🚀 go-pugleaf

<SIGH>

o/~ So don't you sit upon the shoreline,
And say you're satisfied,
Choose to chance the rapids,
And dare to dance the tide. o/~

fill...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
><SIGH>

>o/~ So don't you sit upon the shoreline,
>And say you're satisfied,
>Choose to chance the rapids,
>And dare to dance the tide. o/~

Exactly...

--
Terry                     You'll get further with a smile and a gun
			  than just a smile.

Cari Gehl wrote:

> ANOTHER HORSE KILLED IN THE OMAK SUICIDE RACE
>

I too, am not a member of any 'animal rights' group, and am just a
simply horse owner/breeder.
I can't believe anyone would do that to an animal! First, to ride over a
course as dangerous
as that, you'd have to really trust your horse (or be incredibly
stupid). Any horse I trusted
that much, I'd love too dearly to risk injurying.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Another thing that confuses me a great deal: how on earth did big
companies get involved
with this as sponsers!?! I would think they would be more responsible. A
local arab club i
belong to has a very hard time filling it's sponsor list each year for a
fall show. Maybe they
need to add some 'death-defying' classes to get the sponsors? (i'm being
sarcastic, for anyone
that didn't get that)
--
Lisa Robertson (who likes to keep her horses healthy)
Royal Legend Arabians           http://www2.cy-net.net/~rlegend/
Straight Egyptians and Sheykh Obeyds for breeding, performance, and fun.

In article <323D6...@cy-net.net> Lisa Robertson <rle...@cy-net.net> writes:
>From: Lisa Robertson <rle...@cy-net.net>
>Subject: Re: ANOTHER HORSE KILLED IN THE OMAK SUICIDE RACE
>Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 09:37:42 -0500

>Cari Gehl wrote:

>> ANOTHER HORSE KILLED IN THE OMAK SUICIDE RACE
>>

>I too, am not a member of any 'animal rights' group, and am just a
>simply horse owner/breeder.
>I can't believe anyone would do that to an animal! First, to ride over a
>course as dangerous
>as that, you'd have to really trust your horse (or be incredibly
>stupid). Any horse I trusted
>that much, I'd love too dearly to risk injurying.
>It just doesn't make sense to me.
>Another thing that confuses me a great deal: how on earth did big
>companies get involved
>with this as sponsers!?! I would think they would be more responsible. A

>that didn't get that)
>--
>Lisa Robertson (who likes to keep her horses healthy)
>Royal Legend Arabians           http://www2.cy-net.net/~rlegend/
>Straight Egyptians and Sheykh Obeyds for breeding, performance, and fun.


Lisa,

I lived in Washington State for 3 1/2 years, and I can tell you that this race
attracts the same type of people who follow auto racing, drag racing, and
demolition derbies.  They watch it in hopes some accident occurs.

If you're wondering about sponsorship, just check your tv listings some week &
see how many auto races are broadcast, and how many racing/equestrian events.
Horseback riding, of all sorts has more fans across the US than auto racing (I
count all those who ride for recreation), but sponsors are lining up for the
cars, not the horses.  People seem to think they can only market Horse racing
if folks can bet on it, but cars people will watch anyway?  I'd much rather
watch a beautiful animal than a noisy machine anyday.

Thats my 2 cents

Lois K

(snipped previous post re Omak suicide race)

Dawid & Lois Kriel wrote:

> I lived in Washington State for 3 1/2 years, and I can tell you that this race
> attracts the same type of people who follow auto racing, drag racing, and
> demolition derbies.  They watch it in hopes some accident occurs.

Whoa, don't paint everyone with such a broad brush. I drove in various
types
of sports car competition for over 10 years before I got so involved
with
horses that there wasn't =time= for cars.  :-)   On occasion, I'll still
watch the Formula 1, stock car, or drag races on TV and enjoy it because
of the skill demonstrated by the drivers, mechanics, and car
constructors.
(I'm not into demo derbies though, and an accident in an F1 or stock car
race usually means the end of a period of very close and exciting
racing,
so it's actually an anti-climax for those of us who understand the
complexities of the sport.

> If you're wondering about sponsorship, just check your tv listings some week &
> see how many auto races are broadcast, and how many racing/equestrian events.
> Horseback riding, of all sorts has more fans across the US than auto racing (I
> count all those who ride for recreation),

And you know this because?

> but sponsors are lining up for the
> cars, not the horses.  People seem to think they can only market Horse racing
> if folks can bet on it, but cars people will watch anyway?  I'd much rather
> watch a beautiful animal than a noisy machine anyday.

I would too, nowadays, but I still enjoy both.  And I'd rather watch
=eitherof these than hockey, baseball, football, soccer, golf, basketball,
curling,
bowling, billiards.......I think you get the picture.  BTW, some would
denigrate hockey by saying that people only watch it for the fights.
However, I am quite sure it also has many true fans who watch it for
the skill and talent demonstrated by the players.

We're all individuals, with our individual preferences, just as our
horses
are also all individuals.

Richard and Sun Valley
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
rich...@cwconnect.ca

First off, I don 't agree with this but I do live in Washington and know
this is a Native American tradition and I believe they have the right to
carry on  there native traditions.  They are proud people and it does take
place on their reservation.  I'm not a Native American Indian but just like
the freedom of speech on the net, I feel that it is their right to keepup
their traditions.  I know, I know, you think I'm nuts but everything can't
and won't be done the way I want all of the time or the way you want it
done all of the time.  That's why I'm glad I live in a country that
recognizes freedom of speech and choice even if its against the norm.
  Thanks if for nothing else, at least you will think about it.

Dawid & Lois Kriel <ddk...@neosoft.com> wrote in article
<ddkriel.1...@neosoft.com>...
> In article <323D6...@cy-net.net> Lisa Robertson <rle...@cy-net.net>
writes:
> >From: Lisa Robertson <rle...@cy-net.net>
> >Subject: Re: ANOTHER HORSE KILLED IN THE OMAK SUICIDE RACE
> >Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 09:37:42 -0500
>
> >Cari Gehl wrote:
>
> >> ANOTHER HORSE KILLED IN THE OMAK SUICIDE RACE
> >>
>
> >I too, am not a member of any 'animal rights' group, and am just a
> >simply horse owner/breeder.
> >I can't believe anyone would do that to an animal! First, to ride over a
> >course as dangerous
> >as that, you'd have to really trust your horse (or be incredibly
> >stupid). Any horse I trusted
> >that much, I'd love too dearly to risk injurying.
> >It just doesn't make sense to me.
> >Another thing that confuses me a great deal: how on earth did big
> >companies get involved
> >with this as sponsers!?! I would think they would be more responsible. A
>
> >that didn't get that)
> >--
> >Lisa Robertson (who likes to keep her horses healthy)
> >Royal Legend Arabians           http://www2.cy-net.net/~rlegend/
> >Straight Egyptians and Sheykh Obeyds for breeding, performance, and fun.
>
>
> Lisa,
>
> I lived in Washington State for 3 1/2 years, and I can tell you that this
race
> attracts the same type of people who follow auto racing, drag racing, and

> demolition derbies.  They watch it in hopes some accident occurs.
>
> If you're wondering about sponsorship, just check your tv listings some
week &
> see how many auto races are broadcast, and how many racing/equestrian
events.
> Horseback riding, of all sorts has more fans across the US than auto
racing (I
> count all those who ride for recreation), but sponsors are lining up for
the
> cars, not the horses.  People seem to think they can only market Horse
racing
> if folks can bet on it, but cars people will watch anyway?  I'd much
rather
> watch a beautiful animal than a noisy machine anyday.
>
> Thats my 2 cents
>
> Lois K
>
>

Mr.P@a.s.h-r (Mr. P) wrote:



>Trying to have it both ways makes it seem they learned that
>lesson all too well from their European 'oppressors'. ...

	Well, they got the horses from their European "oppressors". ...
	The Plains Indian (to be un-PC) horse culture was actually  a
relatively short-lived phenomenon. That's my main objection to this
pseudo-"traditional" hooey. Rite of passage and all that crap. Sounds
more like gooey PR to me.
	Speaking of PR, betcha if someone hadn;t had the bright idea of
calling it a "suicide race", people might never have heard of it.
                                   --CMNewell
(who personally wouldn't ride it as a race, but hasn't seen enough to
be convinced that it's as deadly as it is being portrayed)
"If truth is impossible, so is the lie
There's no in-between, you can't swim, you can't fly
At the uttermost link at the end of our chain
Only the Strange remain"--R.Hunter

Steve Porter wrote:
>
> First off, I don 't agree with this but I do live in Washington and know
> this is a Native American tradition and I believe they have the right to
> carry on  there native traditions.  They are proud people and it does take
> place on their reservation.  I'm not a Native American Indian but just like
> the freedom of speech on the net, I feel that it is their right to keepup
> their traditions.  I know, I know, you think I'm nuts but everything can't
> and won't be done the way I want all of the time or the way you want it
> done all of the time.  That's why I'm glad I live in a country that
> recognizes freedom of speech and choice even if its against the norm.
>   Thanks if for nothing else, at least you will think about it.
>
>
> >
> >Steve, let me see if I understand what you are saying...

Since this is an american native tradition, it doesn't amtter if its
cruel.  After all, we cannot expect native americans to have grown over
the last two hundred plus years to the point of awareness that their
ancestors (uuhh, maybe our white ancestors too???...) may not have had.

Come on --cruelty is cruelty and Native Americans, I'm sure, aren't in
favor of cruelty for traditions sake.

Pat Mc

In article <01bba510$465bc620$265a...@sporter.cet.com>, "Steve Porter"
<spo...@cet.com> wrote:

> First off, I don 't agree with this but I do live in Washington and know
> this is a Native American tradition and I believe they have the right to
> carry on  there native traditions.  They are proud people and it does take
> place on their reservation.  I'm not a Native American Indian but just like
> the freedom of speech on the net, I feel that it is their right to keepup
> their traditions.  I know, I know, you think I'm nuts but everything can't
> and won't be done the way I want all of the time or the way you want it
> done all of the time.  That's why I'm glad I live in a country that
> recognizes freedom of speech and choice even if its against the norm.
>   Thanks if for nothing else, at least you will think about it.
>
So because it's a Native American tradition
makes it alright? More than a little interesting
that it's politically correct to give those Native Americans
the benefit of the doubt in this instance, but it is not
ok for that politically correct awareness to extend to
their treatment of animals, namely, horses?

I don't think it's a matter of you or I having it the
way we want it, I think that it is those particular people that
allow this 'tradition' to continue want to have it BOTH WAYS.
They want their traditions but they do not want to have
respect for the animal.

Trying to have it both ways makes it seem they learned that
lesson all too well from their European 'oppressors'. Ha.
You've been chewing on too much peyote, SP.

