No easy answers

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by jms62

" Horses went to the track this morning like always, although the people seemed a little quieter than usual. But the question that will always follow that is, should it be part of the game? And if you can't have one without the other, should you have both?"

What does this even mean? Is she saying horse racing should cease to exist? Things don't happen in a vacuum. If there were no horse racing there would be no reason to breed thoroughbreds and horses like Maple Leaf Mel and the thousands of others wouldn't even have a life. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she wrote that while still in the fog of that day.

Unlike people & small companion animals, horses are unable to cope easily with broken legs among many other insults (its the punchline of many a Far Side cartoon). This goes for any horse, wild or domesticated. It's an evolutionary thing, not a racehorse thing...

In a way, Voss's question is this: If horses are not capable of dealing with broken legs, should horses be allowed to exist?

That doesn't mean that we shrug our shoulders & accept breakdowns as "part of the game"...that's BS. Racehorses are exposed to stresses that put them "on the road" towards injuries. That has to do with the fact that they are athletes. This is something athletes of all types deal with by the very nature of athletic endeavor.

So in another way, Voss's question is this: If athletes are at a higher risk of injury than a non-athlete, should we have sports?

It's not "part of the game", it's part of the reality of horses & athletic pursuits, and people who deal with horses for a living should be educated & prepared in ways to identify & prevent scenarios where horses can be hurt or else they shouldn't be dealing with horses in the first place...

It's a bit scary that Voss--whose job it is to educate us & console us with poetry--doesn't recognize any of this.