another hit piece

[Benny]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...7a0_story.html

[Kasept]

Very strange treatment that swings wildly from bug-eyed hysterics to reasonable, even positive, evaluation of industry efforts to minimize industry and fatality.

[Benny]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Very strange treatment that swings wildly from bug-eyed hysterics to reasonable, even positive, evaluation of industry efforts to minimize industry and fatality.

Yes, kind of bipolar,piece,i almost stopped reading it, before skimming the latter section.

[Hapman]

These pieces ALWAYS seem to leave out the fact that horses can injure themselves out in a field or in a myriad of other ways that isn't in a race.

While there are many problems in the industry and some sleazy people out there, I feel like these articles always try to imply that somehow a horse running is inherently cruel or the horses are being forced to do something they don't like to do (run).

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Hapman

These pieces ALWAYS seem to leave out the fact that horses can injure themselves out in a field or in a myriad of other ways that isn't in a race.

While there are many problems in the industry and some sleazy people out there, I feel like these articles always try to imply that somehow a horse running is inherently cruel or the horses are being forced to do something they don't like to do (run).

The answer to the 'animals ahead of humans' activists has to be firm, uniform and unwavering: This is an industry sustained by lifestyle careers employing 100's of 1,000's of people, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in job income and tax revenue. No other elaboration is necessary.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Kasept

The answer to the 'animals ahead of humans' activists has to be firm, uniform and unwavering: This is an industry sustained by lifestyle careers employing 100's of 1,000's of people, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in job income and tax revenue. No other elaboration is necessary.

I don't know that "it makes money for people" is going to ever be a satisfying answer for people who think the sport is inherently cruel.

[Dawgswin]

Originally Posted by Kasept

The answer to the 'animals ahead of humans' activists has to be firm, uniform and unwavering: This is an industry sustained by lifestyle careers employing 100's of 1,000's of people, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in job income and tax revenue. No other elaboration is necessary.

This argument has not worked for "clean coal," fracking, Walmart, feed lots or any issue you could name that has used it. Yes....those things still exist but public sentiment has only grown more negative.

You're using a lawyer's playbook on critical communications. And it never works.

[Kasept]

I disagree. Business entities/industries that damage the environment or economic balance of communities are not in the same arena as something that is offending sensibilities.

[Dawgswin]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I disagree. Business entities/industries that damage the environment or economic balance of communities are not in the same arena as something that is offending sensibilities.

Steve do you honestly believe the vast majority of the general public makes a distinction of moral hierarchy among something they think hurts the environment, something they think hurts poor people/workers, or something they think hurts animals?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Dawgswin

Steve do you honestly believe the vast majority of the general public makes a distinction of moral hierarchy among something they think hurts the environment, something they think hurts poor people/workers, or something they think hurts animals?

Gosh.. I sure hope so. If you asked people to rank the 3 in order of importance, you'd like to think humanity comes first with environment/animals in a photo for second. If you asked people to prioritize which use of animals is most egregious, isn't raising animals for consumption far more horrific than raising them for sport and pleasure? 1,000 horses may die in competition a year. 29,000,000 cows and calves died last year for burgers and veal parm.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Gosh.. I sure hope so. If you asked people to rank the 3 in order of importance, you'd like to think humanity comes first with environment/animals in a photo for second. If you asked people to prioritize which use of animals is most egregious, isn't raising animals for consumption far more horrific than raising them for sport and pleasure? 1,000 horses may die in competition a year. 29,000,000 cows and calves died last year for burgers and veal parm.

Well said.

[Dawgswin]

I'm not saying your logic is flawed Steve, because I would hope so too. But people don't. More charitable dollars are spent here in Las Vegas on homeless pets than on homeless children. Also more than the two relatively stable domestic violence shelters. By a multiple of at least two.

It is merely about what is the "latest and loudest" and it is entirely conceivable that horse racing is banned in a state long before Walmart pays a living wage or whatever arbitrary measure of fairness people come up with.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Dawgswin

I'm not saying your logic is flawed Steve, because I would hope so too. But people don't. More charitable dollars are spent here in Las Vegas on homeless pets than on homeless children. Also more than the two relatively stable domestic violence shelters. By a multiple of at least two.

It is merely about what is the "latest and loudest" and it is entirely conceivable that horse racing is banned in a state long before Walmart pays a living wage or whatever arbitrary measure of fairness people come up with.

except many rich people own racehorses. they're quite good at keeping things as they wish

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Dawgswin

I'm not saying your logic is flawed Steve, because I would hope so too. But people don't. More charitable dollars are spent here in Las Vegas on homeless pets than on homeless children. Also more than the two relatively stable domestic violence shelters. By a multiple of at least two.

It is merely about what is the "latest and loudest" and it is entirely conceivable that horse racing is banned in a state long before Walmart pays a living wage or whatever arbitrary measure of fairness people come up with.

Aren't we already "donating" to these shelters via our tax dollars.

[Hapman]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I don't know that "it makes money for people" is going to ever be a satisfying answer for people who think the sport is inherently cruel.

I agree.

The response of "it creates jobs" is not going to convince any activist to change their mind. They are misinformed or ignorant of horses in general and simply see some internet piece like this and conclude that horse racing= cruelty to animals.

[Dawgswin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Aren't we already "donating" to these shelters via our tax dollars.

Yes. And you're also donating toward animal shelter usually through tax dollars, and wildlife preserves. And subsidizing child care, so what? I am speaking about private dollars.

[Dawgswin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

except many rich people own racehorses. they're quite good at keeping things as they wish

Do me a favor, if you are so inclined. Do some brief research on how often a ballot initiative in any state billed as protecting animals from cruelty has been defeated.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Dawgswin

Do me a favor, if you are so inclined. Do some brief research on how often a ballot initiative in any state billed as protecting animals from cruelty has been defeated.

I am not so inclined. It is not exactly easy to get an initiative on a ballot. Takes a lot of work to get an initiative on a ballot, and i can just image someone in ky trying to get enough votes to get a ban horse racing initiative approved.
Steve byk knows quite a bit about the state of racing. Until he gets worried, i see no reason to get excited.

[Dawgswin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I am not so inclined. It is not exactly easy to get an initiative on a ballot. Takes a lot of work to get an initiative on a ballot, and i can just image someone in ky trying to get enough votes to get a ban horse racing initiative approved.
Steve byk knows quite a bit about the state of racing. Until he gets worried, i see no reason to get excited.

Steve Byk knows more about the horse racing industry than I ever will. His suggested argument against those that believe horse racing is cruel is misguided and lacks perspective. This I know a bit about.

Who is excited?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Dawgswin

Steve Byk knows more about the horse racing industry than I ever will. His suggested argument against those that believe horse racing is cruel is misguided and lacks perspective. This I know a bit about.

Who is excited?

Having just watched Concussion, I think it's fair to say that racing as an industry has been better to its' athletes than the NFL has been to theirs.

I'm confident that presenting the sport as a socially productive way of life is quite viable. But since I lack perspective, please inform as to what the better defense might be.