Mr. P

In article <3240DF...@pacbell.net>, Pat McSharry
<mcsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
# Since this is an american native tradition, it doesn't amtter if its
# cruel.  After all, we cannot expect native americans to have grown over
# the last two hundred plus years to the point of awareness that their
# ancestors (uuhh, maybe our white ancestors too???...) may not have had.
#
# Come on --cruelty is cruelty and Native Americans, I'm sure, aren't in
# favor of cruelty for traditions sake.


The point is different cultures have different opinions on what consitutes
cruelty. We slaughter thousands of cows and umpteen number of
horses a year.

--
For what the horse does under compulsion is done without understand-
ing, and there is no beauty in it either, any more than if one were to whip and spur a dancer. --Xenophon
    cz...@musclefish.com, http://www4.ncsu.edu/~lmbecker/www/czei/

In article <51pjmf$2...@decius.ultra.net>, res...@deyr.ultranet.com
(C.M.Newell) wrote:
# Mr.P@a.s.h-r (Mr. P) wrote:
#
#         Well, they got the horses from their European "oppressors". ...
#         The Plains Indian (to be un-PC) horse culture was actually  a
# relatively short-lived phenomenon. That's my main objection to this
# pseudo-"traditional" hooey.

How long does something have to be practiced before it gets to be
officially "traditional?"

# Rite of passage and all that crap. Sounds
# more like gooey PR to me.

Are you saying that there are no legitimate rites of passage? I have no
lost love for new age crap, but do believe there are legitimate rites
of passage which aren't described in best sellers.

--
For what the horse does under compulsion is done without understand-
ing, and there is no beauty in it either, any more than if one were to whip and spur a dancer. --Xenophon
    cz...@musclefish.com, http://www4.ncsu.edu/~lmbecker/www/czei/

After this post, I am cutting rec.equestrian from my reply
thread. I do not cross-post out of alt.sport.horse-racing,
although I appreciate the orignal poster informing a.s.h-r
of this travesty.

> cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger) said:
> You weren't misquoted. When an article is followed up many times the
> added comments and the headers at the top of those comments can become
> nested. It is rather easy to follow with a little practice.

First, of all, perhaps you need to learn how to quote properly, as
I did not even make the statement you referenced me to.

Here is what cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger)
quoted me as saying:

# Mr.P@a.s.h-r (Mr. P) wrote:
#
#         Well, they got the horses from their European "oppressors". ...
#         The Plains Indian (to be un-PC) horse culture was actually  a
# relatively short-lived phenomenon. That's my main objection to this
# pseudo-"traditional" hooey.

This is actually a statement from
res...@deyr.ultranet.com (C.M.Newell), who wrote:

>>Well, they got the horses from their European "oppressors". ...
>>The Plains Indian (to be un-PC) horse culture was actually  a
>>relatively short-lived phenomenon. That's my main objection to this
>>pseudo-"traditional" hooey. Rite of passage and all that crap. Sounds
>>more like gooey PR to me.

You, cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger),
attributed a quote to me that I did not even make.
Besides the incorrect attribution of a quote being a
a violation of a cardinal Usenet rule, it goes to prove
that you paid no attention whatsoever to the prior postings
in the thread before you replied. I do not know how you
expect anyone to take you seriously if you cannot correctly
attribute a quote to its source.

Then, cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger), said:
> The people of the US have taken their common beliefs and values and used
> them to create laws. Americans believe it is not right for a small group
> of people to impose their religous beliefs on everyone else, instead
> opting to abide by rules which the majority can agree on, laws. If the
> "Suicide Race" does not appear to be breaking any laws, then your only
> recourse is to fall back on moral grounds. If the current race violates
> laws, then work to get them inforced. If it does not, and you believe
> there should be laws against it, then you are free to work to codify your
> beliefs into law. There are people who have higher standards of the value
> of life, and there are people who have lower standards. Those with lower
> standards while not breaking any laws are not necessarily bad people, and
> those who would uphold their rights are not immoral.

First of all, the word is enforced, not inforced.
Again, I say, it is hypocrisy for these people to
hide behind political correctness to justify this
abhorrent practice, yet do not want political
correctness to extend to preserving the lives of
these horses.

Also, I refer you again to my original analogy that
if someone with 'lower standards' is fixing races,
under _your_ philosophy, he should be allowed to continue
to fix races. By your reasoning, the laws prohibiting
fixing are lax, so under your philosophy, unless I work
to get the laws preventing race-fixing enforced, it is ok
for race-fixing to continue. If I say, that, just on moral
grounds alone that the race-fixing should stop, in order to
restore fair play, you suggest that 'falling back on moral
grounds' is not a proper method to solve any problem, if
the laws are not enforced and thus, race-fixing should continue.

I believe a call to fair play carries as much, if not more
weight, than law alone. In the first instance of witnessing
any act of inhumanity or crime, do you rely on fair play and moral
conduct, or the letter of the law? What do you think the law is,
anyway? Codified moral code. Laws that regulate the construction
of a horse van, for instance, are based on the idea that there
is a moral necessity to preserve the life of the horse and the
driver of the truck, thus the maker of the van must adhere to
certain specifications, be they costly, inconvienent, whatever.
Get with the program.

Then, cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger), said
>> One of the nicest thing about jeja news is it makes your words
>> live forever. Do you really want the above vulgar ranting to
>> be associated with your name for the rest of your life? Especially
>> since its about a race you've never even seen?

Jeja news? Do you mean Deja News? Are you totally incoherent?
Perhaps you actually rode in this race and fell on your head...

First, I stand by my comments, particularly those
directed towards you.I note that you have conveniently
omitted some of your erroneous statements that I called
attention to. They are there for anyone who wants to go
back and read them, including using _Deja_ news (if you type
in jeja news as MC suggests, you're not going to get anywhere.)
My Deja news profile would reveal that I post solely to
alt.sport.horse.racing (and I will contain any further
replies to this thread in alt.sport.horse.racing),
and that my posts contain information relevant to the
thoroughbred racing industry _and_ also reflect an
absolute intolerance against those who would promulgate
weak notions about why abusing and murdering horses
should be allowed. See yourself in that mirror?

Second, do I have to be present at a murder to
be against it? I think not. I've seen a clip of
this race on cable, and that was all I wanted
to see.

If you would like a quick lesson on how
to appropriately attribute a quote to its source,
and to have at least _some_ idea of how this thread
originated, you can go back and re-read this
thread from the beginning.

Your post suggests a cavalier notion towards the
well-being of these horses in this suicide race,
and you, as a horseman, should know better.

I suggest you take to heart one of your own quotes, MC:
"When pride rides in the saddle disaster rides on the crupper."

Mr. P

Alright, since I was already misquoted in three out of six replies
to this thread, let's start over.

Here's what Steve Porter said originally
(and who I guess has since gone on to greater things:

> >In article <01bba510$465bc620$265a...@sporter.cet.com>, "Steve Porter"
> ><spo...@cet.com> wrote:
> > First off, I don 't agree with this but I do live in Washington and know
> > this is a Native American tradition and I believe they have the right to
> > carry on  there native traditions.  They are proud people and it does take
> > place on their reservation.  I'm not a Native American Indian but just like
> > the freedom of speech on the net, I feel that it is their right to keepup
> > their traditions.  I know, I know, you think I'm nuts but everything can't
> > and won't be done the way I want all of the time or the way you want it
> > done all of the time.  That's why I'm glad I live in a country that
> > recognizes freedom of speech and choice even if its against the norm.
> >   Thanks if for nothing else, at least you will think about it.

Here's what I said:
> So because it's a Native American tradition
> makes it alright? More than a little interesting
> that it's politically correct to give those Native Americans
> the benefit of the doubt in this instance, but it is not
> ok for that politically correct awareness to extend to
> their treatment of animals, namely, horses?
>
> I don't think it's a matter of you or I having it the
> way we want it, I think that it is those particular people that
> allow this 'tradition' to continue want to have it BOTH WAYS.
> They want their traditions but they do not want to have
> respect for the animal.
>
> Trying to have it both ways makes it seem they learned that
> lesson all too well from their European 'oppressors'. Ha.
> You've been chewing on too much peyote, SP.
>
> Mr. P

Then, cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger) misquoted me,
as I only stated the the very first sentence:

>># Mr.P@a.s.h-r (Mr. P) wrote:
>>#
>>#         Well, they got the horses from their European "oppressors". ...

Which was meant to be sarcasm, but which was erroneously linked by
cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger) to the following statement by
res...@deyr.ultranet.com (C.M.Newell):

>>#         The Plains Indian (to be un-PC) horse culture was actually  a
>># relatively short-lived phenomenon. That's my main objection to this
>># pseudo-"traditional" hooey.

Then, cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger) wrote:
>>>>How long does something have to be practiced before it gets to be
>>>>officially "traditional? Are you saying that there are no legitimate
rites >>>>of passage? I have no lost love for new age crap, but do believe
there are >>>>legitimate rites of passage which aren't described in best
sellers.
>>>>The point is different cultures have different opinions on what consitutes
>>>>cruelty. We slaughter thousands of cows and umpteen number of horses a year.

Are those leather shoes on your feet, cz...@musclefish.com (Michael
Czeiszperger)? Did you have a Big Mac this week? Did you also have
a McHorse burger this week? Did you sweep all the insects away in
front of you, like some sects of the Tibetian Zen Buddhist monks do,
as they feel it is wrong to harm any single living creature?
The point, which is apparently on your head at the moment, was,
how does this particular culture wish to reconcile the fact that the
people who promote, ride in and witness this barbarism, on the one hand,
want the current trend of political correctness to extend understanding
to such Native American cultural 'traditions', but that they do
not want that same political correctness to extend to revealing their
inappropriate treatment of animals, namely horses.
First of all, that is hypocrisy of the highest degree, using this PC
status to their convenience, then discarding it when it conflicts with
their philosophy (which, BTW, is the inherent fatal flaw in political
correctness).
Is it your belief that these people are above reproach when their
'culture' inflicts pain, maiming and death on horses?
And I did not excuse those in the United States who slaughter horses
for gain.

Then this:
>>>>>In article <01bba68d$170629a0$ccec45c7@jdlrdid>, "John Long"
>>>>><jdl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>> Cruelty is cruelty?  I think there are many people who would say that
>>>>>racing of any kind is cruelty, does that mean that it is?  I remember a
>>>>>breeders cup not too many years ago that had two or three break downs, a
>>>>>Preakness only two (or maybe three) years ago, and countless breakdowns
>>>>>each year at the many low end tracks in this thouroghbred racing industry.
>>>>>Many would say that this means the sport should be banned, but I personally
>>>>>don't agree with it so I'll continue to watch the sport.  Other sports are
>>>>>also enjoyed around the world by many rational people that are considered
>>>>>cruel in other cultures and even within the same culture (how about bull
>>>>>fighting, dog racing,  hunting, fishing, boxing etc)

Racing a horse 6 to 12 furlongs at recognized meets in the US
is done with utmost concern for the safety of horse and rider
and NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES IS THERE A RECOGNIZED
THOROUGHBRED MEET WHERE IT IS OK TO PLUNGE A HORSE DOWN A STEEP
CLIFF AND ACROSS A RIVER IN THE NAME OF THOROUGHBRED RACING!
Not even in jump or steeplechase racing. Is that point all too
hard to understand? Did you read the original thread on how
many horses had been hurt or maimed just in the last couple
of years IN THIS ONE RACE, THE OMAK 'SUICIDE' RACE. Do you think
the name 'suicide' is any dead giveaway about the nature of this
race? Is that point on your head getting any sharper?

