for years. That isn't just a direct financial benefit either, it's the kind of thing that build a legacy for a breeder for generations. Those foals have foals, and you keep improving the bloodlines. If they had any reasonable choice at all, that horse would still be alive.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now