>>>>>The one thing to keep in mind is that regardless of what
>>>>>we think, if this takes place on an indian
>>>>>reservation we (the US) have no right to intervene.

BS. The reservation laws say no such thing and neither
do the Federal treaties.

>>>>>The reservations are not part of the US, they belong solely to the Indians.

Same BS.

>>>>>You may not want to watch it, but don't try to tell them what to do on
>>>>>their land.

More BS. Ironically, the Federal laws that govern
such an event have more concern for the rider's
safety than the horse's well-being.

>>>>> One question I have is how many people who are criticizing this race have
>>>>>actual first hand experience with it.  I could put together a pretty strong
>>>>>argument about just about any case if I only tell the bad side of the
>>>>>story.  There must be more to the race than siply trying to drive horses to
>>>>>their death.

Nope. That's about it. Note the 'suicide' in the title.
Get with the program.

>>>>>Basically, everyone needs to be a little more understanding of other
>>>>>cultures.  Included in these culture differences is the belief in many
>>>>>cultures that animals have no rights.

That statement is prima facie idiotic.
You're trying to tell me that this Native
American culture believes horses are meant
to be ridden off a cliff and drowned in a river?

>>>>>It doesn't matter whether we believe
>>>>>it or not, that's the way it is.

What the...? you mean, nothing is worth changing
because it is just so? So if races are fixed, I
have the right to continue fixing them?

>>>>>In the mean time we have the right to
>>>>>believe that horse racing is a great sport and enjoy it as much as
>>>>>possible. :-) John Long

:-(
Where the f@CK did you two come from?
I've never seen either of you post to this newsgroup
ever before and you come in here and try to proselytize
the most egregious BS I have witnessed in a.s.h-r
in over a year and a half, in a half-wit defense
of people who want to drive horses off a cliff
and drown them in a river? Go back to
alt.sport.political.correctness.kill.horses.
Better yet, go over to alt.sport.kill.yourself
and never come back.

Mr. P

cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger) wrote:

>In article <51pjmf$2...@decius.ultra.net>, res...@deyr.ultranet.com
>(C.M.Newell) wrote:
># Mr.P@a.s.h-r (Mr. P) wrote:
>#
>#         Well, they got the horses from their European "oppressors". ...
>#         The Plains Indian (to be un-PC) horse culture was actually  a
># relatively short-lived phenomenon. That's my main objection to this
># pseudo-"traditional" hooey.

>How long does something have to be practiced before it gets to be
>officially "traditional?"

	I believe this race was first held in 1880. Well into the era when the
Plains horse culture was being obliterated in the name of Manifest
Destiny.

># Rite of passage and all that crap. Sounds
># more like gooey PR to me.

>Are you saying that there are no legitimate rites of passage? I have no
>lost love for new age crap, but do believe there are legitimate rites
>of passage which aren't described in best sellers.


	There are most assuredly genuine cultural rites of passage; I just
think this one came more from the mind of a publicist than from some
cultural tradition. Think about it--would a nomadic people dependent
on their horses risk killing or crippling the best stock in such a
fashion?
                   --CMNewell
"If truth is impossible, so is the lie
There's no in-between, you can't swim, you can't fly
At the uttermost link at the end of our chain
Only the Strange remain"--R.Hunter

In article <01bba722$7df426e0$cb0b...@en.com> "The Misanthrope (and his goat)" <pxan...@en.com> writes:
>From: "The Misanthrope (and his goat)" <pxan...@en.com>
>Subject: Cruelty? (Was: Re: ANOTHER HORSE KILLED IN THE OMAK SUICIDE RACE)
>Date: 20 Sep 1996 19:09:35 GMT

>> The point, which is apparently on your head at the moment, was,
>> how does this particular culture wish to reconcile the fact that the
>> people who promote, ride in and witness this barbarism, on the one hand,
>> want the current trend of political correctness to extend understanding
>> to such Native American cultural 'traditions', but that they do
>> not want that same political correctness to extend to revealing their
>> inappropriate treatment of animals, namely horses.

>There's a leap in logic here that pretty much deflates your argument-- not
>everyone who wants to see traditions keep happening is in the politically
>correct camp. I'm certainly not. What no one seems to have touched on is
>that the heart of the Omak race has nothing to do with horses, at least,
>not as I've had it explained to me-- it's a rite of passage, and hey-- we
>may have forgotten about this in this "enlightened" age, but during rites
>of passage, not everyone (or everyone's mount, as it were) was SUPPOSED to
>survive. The idea was that the weak were to be weeded out.

Ok, that was fine when the horse was a necessity for survival on the plains.
But now, isn't that what High School is for?



>If that's not still the purpose of the race, well, then, I have to agree
>that it should be stopped. But not because of some sort of imagined
>cruelty. In the last weeks I've watched Prince of Thieves and Matiara break
>down and Soul of the Matter and Fastness be retired because of injury. And
>these are the ones we hear about. Horses break down all the time that never
>make the papers. Three horses were killed in the Omak races this year? How
>many broke down at your local track and had to be destroyed? In the past
>twelve months here at Thistledown, I can think of seven off the top of my
>head.

How many Horses ran in Omak races?  How many of them were evaluated before the
race by qualified veterinarians?  How many have been turned away at the gate
or before the start in Omak races (as often happens at many tracks) because
the starter has called a vet to check a horse & the vet determined it not to
be sound?  Is there any such evaluation?   If not, we're comparing apples to
oranges.

>As to whether the race is any more risky than, say, a three-mile
>steeplechase course, I'm not a track designer, but I'd think that the
>chances of a horse finding a sinkhole on the hill full o' mud isn't that
>much more than a horse finding a sinkhole in a yielding turf course after
>two weeks of rain. And yes, before the objections flow in, some tracks WILL
>race on turf the first day after a two-week downpour.

Yes, after the course manager has had time to evaluate the turf, fill in sink
holes, and otherwise do his durndest to ensure a safe course.  Most Turf
courses are contructed with drainage in mind.  I don't think the Omak courses
have the same course designers.  (now I hear the "oh now it's a money issue
uproar - no, it's a safety issue).

>>NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES IS THERE A RECOGNIZED
>> THOROUGHBRED MEET WHERE IT IS OK TO PLUNGE A HORSE DOWN A STEEP
>> CLIFF AND ACROSS A RIVER IN THE NAME OF THOROUGHBRED RACING!

>Nope, but thousands of people, if not more, gather every year to watch the
>Chincoteague horses plunge into the water and swim.

Yep & that should be stopped too.  If they need to cull the ponies (as that's
my understanding why it's done), develop holding facilities on the island &
ferry the ponies.

>That animals have no rights? Not only is it not idiotic, it is 100%
>accurate. Animals do not have rights, they have the protection we afford
>them, as someone once said (don't remember who).

In nature, what "rights" do animals have?  The right to be eaten by a
predator?  The right to starve if, as a predator, you aren't strong enough to
kill the other animal?

>You are confusing malice with apathy. To them, a horse is a tool to use in
>shaping a warrior. It is not necessarily thought of as any different than a
>tomahawk or a longbow.

Would not the bow or tomahawk be cherished if it protected him in battle, or
was seen as a necessity to make him the warrior that he was?  Would it be
abused in some sporting event if it might be needed to fight tomorrow?

Lois K

P.S.  How's the goat?

In article <czei-19099...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger) writes:
>From: cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger)
>Subject: Re: ANOTHER HORSE KILLED IN THE OMAK SUICIDE RACE
>Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:07:16 -0400

>In article <3240DF...@pacbell.net>, Pat McSharry
><mcsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
># Since this is an american native tradition, it doesn't amtter if its
># cruel.  After all, we cannot expect native americans to have grown over
># the last two hundred plus years to the point of awareness that their
># ancestors (uuhh, maybe our white ancestors too???...) may not have had.
>#
># Come on --cruelty is cruelty and Native Americans, I'm sure, aren't in
># favor of cruelty for traditions sake.


>The point is different cultures have different opinions on what consitutes
>cruelty. We slaughter thousands of cows and umpteen number of
>horses a year.

Yes, and laws exist which describe allowable techniques for minimizing the
pain & suffering before the death.  Violation of these laws are punishable by
fines, and criminal penalties.

I always wonder what type of footwear people use who protest the meat
industry.  Leather would be hypocritical, and vinyl would increase pollution.
Canvas uppers are ok, but what type of soles?

And what the hell does this have to do with horse racing?

Thoroughbred, 1/4 horse, and Standardbred (and I assume Arabian & other
breeds) racing have rules & regulations concerning fitness of horses run &
prosecute persons who abuse the horses.

I think that I was just as disturbed as many others were concerning that
stupid horse race. But I have to ask the question:

CONSIDERING OUR NATIONAL ATTITUDE TOWARD LATE TERM ABORTION IN WHICH
SCISSORS ARE PLUNGED INTO THE FETUS'S SKULL AND THE BRAINS ARE SUCTINED
OUT WHY SHOULD WE BE SURPRISED AT THIS BARBARIC HORSE RACE OR ANY OTHER
RACE IN WHICH THERE IS A GREAT POTENTIAL TO VIEW VIOLENT AND PLTENTIAL
DEATHLY ACCIDENTS.

Bring back the colliseum, lions, gladitors and Oh Yes! the Christians.

I jest sickly.

R. Littlejohn

In article <51svve$u...@decius.ultra.net>, res...@deyr.ultranet.com
(C.M.Newell) wrote:
# cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger) wrote:
# >How long does something have to be practiced before it gets to be
# >officially "traditional?"
#
#         I believe this race was first held in 1880. Well into the era when the
# Plains horse culture was being obliterated in the name of Manifest
# Destiny.
#

Are you saying that its impossible for an indian cultural practice to have
significance if it didn't originate in the era of the plains horse
culture? Although indian culture was greatly changed by then, I assure you
that the traditions and beliefs of the survivors has the same cultural
validity as before. My own family has traditions that only date back to
1920, and I assure you we value them as part of a unique culture just the
same.

--
For what the horse does under compulsion is done without understand-
ing, and there is no beauty in it either, any more than if one were to whip and spur a dancer. --Xenophon
    cz...@musclefish.com, http://www4.ncsu.edu/~lmbecker/www/czei/

> The point, which is apparently on your head at the moment, was,
> how does this particular culture wish to reconcile the fact that the
> people who promote, ride in and witness this barbarism, on the one hand,
> want the current trend of political correctness to extend understanding
> to such Native American cultural 'traditions', but that they do
> not want that same political correctness to extend to revealing their
> inappropriate treatment of animals, namely horses.

There's a leap in logic here that pretty much deflates your argument-- not
everyone who wants to see traditions keep happening is in the politically
correct camp. I'm certainly not. What no one seems to have touched on is
that the heart of the Omak race has nothing to do with horses, at least,
not as I've had it explained to me-- it's a rite of passage, and hey-- we
may have forgotten about this in this "enlightened" age, but during rites
of passage, not everyone (or everyone's mount, as it were) was SUPPOSED to
survive. The idea was that the weak were to be weeded out.

If that's not still the purpose of the race, well, then, I have to agree
that it should be stopped. But not because of some sort of imagined
cruelty. In the last weeks I've watched Prince of Thieves and Matiara break
down and Soul of the Matter and Fastness be retired because of injury. And
these are the ones we hear about. Horses break down all the time that never
make the papers. Three horses were killed in the Omak races this year? How
many broke down at your local track and had to be destroyed? In the past
twelve months here at Thistledown, I can think of seven off the top of my
head.

As to whether the race is any more risky than, say, a three-mile
steeplechase course, I'm not a track designer, but I'd think that the
chances of a horse finding a sinkhole on the hill full o' mud isn't that
much more than a horse finding a sinkhole in a yielding turf course after
two weeks of rain. And yes, before the objections flow in, some tracks WILL
race on turf the first day after a two-week downpour.

> Is it your belief that these people are above reproach when their
> 'culture' inflicts pain, maiming and death on horses?
> And I did not excuse those in the United States who slaughter horses
> for gain.
>
>NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES IS THERE A RECOGNIZED
> THOROUGHBRED MEET WHERE IT IS OK TO PLUNGE A HORSE DOWN A STEEP
> CLIFF AND ACROSS A RIVER IN THE NAME OF THOROUGHBRED RACING!

Nope, but thousands of people, if not more, gather every year to watch the
Chincoteague horses plunge into the water and swim.

> Not even in jump or steeplechase racing. Is that point all too
> hard to understand? Did you read the original thread on how
> many horses had been hurt or maimed just in the last couple
> of years IN THIS ONE RACE, THE OMAK 'SUICIDE' RACE. Do you think
> the name 'suicide' is any dead giveaway about the nature of this
> race? Is that point on your head getting any sharper?

That term is not in there to apply to horses. See my note above. For that
matter, it was probably tacked on by someone in the media.

> More BS. Ironically, the Federal laws that govern
> such an event have more concern for the rider's
> safety than the horse's well-being.

That's not irony, that's the way the U.S. thinks things are supposed to be.
I disagree completely, but going the other way (if people want to
participate in this race, well, hey, who are we to stop them? And if they
want to do it without protection and end up a bloody mess, then that's just
fine with me).

> >>>>>There must be more to the race than siply trying to drive horses to
> >>>>>their death.
>
> Nope. That's about it. Note the 'suicide' in the title.
> Get with the program.

You are wrong, or I am misinformed. Again, see above.

> >>>>>Included in these culture differences is the belief in many
> >>>>>cultures that animals have no rights.
>
> That statement is prima facie idiotic.

That animals have no rights? Not only is it not idiotic, it is 100%
accurate. Animals do not have rights, they have the protection we afford
them, as someone once said (don't remember who).

> You're trying to tell me that this Native
> American culture believes horses are meant
> to be ridden off a cliff and drowned in a river?

You are confusing malice with apathy. To them, a horse is a tool to use in
shaping a warrior. It is not necessarily thought of as any different than a
tomahawk or a longbow.

> What the...? you mean, nothing is worth changing
> because it is just so? So if races are fixed, I
> have the right to continue fixing them?

How loud would you be complaining if you were the one raking in the cash?
Not too much, I expect. But that's beside the point. Some things are wirth
changing. You obviously think this is one of them. I, and the original
poster of the note you are responding to, don't. Difference of opinion. Can
we kill this thread now?

> Where the f@CK did you two come from?

Probably one of the groups this message was crossposted to. If you'll
notice, there's more than one up in the newsgroups list. Matter o' fact, I
got the original message in three different newsgroups. And I tried to
ignore it. But this sort of personal attack when one person disagrees with
someone else's philosophies is completely unwarranted on a newsgroup that's
not dedicated to the discussion of same. So can we kindly shut the hell up
about this whole thing and talk about something productive, like who's
going to win the Vosburgh?

TM(&G)

--
It's a dog eat dog world, and from where I sit, there just ain't enough
damn dogs.

In <Mr.P-ya02308000...@news.mindspring.com> Mr.P@a.s.h-r (Mr. P)
writes:

>I've never seen either of you post to this newsgroup
>ever before and you come in here and try to proselytize
>the most egregious BS I have witnessed in a.s.h-r
>in over a year and a half,

If you've been reading Usenet for a year and a half, it's time you
started reading headers for crossposts :-).

Deborah Stevenson (stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Hardly an interloper in Champaign, IL, USA

In article <Mr.P-ya02308000...@news.mindspring.com>,
Mr.P@a.s.h-r (Mr. P) wrote:

# Then, cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger) misquoted me,
# as I only stated the the very first sentence:
#
You weren't misquoted. When an article is followed up many times the
added comments and the headers at the top of those comments can become
nested. It is rather easy to follow with a little practice.


# Are those leather shoes on your feet, cz...@musclefish.com (Michael
# Czeiszperger)? Did you have a Big Mac this week? Did you also have
# a McHorse burger this week? Did you sweep all the insects away in
# front of you, like some sects of the Tibetian Zen Buddhist monks do,
# as they feel it is wrong to harm any single living creature?
# The point, which is apparently on your head at the moment, was,
# how does this particular culture wish to reconcile the fact that the
# people who promote, ride in and witness this barbarism, on the one hand,
# want the current trend of political correctness to extend understanding
# to such Native American cultural 'traditions', but that they do
# not want that same political correctness to extend to revealing their
# inappropriate treatment of animals, namely horses.

The people of the US have taken their common beliefs and values and used
them to create laws. Americans believe it is not right for a small group
of people to impose their religous beliefs on everyone else, instead
opting to abide by rules which the majority can agree on, laws. If the
"Suicide Race" does not appear to be breaking any laws, then your only
recourse is to fall back on moral grounds. If the current race violates
laws, then work to get them inforced. If it does not, and you believe
there should be laws against it, then you are free to work to codify your
beliefs into law. There are people who have higher standards of the value
of life, and there are people who have lower standards. Those with lower
standards while not breaking any laws are not necessarily bad people, and
those who would uphold their rights are not immoral.

# Where the f@CK did you two come from?
# I've never seen either of you post to this newsgroup
# ever before and you come in here and try to proselytize
# the most egregious BS I have witnessed in a.s.h-r
# in over a year and a half, in a half-wit defense
# of people who want to drive horses off a cliff
# and drown them in a river? Go back to
# alt.sport.political.correctness.kill.horses.
# Better yet, go over to alt.sport.kill.yourself
# and never come back.
#
One of the nicest thing about jeja news is it makes your words
live forever. Do you really want the above vulgar ranting to
be associated with your name for the rest of your life? Especially
since its about a race you've never even seen?

--
For what the horse does under compulsion is done without understand-
ing, and there is no beauty in it either, any more than if one were to whip and spur a dancer. --Xenophon
    cz...@musclefish.com, http://www4.ncsu.edu/~lmbecker/www/czei/

Pat McSharry <mcsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<3240DF...@pacbell.net>...
> Steve Porter wrote:
> >
> > First off, I don 't agree with this but I do live in Washington and
know
> > this is a Native American tradition and I believe they have the right
to
> > carry on  there native traditions.  They are proud people and it does
take
> > place on their reservation.  I'm not a Native American Indian but just
like
> > the freedom of speech on the net, I feel that it is their right to
keepup
> > their traditions.  I know, I know, you think I'm nuts but everything
can't
> > and won't be done the way I want all of the time or the way you want it
> > done all of the time.  That's why I'm glad I live in a country that
> > recognizes freedom of speech and choice even if its against the norm.
> >   Thanks if for nothing else, at least you will think about it.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Steve, let me see if I understand what you are saying...
>
> Since this is an american native tradition, it doesn't amtter if its
> cruel.  After all, we cannot expect native americans to have grown over
> the last two hundred plus years to the point of awareness that their
> ancestors (uuhh, maybe our white ancestors too???...) may not have had.
>
> Come on --cruelty is cruelty and Native Americans, I'm sure, aren't in
> favor of cruelty for traditions sake.
>
Cruelty is cruelty?  I think there are many people who would say that
racing of any kind is cruelty, does that mean that it is?  I remember a
breeders cup not too many years ago that had two or three break downs, a
Preakness only two (or maybe three) years ago, and countless breakdowns
each year at the many low end tracks in this thouroghbred racing industry.
Many would say that this means the sport should be banned, but I personally
don't agree with it so I'll continue to watch the sport.  Other sports are
also enjoyed around the world by many rational people that are considered
cruel in other cultures and even within the same culture (how about bull
fighting, dog racing,  hunting, fishing, boxing etc)

This OMAK suicide race sounds sounds pretty nasty, but then so are many of
the other jump meets held all around the world.  The one thing to keep in
mind is that regardless of what we think, if this takes place on an indian
reservation we (the US) have no right to intervene.  The reservations are
not part of the US, they belong solely to the Indians.  You may not want to
watch it, but don't try to tell them what to do on their land.  One
question I have is how many people who are criticizing this race have
actual first hand experience with it.  I could put together a pretty strong
argument about just about any case if I only tell the bad side of the
story.  There must be more to the race than siply trying to drive horses to
their death.

Basically, everyone needs to be a little more understanding of other
cultures.  Included in these culture differences is the belief in many
cultures that animals have no rights.  It doesn't matter whether we believe
it or not, that's the way it is.  In the mean time we have the right to
believe that horse racing is a great sport and enjoy it as much as
possible. :-)


John Long

Mr. P,

First of all, where I came from is none of your business.  As far as I know
there are no moral violations to me only replying to posts that I want to.
As I read over all of your posts I see that you seem to have a big problem
with being misquoted, but you don't seem to have any problem jumping to
stupid conclusions based on a particular sentence taken out of context
(maybe you should work for a political party).  What the message in my post
said was that sometimes the things that one culture (or subset of a
culture) believe to be cruel doesn't apply to the rest of the world.  As I
pointed out, there is a large group of people who believe that horse racing
in general is cruel.  If it is right for you to believe that this Omak race
is cruel, then its right for those groups to believe the same of
thouroughbred racing.  Is it right for that group to be able to impose
their beliefs on us?  If so then I guess we better prepare for all of the
sports I mentioned, plus many others to be banned.

This will be the last post I'll make on this subject because I can see from
the profanity and the insults you have slung that you are an incredibly
small minded individual (perhaps pointy headed?).  Whoops, probably
shouldn't have stooped to your level, but it felt good anyway.

John

In article <Mr.P-ya02308000...@news.mindspring.com>,
Mr.P@a.s.h-r (Mr. P) wrote:
# Again, I say, it is hypocrisy for these people to
# hide behind political correctness to justify this
# abhorrent practice, yet do not want political
# correctness to extend to preserving the lives of
# these horses.
#

You and I must have different definitions of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is
condeming a race you've never seen firsthand as being immoral, knowing
full well that USENET posts and sensationalist TV media are known to often
be inaccurate. Hypocrisy is believing something is morally wrong and then
doing nothing more substantial about it than complaining about it on
USENET.

# In the first instance of witnessing
# any act of inhumanity or crime, do you rely on fair play and moral
# conduct, or the letter of the law?

The reason we rely on laws is to keep vigilantes from deciding what is
right and imposing their views on everyone else. Luckily on USENET they
can usually do no more harm than correcting one's spelling and whine about
people not following the rules.

# Second, do I have to be present at a murder to
# be against it? I think not. I've seen a clip of
# this race on cable, and that was all I wanted
# to see.
#
You would have us believe that a race has been abusing horses since 1880,
and the unspeakable acts have been captured on videotape, and yet, for
some unknown reason the local humane society and police are all looking
the other way? To a certain degree local communities have the right to set
standards for what is acceptable.

--
For what the horse does under compulsion is done without understand-
ing, and there is no beauty in it either, any more than if one were to whip and spur a dancer. --Xenophon
    cz...@musclefish.com, http://www4.ncsu.edu/~lmbecker/www/czei/

In article <czei-21099...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, cz...@musclefish.com
(Michael Czeiszperger) wrote:

> In article <Mr.P-ya02308000...@news.mindspring.com>,
> Mr.P@a.s.h-r (Mr. P) wrote:
> # Again, I say, it is hypocrisy for these people to
> # hide behind political correctness to justify this
> # abhorrent practice, yet do not want political
> # correctness to extend to preserving the lives of
> # these horses.
> #
>
> You and I must have different definitions of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is
> condeming a race you've never seen firsthand as being immoral, knowing
> full well that USENET posts and sensationalist TV media are known to often
> be inaccurate. Hypocrisy is believing something is morally wrong and then
> doing nothing more substantial about it than complaining about it on
> USENET.

definition of hypocrisy/American Heritage Dictionary:
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings,
or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

I've already been in touch with the PAWS people.
What I do in defense of these horses is more than
you know, or need to know. It must be nice to be
able to suspend belief and turn your head when
you see a crime being committed, MC.

You're a horseman, right? At least you state
as much. Does that horse of yours know
you feel this way about the Omak race?
I pity both of you.

> # In the first instance of witnessing
> # any act of inhumanity or crime, do you rely on fair play and moral
> # conduct, or the letter of the law?
>
> The reason we rely on laws is to keep vigilantes from deciding what is
> right and imposing their views on everyone else.

So in other words, if it isn't in the law,
anything goes? Laws are only made to restrain
vigilantes? Now you're a constitutional scholar, too?
Perhaps you _have_ ridden in this race after all...

> Luckily on USENET they
> can usually do no more harm than correcting one's spelling and whine about
> people not following the rules.

You think Usenet rules apply to everyone but you?
Let me give you an example of being misquoted:
>>cz...@musclefish.com (Michael Czeiszperger) wrote:
>>I apologize to all I have offended and know in my
>>heart that I was wrong.

How's that? And it's even spelled correctly.

> # Second, do I have to be present at a murder to
> # be against it? I think not. I've seen a clip of
> # this race on cable, and that was all I wanted
> # to see.
> #
> You would have us believe that a race has been abusing horses since 1880,
> and the unspeakable acts have been captured on videotape, and yet, for
> some unknown reason the local humane society and police are all looking
> the other way?

Yep. That they don't want to kill the golden calf,
everybody makes a few bucks, etc. Doesn't make it
right.

> To a certain degree local communities have the right to set
> standards for what is acceptable.

What are the standards for horse cruelty
and idiotic Usenet posting in North Carolina?
Just wondering.

You should take a close look at another one
of your quotes.

"Courage, wisdom born of insight and humility, empathy
born of compassion and love, all can be bequeathed by a
horse to his rider. --Charles de Kunffy"

You could use some of this.

Mr. P

In article <01bba800$ec4c2460$4aed45c7@jdlrdid>, "John Long"
<jdl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Mr. P,
>
> First of all, where I came from is none of your business.

I really don't want to know.

> As far as I know there are no moral violations to me only replying to
posts    > that I want to.

Reply all you want.
Prepare to be flamed.

> As I read over all of your posts I see that you seem to have a big problem
> with being misquoted, but you don't seem to have any problem jumping to
> stupid conclusions based on a particular sentence taken out of context
> (maybe you should work for a political party).

Which conclusion didn't you like?

> What the message in my post said was that sometimes the things that one
> culture (or subset of a culture) believe to be cruel doesn't apply to the
rest > of the world.  As I pointed out, there is a large group of people
who believe > that horse racing in general is cruel.  If it is right for
you to believe that > this Omak race is cruel, then its right for those
groups to believe the same
> of thouroughbred (sic) racing.

Never said this wasn't so.
As I make my living from thoroughbred
racing, I am acutely aware of the conflict
and try to facilitate awareness of things
like the Omak race, or the horse-tripping
contest at a Nevada fair, as well as
shoddy trainer (and others) practices
that lead to premature breakdowns and
lameness.

> Is it right for that group to be able to impose
> their beliefs on us?  If so then I guess we better prepare for all of the
> sports I mentioned, plus many others to be banned.

This is this deepest irony, in that
I'm about as anti-PC as one person can
be, but when it comes to horses, I won't
give an inch. All it takes is for us to
turn away from these _abuses_ and perhaps
you're right, there won't be a need for
this newsgroup by the next century.

> This will be the last post I'll make on this subject because I can see from
> the profanity and the insults you have slung that you are an incredibly
> small minded individual (perhaps pointy headed?).  Whoops, probably
> shouldn't have stooped to your level, but it felt good anyway.
>
> John

Again, when it comes to horses, I won't give an
inch. If I perceive that someone is condoning this
Omak race, through whatever twisted logic, then I
react to condemn. I'm glad my broadside stung you.

To put this in _context_, I refer to your original post:
>>The one thing to keep in mind is that regardless of what we think, if
this >>takes place on an indian reservation we (the US) have no right to
intervene.  >>The reservations are not part of the US, they belong solely
to the Indians.  >>You may not want to watch it, but don't try to tell them
what to do on their >>land.

We've already covered this. That may be what
you think but that's not what the law says.
And yes, I do know what is in those treaties.

>>One question I have is how many people who are criticizing this race have
>>actual first hand experience with it.  I could put together a pretty strong
>>argument about just about any case if I only tell the bad side of the
>>story.  There must be more to the race than siply (sic) trying to drive
horses >>to their death.

Well, since there seems to be an abundance of
sponsorship, there seems to be an 'event' status
surrounding it. Can you tell me what possible
'good' comes from this race or what anybody who
sponsors or participates derives from it,
particularly those that go home with an empty
horse trailer?
I saw a snippet of the race on cable, and that
was all I needed to see. What, do I have to witness
this in person? Do I need to participate in this
in order to form an idea that this is wrong? Do
I have to be present at a criminal act to condemn it?

>>Basically, everyone needs to be a little more understanding of other
>>cultures.

See, whether or not you meant it this way,
this _sounds_ like the PC beast at work.
Political correctness is some of the worst
garbage to come down the pike in many a year,
and _if_ this is the reasoning to allow this
Omak race to continue, then _why_ does the
poltical correctness only _stop_ at the rights
of native peoples in this instance?
The PC manifesto, from my perspective, has
extended its coverage to the rights of animals,
so it seems to me that people who suggest
that 'everyone needs to be a little more
understanding of other cultures' have to
toe the whole line, not pick and choose what
is convenient.

Ergo, the hypocrisy-if the scenario I describe
is indeed the case (not saying that it is) then
these people are trying to have it both ways.
And that is detestable when it endangers the
lives of these innocent horses.

BTW, _my_ culture protects horses, so I guess
you need to have a little more understanding
about _my_ culture.
What does _your_ culture believe in this matter?

If you don't feel the same way about horses,
these Omak horses, fine, but that doesn't make
me want to flame your statements any less so.
LIve with it. Uplug your computer and smash
your modem into a million pieces if it bothers
you that bad.

>>Included in these culture differences is the belief in many
>>cultures that animals have no rights.  It doesn't matter whether we believe
>>it or not, that's the way it is.

That sounds like the banality of evil argument,
or situational ethics, that it's 'ok because everybody does it'.

It's not ok that these people want to do this, IMHO.
You may share less concern for the well-being of these
horses and that's fine, just don't expect me to be
any less enraged.

To paraphrase a familiar quote:
The rise of evil merely requires that good men do nothing.

>>In the mean time we have the right to believe that
>>horse racing is a great sport and enjoy it as much as
>>possible. :-)

As long as it's not the Omak race. :-|

Mr. P

> >The idea was that the weak were to be weeded out.
>
> Ok, that was fine when the horse was a necessity for survival on the
plains.
> But now, isn't that what High School is for?
>

Heh. Not MY high school. And things have gotten worse since I was a pup (I
have a stepdaughter in sixth grade, so I've gotten to witness the new and
not-at-all-improved educational process firsthand-- and the baby's getting
home schooling!). What schools consider desirable these days is having NO
competition, in any way, shape, or form. Whatever the activity, everyone
gets rewarded for SOMETHING. If I were a member of a culture with
established rites of passage (all we Scots have is having somsone find out
what's under the kilt! <grin>), I'd be sorta depressed about it. I am
anyway.

> How many Horses ran in Omak races?

Good question. Should have thought of it. But the core that runs at Tdn
usually hovers at around five hundred, which is probably a lot more than in
the Omak races. I'm sure there's a ratio here somewhere.

>How many of them were evaluated before the race by qualified
veterinarians?

Well, given the quote below about whether they treasure their horses or
not, I'd assume there's someone in the tribe who at least knows what
they're doing with the health of a horse. These days, it may actually be a
qualified vet.

> How many have been turned away at the gate
> or before the start in Omak races (as often happens at many tracks)
because
> the starter has called a vet to check a horse & the vet determined it not
to
> be sound?  Is there any such evaluation?   If not, we're comparing apples
to
> oranges.

True. But it's worth noting that, even with all the precautions taken with
thoroughbreds and jumpers, accidents do happen. And, gicen the ratio above,
whatever it may be, I'd guess in a roughly comparable number per capita to
the Omak horses. At least here in the bush leagues.

> Yes, after the course manager has had time to evaluate the turf, fill in
sink
> holes, and otherwise do his durndest to ensure a safe course.

Is that done everywhere? I may be being influenced by the op-ed page and
too many Dick Francis novels, but I have over the years gotten the distinct
feeling that this is not the case, especially not overseas.

>I don't think the Omak courses
> have the same course designers.  (now I hear the "oh now it's a money
issue
> uproar - no, it's a safety issue).
>

I'm available! It'd be more fun than tech support!

> >Nope, but thousands of people, if not more, gather every year to watch
the
> >Chincoteague horses plunge into the water and swim.
>
> Yep & that should be stopped too.  If they need to cull the ponies (as
that's
> my understanding why it's done), develop holding facilities on the island
&
> ferry the ponies.

Ah. I figured somewhere there was someone that saw the double standard, but
again I've been influenced by the media (and that fact that my wife gives
scads to the Chincoteague Foundation every year). Hard to remember there
are dissenting opinions when you see the two contrasted on the evening news
as a sort of good horse/bad horse story.

> >That animals have no rights? Not only is it not idiotic, it is 100%
> >accurate. Animals do not have rights, they have the protection we afford
> >them, as someone once said (don't remember who).
>
> In nature, what "rights" do animals have?  The right to be eaten by a
> predator?  The right to starve if, as a predator, you aren't strong
enough to
> kill the other animal?

Sounds about right. That's what natural selection is all about.

> Would not the bow or tomahawk be cherished if it protected him in battle,
or
> was seen as a necessity to make him the warrior that he was?  Would it be

> abused in some sporting event if it might be needed to fight tomorrow?

Absolutely-- but if it breaks, you go find another one that's as good as
the last one was.

> P.S.  How's the goat?
>

Running for president (and a sight better than his competition, I dare
say). Catch him on TNT Saturday nights at 5PM. Not that I'm plugging the
World Famous Rudy and GoGo's Cartoon Show or anything!

TM(&G)
--
It's a dog eat dog world, and from where I sit, there just ain't enough
damn dogs.

Oh, boy, here we go again...

In article <01bba722$7df426e0$cb0b...@en.com>, "The Misanthrope (and his
goat)" <pxan...@en.com> wrote:

[snip]

> There's a leap in logic here that pretty much deflates your argument-- not
> everyone who wants to see traditions keep happening is in the politically
> correct camp.

Please point to the place in the post where I say that.
There was a point in this thread, long, long gone by,
where another poster, not the original poster, but
in one of the first replies, suggested that there was
an argument to be made about the irony of that it was
important to 'respect' a tradition that resulted in the
likelihood that the once a year this event was held,
several horses would likely be killed, but that political
correctness could serve as an explanation as to why no one
was outraged (although I seem to have enough outrage over
this for everybody), i.e., no one wanted to 'offend' these
Native Americans in these supposedly 'enlightened' PC times,
yet that PC'ness did not extend to the lives of these
horses and yet part of PC seems to be that animals do
have rights. It is not a leap of logic yet requires a
certain understanding of the framework within which the
argument was made, and which was lost to most people at
the beginning of the thread. I'm not blaming you, but if
you re-read every post on this from the beginning, you have
a better picture of what a couple of us were trying to say.

> I'm certainly not. What no one seems to have touched on is
> that the heart of the Omak race has nothing to do with horses, at least,
> not as I've had it explained to me-- it's a rite of passage, and hey-- we
> may have forgotten about this in this "enlightened" age, but during rites
> of passage, not everyone (or everyone's mount, as it were) was SUPPOSED to
> survive. The idea was that the weak were to be weeded out.

Or conversely, to prove that you were a warrior.
So to weed out the weak, or to prove they are
warriors, they have to kill horses? As another
poster suggested, could any Native American culture
genuinely risk thinning out their horse herd in
this way in the past?

> If that's not still the purpose of the race, well, then, I have to agree
> that it should be stopped. But not because of some sort of imagined
> cruelty.

It's not imagined. Read the original post,
reposted below.

> In the last weeks I've watched Prince of Thieves and Matiara break
> down and Soul of the Matter and Fastness be retired because of injury. And
> these are the ones we hear about. Horses break down all the time that never
> make the papers. Three horses were killed in the Omak races this year? How
> many broke down at your local track and had to be destroyed? In the past
> twelve months here at Thistledown, I can think of seven off the top of my
> head.

Well, I figured that someone would say this at
some point. Every effort is taken on track, at
least at the track I bet at, to keep horses in
top health, and of course, the _purpose_ of
thoroughbred racing is to finish first under
the wire from distances of 2 furlongs to 3 miles,
not drive them off of a cliff and through a river.
One horse broke down during the long spring meet,
as the rider attempted to pull it up.
Thistledown, with seven, why am I not
surprised? A poor reflection on them,
why would you continue to shove your
money through the till?

Thieves, Lukas, enough said.
Matiara, unexpected, exact cause
still unknown.
Soul of the Matter, not unexpected,
bad feet and ankles.
Fastness, tendon, unexpected.

The latter two will live out their
lives in lush retirement, not saddled
to be ridden downhill to their doom.
Thieves is Lukas, and that's a whole
other thread. Matiara, I withhold comment
until the cause is returned.

Would any of the trainers of these horses
saddle them for the Omak race? These horses
put bread and butter on the table for these
guys. It's a whole different philosophy than
the one which permits riders to send horses
down a steep hill and into a river.

I have a friend who is a trainer. When tough
times came, he slept in his stall. The filly
wasn't winning for him, but she ate before
he did. I realize not every trainer has this
kind of respect for the animal but it is a
180 degree opposite than the kind we witness
in the Omak race.

> As to whether the race is any more risky than, say, a three-mile
> steeplechase course, I'm not a track designer, but I'd think that the
> chances of a horse finding a sinkhole on the hill full o' mud isn't that
> much more than a horse finding a sinkhole in a yielding turf course after
> two weeks of rain. And yes, before the objections flow in, some tracks WILL
> race on turf the first day after a two-week downpour.

I have yet to see a racecourse where the turf
course is built at a 45 degree angle, immediately
met by a _river_ which must be forded to get to
the finish line. I do not know of any recognized
hunt meet that meets that description. I have not
met any hunt riders who would risk their horse over
a course they deemed too perilous, or if they felt
their horse was unsatisfactorily prepared for the
challenge.

I have walked the length of a 2 1/2 mile hunt course
with a rider in the early morning before a race just
to see what they look and look out for. The ones
I know won't ride if there is any question in their
mind about the horse's safety. See, recognition of
the horse's safety is the first line in assuring
their _own_ safety.

As for 'off-the-turf' (funny, I haven't seen that
turf course at Thistledown), it's my experience that
after a two-week deluge, it's several days before
they let anyone back on. And the thing that keeps
me from complaining about that, is the first
thing the track officials tell me: safety.


[snip]
> Nope, but thousands of people, if not more, gather every year to watch the
> Chincoteague horses plunge into the water and swim.

And some of them drown. Did I say horses
were Einsteins? If they act they lemmings,
it's not by volition, it's by ingrained habit.
If people watch, fine, as long as no one is saddling
up the Chincoteagues and driving them down
a steep hill and into the channel.

>>Do you think the name 'suicide' is any dead giveaway about the nature of
this >>race? Is that point on your head getting any sharper?

> That term is not in there to apply to horses. See my note above. For that
> matter, it was probably tacked on by someone in the media.

It was tacked on by the original poster,
see my note above about rereading the original
thread from the beginning. I used 'suicide'
offset with pos in recognition that this was
not the original name.

> > More BS. Ironically, the Federal laws that govern
> > such an event have more concern for the rider's
> > safety than the horse's well-being.

> That's not irony, that's the way the U.S. thinks things are supposed to be.
> I disagree completely, but going the other way (if people want to
> participate in this race, well, hey, who are we to stop them? And if they
> want to do it without protection and end up a bloody mess, then that's just
> fine with me).

No, it is irony, when you consider that the laws
attempt to protect a rider who wants to participate
in a 'suicide' race (note the pos), yet say little
about protecting the horse, who is the other,
and unwitting, participant.

> > >>>>>There must be more to the race than siply trying to drive horses to
> > >>>>>their death.
> > Nope. That's about it. Note the 'suicide' in the title.

> You are wrong, or I am misinformed. Again, see above.

Again, the 'suicide' came from the orignal poster,
set off with pos, etc.
The ''suicide' in the title' reference was a shorthand
to suggest that there was little more involved, as far
as I was concerned.

> > >>>>>Included in these culture differences is the belief in many
> > >>>>>cultures that animals have no rights.
> >
> > That statement is prima facie idiotic.
>
> That animals have no rights? Not only is it not idiotic, it is 100%
> accurate. Animals do not have rights, they have the protection we afford
> them, as someone once said (don't remember who).

Who was it? No, I'm kidding, I really don't care.
I believe your statement to be 100 percent opinion
and not factual in the least. I pity your pet. 'Nuf said.

> > You're trying to tell me that this Native
> > American culture believes horses are meant
> > to be ridden off a cliff and drowned in a river?
>
> You are confusing malice with apathy. To them, a horse is a tool to use in
> shaping a warrior. It is not necessarily thought of as any different than a
> tomahawk or a longbow.

If that is indeed the case, then the level
to which these people have sunk, or already
were, is lower than I imagined.

> > What the...? you mean, nothing is worth changing
> > because it is just so? So if races are fixed, I
> > have the right to continue fixing them?
>
> How loud would you be complaining if you were the one raking in the cash?

Somehow I think that fixing races would bother me
a lot more than it would bother you.

> Not too much, I expect. But that's beside the point. Some things are wirth
> changing. You obviously think this is one of them. I, and the original
> poster of the note you are responding to, don't. Difference of opinion. Can
> we kill this thread now?

FYI, you were not the original poster of the note that
I was responding to. As a matter of fact, I do not
even know where you came from, and I've only seen you
posting in a.s.h-r for about a week and a half, anyway.

The original post of this thread belongs to the following:

In article <51f8m3$q...@usenet11.interramp.com>,
sky...@primenet.com (Cari Gehl) wrote:

>NEWS RELEASE
August 12, 1996

Contact: Will Anderson
wan...@paws.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ANOTHER HORSE KILLED IN THE OMAK SUICIDE RACE
The Omak, Washington Suicide Race, an annual event in which horses race down
a steep embankment, plunge into the rock-strewn Okanogan River at night, and
cross a finish line in a rodeo arena, killed another horse on Saturday
night. According to Omak Stampede, Inc. officials who organize the race,
since 1980 eight horses have died during the competition, despite the fact
that there are only four races each year. Therefore, on average, the Suicide
Race kills a horse every eighth race. An additional three horses have died,
two by drowning, during practice runs.

PAWS investigator Will Anderson witnessed and videotaped the death of the
horse during the Saturday night competition. After the other horses plunged
into the river, one horse was left standing about 30 feet above the water.
The horse appeared to have broken its left front leg. As horrified viewers
watched, a veterinarian filled a syringe with a lethal drug and injected it
into the horse. Officials turned off the lights on Suicide Race Hill and
plunged the crowd into darkness to cover up the collapse and death of the
horse as it rolled limply down the steep hill to the water’s edge.
[end here//note: this continues in original thread]



>> Probably one of the groups this message was crossposted to. If you'll
>> notice, there's more than one up in the newsgroups list. Matter o' fact, I
>> got the original message in three different newsgroups. And I tried to
>> ignore it. But this sort of personal attack when one person disagrees with
>> someone else's philosophies is completely unwarranted on a newsgroup that's
>> not dedicated to the discussion of same. So can we kindly shut the hell up
>> about this whole thing and talk about something productive, like who's
>> going to win the Vosburgh?
>
> TM(&G)

1) The original post, as my ISP received it,
was originally posted to alt.sport.horse-racing
and rec.equestrian. Not all ISP's carry the
same newsgroups, TM(&G).

2.) You'll note that in my last posting to
the orignal thread, and in my response to
this post, I am deleting rec.equestrian
and reponding further to any thread on
this matter only in a.s.h-r.

3.) The odious interjection was directed at two posters
in my reply to the original thread, one which directly
misattributed a quote to me at length in a prior posting,
and the other of which earned the slag by suggesting it
was wiser that I and all others ignore the atrocity.
That word was not directed at you,
so why should you take offense, unless
you agree with the latter statement
that we should just stick our heads
in the sand? Then it applies.

4) I disagree that this is something we
should not discuss in this group. And my
opinion on that is every bit as valid as
yours, and if I feel that a thread on this
matter calls for a reply, I will do so
unreservedly, regardless of what you think.

5) H and G is going to win the Vosburgh,
   if it is that important to you.

Mr. P

Lisa Robertson <rle...@cy-net.net> wrote:

>Cari Gehl wrote:
>
>> ANOTHER HORSE KILLED IN THE OMAK SUICIDE RACE
>>
>
>I too, am not a member of any 'animal rights' group, and am just a
>simply horse owner/breeder.
>I can't believe anyone would do that to an animal! First, to ride over a
>course as dangerous
>as that, you'd have to really trust your horse (or be incredibly
>stupid). Any horse I trusted
>that much, I'd love too dearly to risk injurying.
>It just doesn't make sense to me.
>Another thing that confuses me a great deal: how on earth did big
>companies get involved
>with this as sponsers!?! I would think they would be more responsible. A
>local arab club i
>belong to has a very hard time filling it's sponsor list each year for a
>fall show. Maybe they
>need to add some 'death-defying' classes to get the sponsors? (i'm being
>sarcastic, for anyone
>that didn't get that)
>--
>Lisa Robertson (who likes to keep her horses healthy)
>Royal Legend Arabians           http://www2.cy-net.net/~rlegend/
>Straight Egyptians and Sheykh Obeyds for breeding, performance, and fun.

Hi Lisa,

I, too, think the horse race is not in the best interests of the
horses. Perhaps it could be managed in a much safer way, say held on a
different course.

Nonetheless, not to be obnoxious, seriously not to be obnoxious, I
wonder how many of the people who oppose the race eat animals?

Just a question, how about you?

Regards, Ben from Spokane. . .

In article <01bba7eb$d03e0820$460c...@en.com>, "The Misanthrope (and his
goat)" <pxan...@en.com> wrote:

> > Please point to the place in the post where I say that.
>
> I did. You just replaced it with a [snip].

Oh lord, you missed it, then. Can I borrow from
another reply I just made a minute ago? On second
thought, I've beaten this horse to death, no pun
intended. If you want to read a revised explanation
of the irony that I was trying to construct, it's out
there in a prior thread. I think it was lost on a
significant portion of this newsgroup and rec.equestrian.
Well, you win some, you lose some. I'll let it die. Maybe.

> > Or conversely, to prove that you were a warrior.
> > So to weed out the weak, or to prove they are
> > warriors, they have to kill horses?
>
> No-- I say again, the horses were tools. It was the humans who were
> supposed to die. If they took a few horses with them, that was beside the
> point. We have lost the original focus and put our own spin on it, which is
> where (IMO, of course) the issue of "right" and "wrong" comes into it.

Right, the horses get hurt and some die.
That's the wrong. I see what you are
saying, though.

> > > If that's not still the purpose of the race, well, then, I have to
> > >agree that it should be stopped. But not because of some sort of imagined
> > > cruelty.
> >
> > It's not imagined. Read the original post,
> > reposted below.
>
> Sorry, I meant imagined in that while WE may consider it cruelty, THEY do
> not.

I meant it's not imagined in that it
actually occured. But I get your point.

> > Well, I figured that someone would say this at
> > some point. Every effort is taken on track, at
> > least at the track I bet at, to keep horses in
> > top health, and of course, the _purpose_ of
> > thoroughbred racing is to finish first under
> > the wire from distances of 2 furlongs to 3 miles,
> > not drive them off of a cliff and through a river.
> > One horse broke down during the long spring meet,
> > as the rider attempted to pull it up.
>
> Your track, whatever it may be, is truly blessed.

It is. So far.

> > Thistledown, with seven, why am I not
> > surprised? A poor reflection on them,
> > why would you continue to shove your
> > money through the till?
>
> Full-card sdimulcasting! Finally! Not that it's any better in Southern
> California-- Del Mar has its horsemen complaining about the quality of the
> track. But there's still Belmont. I think I saw one horse break down in NY
> over the whole Aqu winter meet.

Well, right. Ohio got full-card. Seven
seems a bit high, maybe just to me.

> > Matiara, unexpected, exact cause
> > still unknown.
>
> [etc., all of which I agree with]
> ThoroTimes reported less than a week after the Beverly D that the cause was
> massive internal bleeding in the hip of the leg in which the fracture
> occurred (although they probably used much better grammar than I).

I didn't know of the cause. Thanks.
Probably could not have been prevented, then.

> > Would any of the trainers of these horses
> > saddle them for the Omak race? These horses
> > put bread and butter on the table for these
> > guys. It's a whole different philosophy than
> > the one which permits riders to send horses
> > down a steep hill and into a river.
> >
> > I have a friend who is a trainer. When tough
> > times came, he slept in his stall. The filly
> > wasn't winning for him, but she ate before
> > he did. I realize not every trainer has this
> > kind of respect for the animal but it is a
> > 180 degree opposite than the kind we witness
> > in the Omak race.
>
> You are absolutely correct, and I probably shouldn't have drawn the
> parallel in the first place (some misguided attempt to keep the thread on
> topic, at least for a.s.h-r). I wish every trainer had that kind of respect
> for their horses. And yes, as someone else said, I was comparing apples and
> oranges. My apologies.

Well, he's a pretty unique trainer. He only
trains what he owns, because he wouldn't risk
an unfit horse. Would that they were all like
him.

> And a good thing it is that we DON'T have a turf course with this weather.
> As for the deluge, River Downs earlier this year.

River should not have done that, even
with the pent-up demand for turf racing
from their horseman. They said they held
out as long as they could, the one bit
of feedback that I got was that they should
have waited another two days.


> > No, it is irony, when you consider that the laws
> > attempt to protect a rider who wants to participate
> > in a 'suicide' race (note the pos), yet say little
> > about protecting the horse, who is the other,
> > and unwitting, participant.
>
> Okay, I gotcha, but I still stand by my assertion that we should let the
> fools die. After all, when people strap themselves into hot rods and die,
> no one complains about them.

I agree, let the damn fools die.
Let them drive hot-rods, four-wheel ATV's,
skateboards, rollerblades, whatever,
down these hills instead of horses, then.

> Explain to me how any animal without the native intelligence to recognize
> the idea of "rights" can have them.

I impart to you that we are commanded to take
care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
That is the 'right' from which my concerns flow.

> Look at it from the other perspective, since this "animal rights" kick is a
> relatively new phenomenon; for thousands of years, no one worried about
> animal rights. It's only been in the last few decades that we have
> "elevated" ourselves to think this way. Nobody sunk, the American people
> (and we are by far in the minority on this) have changed our views.

I refer you to my previous statement.

> I've been here for well over two years. 'nuff said.

My apologies. I have only seen 'and his goat' just
recently. Perhaps you were using a different moniker.

> > The original post of this thread belongs to the following:
> As I mentioned before, I saw it in three different places. I tried to
> ignore it. I was able to do so successfully until I saw personal attacks
> being thrown out.

Yes, but after _another_ quick review of the
three threads this thing has spawned,
I don't see anything where I attacked you
for anything you said prior to the post
we are now discussing.

> This is not a topic for discussion on a racing board (and
> certainly not on a.s.h-r.systems, rec. gambling.racing, and only marginally
> in wash.general).

Well, I vehemently disagree that this is not
an appropriate thread for a.s.h-r, and I
have cut my posts and responses back to _just_
this news group a day ago. Rec.equestrian can
go whichever way they want to go with the thread,
that's their business.

The only reason I ever cross-posted was
a) that the original post had gone out all
over the place, as you indicated.
b) the person who misattributed a long quote
to me was cross-posting out of rec.equestrian.

And if you want to see a flame war, go over to
rec.equestrian and read the threads about 'draw reins'.
Yow! Sharper than the reins themselves.

> I had planned to toss out my opinions once and disappear,
> as usual, but this one actually sparked a few intelligent responses. So
> this is about my fifth reply to it. And will be my last. AFAIC, my opinions
> are known, will not change, and that's the end of it.

Right, ok, nuff said.
But you're thinking about this.
Somehow I think you'll be
back for one more...

> > 3.) The odious interjection was directed at two posters
> > in my reply to the original thread, one which directly
> > misattributed a quote to me at length in a prior posting,
> > and the other of which earned the slag by suggesting it
> > was wiser that I and all others ignore the atrocity.
> > That word was not directed at you,
> > so why should you take offense.

> Now I'm being misquoted. I certainly wouldn't take objection to any
> particular kind of phrasing used. I've been known to toss out a stream of
> invective or two myself. The guy who asked you if you wanted to live with
> it, well, I skimmed that post and dismissed it. Hope you did as well.

Right. Well, I read it, and replied to it,
and you know how that goes. Not trying to
misquote you.
I was merely saying (as I say above)
that I had no reason to toss that word in your
direction, as it was directed to the one
who had misquoted me, and, no pun
intended, to get his goat (not yours).
A good troll in the middle of a discussion
should lively up any newsgroup once in a while.

> > H and G is going to win the Vosburgh.
>
> He'll come in third behind Not Surprising and Lite the Fuse (too
> bad Our Emblem is injured). But we'll see in two hours, won't we?

Langfuhr. I can barely imagine
writing it on my Eclipse ballot.
Oh well.

> TM(&G)
> (btw, the goat's not my pet, he belongs, at least in an indirect manner, to
> Ted Turner.)

I think I'll have to watch this show.
You can't go wrong with a good goat.
Does the goat have a horse? :->

Mr. P

> [snip]
>
> > There's a leap in logic here that pretty much deflates your argument--
not
> > everyone who wants to see traditions keep happening is in the
politically
> > correct camp.
>
> Please point to the place in the post where I say that.

I did. You just replaced it with a [snip].

> > I'm certainly not. What no one seems to have touched on is
> > that the heart of the Omak race has nothing to do with horses, at
least,
> > not as I've had it explained to me-- it's a rite of passage, and hey--
we
> > may have forgotten about this in this "enlightened" age, but during
rites
> > of passage, not everyone (or everyone's mount, as it were) was SUPPOSED
to
> > survive. The idea was that the weak were to be weeded out.
>
> Or conversely, to prove that you were a warrior.
> So to weed out the weak, or to prove they are
> warriors, they have to kill horses?

No-- I say again, the horses were tools. It was the humans who were
supposed to die. If they took a few horses with them, that was beside the
point. We have lost the original focus and put our own spin on it, which is
where (IMO, of course) the issue of "right" and "wrong" comes into it.

> > If that's not still the purpose of the race, well, then, I have to
agree
> > that it should be stopped. But not because of some sort of imagined
> > cruelty.
>
> It's not imagined. Read the original post,
> reposted below.

Sorry, I meant imagined in that while WE may consider it cruelty, THEY do
not.

> Well, I figured that someone would say this at
> some point. Every effort is taken on track, at
> least at the track I bet at, to keep horses in
> top health, and of course, the _purpose_ of
> thoroughbred racing is to finish first under
> the wire from distances of 2 furlongs to 3 miles,
> not drive them off of a cliff and through a river.
> One horse broke down during the long spring meet,
> as the rider attempted to pull it up.

Your track, whatever it may be, is truly blessed.

> Thistledown, with seven, why am I not
> surprised? A poor reflection on them,
> why would you continue to shove your
> money through the till?

Full-card sdimulcasting! Finally! Not that it's any better in Southern
California-- Del Mar has its horsemen complaining about the quality of the
track. But there's still Belmont. I think I saw one horse break down in NY
over the whole Aqu winter meet.

> Matiara, unexpected, exact cause
> still unknown.

[etc., all of which I agree with]

> Matiara, I withhold comment
> until the cause is returned.

ThoroTimes reported less than a week after the Beverly D that the cause was
massive internal bleeding in the hip of the leg in which the fracture
occurred (although they probably used much better grammar than I).

> Would any of the trainers of these horses
> saddle them for the Omak race? These horses
> put bread and butter on the table for these
> guys. It's a whole different philosophy than
> the one which permits riders to send horses
> down a steep hill and into a river.
>
> I have a friend who is a trainer. When tough
> times came, he slept in his stall. The filly
> wasn't winning for him, but she ate before
> he did. I realize not every trainer has this
> kind of respect for the animal but it is a
> 180 degree opposite than the kind we witness
> in the Omak race.

You are absolutely correct, and I probably shouldn't have drawn the
parallel in the first place (some misguided attempt to keep the thread on
topic, at least for a.s.h-r). I wish every trainer had that kind of respect
for their horses. And yes, as someone else said, I was comparing apples and
oranges. My apologies.

> As for 'off-the-turf' (funny, I haven't seen that
> turf course at Thistledown), it's my experience that
> after a two-week deluge, it's several days before
> they let anyone back on. And the thing that keeps
> me from complaining about that, is the first
> thing the track officials tell me: safety.

And a good thing it is that we DON'T have a turf course with this weather.
As for the deluge, River Downs earlier this year.

> > That's not irony, that's the way the U.S. thinks things are supposed to
be.
> > I disagree completely, but going the other way (if people want to
> > participate in this race, well, hey, who are we to stop them? And if
they
> > want to do it without protection and end up a bloody mess, then that's
just
> > fine with me).
>
> No, it is irony, when you consider that the laws
> attempt to protect a rider who wants to participate
> in a 'suicide' race (note the pos), yet say little
> about protecting the horse, who is the other,
> and unwitting, participant.

Okay, I gotcha, but I still stand by my assertion that we should let the
fools die. After all, when people strap themselves into hot rods and die,
no one complains about them.

> > That animals have no rights? Not only is it not idiotic, it is 100%
> > accurate. Animals do not have rights, they have the protection we
afford
> > them, as someone once said (don't remember who).
>
> Who was it? No, I'm kidding, I really don't care.
> I believe your statement to be 100 percent opinion
> and not factual in the least. I pity your pet. 'Nuf said.

Explain to me how any animal without the native intelligence to recognize
the idea of "rights" can have them.

> If that is indeed the case, then the level
> to which these people have sunk, or already
> were, is lower than I imagined.

Look at it from the other perspective, since this "animal rights" kick is a
relatively new phenomenon; for thousands of years, no one worried about
animal rights. It's only been in the last few decades that we have
"elevated" ourselves to think this way. Nobody sunk, the American people
(and we are by far in the minority on this) have changed our views.

> FYI, you were not the original poster of the note that
> I was responding to. As a matter of fact, I do not
> even know where you came from, and I've only seen you
> posting in a.s.h-r for about a week and a half, anyway.

I've been here for well over two years. 'nuff said.

>
> The original post of this thread belongs to the following:
>

As I mentioned before, I saw it in three different places. I tried to
ignore it. I was able to do so successfully until I saw personal attacks
being thrown out. This is not a topic for discussion on a racing board (and
certainly not on a.s.h-r.systems, rec. gambling.racing, and only marginally
in wash.general). I had planned to toss out my opinions once and disappear,
as usual, but this one actually sparked a few intelligent responses. So
this is about my fifth reply to it. And will be my last. AFAIC, my opinions
are known, will not change, and that's the end of it.

> 3.) The odious interjection was directed at two posters
> in my reply to the original thread, one which directly
> misattributed a quote to me at length in a prior posting,
> and the other of which earned the slag by suggesting it
> was wiser that I and all others ignore the atrocity.
> That word was not directed at you,
> so why should you take offense, unless
> you agree with the latter statement
> that we should just stick our heads
> in the sand? Then it applies.

Now I'm being misquoted. I certainly wouldn't take objection to any
particular kind of phrasing used. I've been known to toss out a stream of
invective or two myself. The guy who asked you if you wanted to live with
it, well, I skimmed that post and dismissed it. Hope you did as well.

> 4) I disagree that this is something we
> should not discuss in this group. And my
> opinion on that is every bit as valid as
> yours, and if I feel that a thread on this
> matter calls for a reply, I will do so
> unreservedly, regardless of what you think.

Okay, point taken.

>
> 5) H and G is going to win the Vosburgh,
>    if it is that important to you.

It is, and he'll come in third behind Not Surprising and Lite the Fuse (too
bad Our Emblem is injured). But we'll see in two hours, won't we?

TM(&G)
(btw, the goat's not my pet, he belongs, at least in an indirect manner, to
Ted Turner.)
--
It's a dog eat dog world, and from where I sit, there just ain't enough
damn dogs.

Rogers D. Littlejohn <rog...@mwt.net> wrote in article
<324343...@mwt.net>...

> Bring back the colliseum, lions, gladitors and Oh Yes! the Christians.
>
> I jest sickly.
>
> R. Littlejohn

That's reassuring. I thought, for a second, you may have been serious about
bringing back the xians.

TM(&G)
--
It's a dog eat dog world, and from where I sit, there just ain't enough
damn dogs.

In article <czei-21099...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, cz...@musclefish.com
(Michael Czeiszperger) wrote:

> In article <Mr.P-ya02308000...@news.mindspring.com>,
> Mr.P@a.s.h-r (Mr. P) wrote:
> # Again, I say, it is hypocrisy for these people to
> # hide behind political correctness to justify this
> # abhorrent practice, yet do not want political
> # correctness to extend to preserving the lives of
> # these horses.
> #  To a certain degree local communities have the right to set
> standards for what is acceptable.
>
> --
> For what the horse does under compulsion is done without understand-
> ing, and there is no beauty in it either, any more than if one were to
whip and spur a dancer. --Xenophon
>     cz...@musclefish.com, http://www4.ncsu.edu/~lmbecker/www/czei/

I've followed this Omak Stampede thing full circle and it is evident that
things do get distorted, but this discussion points out the 'cultural'
differences that are becoming distincly different between urban values and
rural values.  the Suicide Race seems to be a case in point, what was once
a local community acitivity put on as a source of entertainment has become
a sensational event to sell to tourists, as such it is no more or less
justifiable than the Para Mutual racing and its world or the world of
jumping.  What I see hear are opinions based on ignorance and fear by
folks who probably have never done more than 'organized rides' where all
variables are accounted for just as in the ordered dimensions of their
lives.  For those people that still rely on horseflesh for work such
events are a challenge whether or not you endorse such behavior is your
own business.  Too many of us have too little to do that we need to
interject what is right or wrong  with others.

Belgian

--
Horselogger's Int.
gcau...@televar.com
Save the World with Horsepower! ``~~~~
                                /'/\ \~~~~
                                    \

[horse groups removed from followups]

In article <324343...@mwt.net>, "Rogers D. Littlejohn" <rog...@mwt.net> says:
>
>I think that I was just as disturbed as many others were concerning that
>stupid horse race. But I have to ask the question:
>
>CONSIDERING OUR NATIONAL ATTITUDE TOWARD LATE TERM ABORTION IN WHICH
>SCISSORS ARE PLUNGED INTO THE FETUS'S SKULL AND THE BRAINS ARE SUCTINED
>OUT WHY SHOULD WE BE SURPRISED AT THIS BARBARIC HORSE RACE OR ANY OTHER
>RACE IN WHICH THERE IS A GREAT POTENTIAL TO VIEW VIOLENT AND PLTENTIAL
>DEATHLY ACCIDENTS.

These decisions are best left to the horse owner and her veterinarian.
Why should anyone restict the freedom of an animal owner by forcing
their morals on everyone else?  After all, they are just horses, not
human beings.

>Bring back the colliseum, lions, gladitors and Oh Yes! the Christians.
>
>I jest sickly.

With well placed irony.  They will do to children what they would not
do to an animal.

>R. Littlejohn

Mr. Ed

no offence intended. After having trussed up and dragged several carcasses
 of my own dear horses to the rendering plant truck pickup point (which
included knocking out siding from my barn to get to one of them) I've
gotten pretty case hardened to this. I too was sensitive but have since
outgrown it.  As Buddha put it :"To have a thousand dear things is to have
a thousand sorrows." No one gets out of here alive -not people, not
carnivores, and especially not herbivores. The best we can do it make it
easy on the disposal crew.

Tacky, tacky.

Please try not to offend sensitive people.  Remember, on the Internet it
is hard to tell when you are joking.

Kimo

But did they eat the horse. Or will it show up in overpriced track
hotdogs? Ever wonder how Andre Fabre motivated Arcangues (the 133:1 winner
of the '93 Breeders cup classic? He probably wispered in his ear what the
French especially like to do with 'orses.