5/5/2008 8:58:34 AM

Nice play on the acronym. Seriously, I think there are plenty of good things that PETA does, and many more that they could do if they simply picked their battles better and got some more competent P.R. staff. But instead they decide to take outrageous stands on issues they have absolutely no chance of winning on (Michael Vick, soy milk at the Indy 500, fake happy meal boxes at McDonalds, etc.), I guess just to get their name in the press. Which is sad, because all people ever hear about or remember is crap like this, and it makes them look like fools and idiots and obscures their mission.

Adam Bartel

5/5/2008 12:41:11 PM

Jimmy I think PETA has an issue with the fact that the horse had no choice in the sport and that dirt tracks are prone to cause injuries to horses who race on them.

I can't stand PETA personally but I think their beef isn't that the horse should have been saved but rather it shouldn't have been racing in the first place.

Bret Sims

5/6/2008 1:03:48 PM

Although I don't agree with PETA at all much, especially in this case, they do provide a service. No matter how outlandish their statements may be, or how stupid their actions are, they draw attention to situation where it would otherwise be forgotten in a matter of minutes. They get us talking.

For instance in theis specific case, if PETA doesn't bring this up and point out the fact that more and more horses are injuring themselves catastropically in recent years, then the media (and breeders/trainers) will chalk this up to "just a terrible misstep" (their patented excuse) and move on without ever examing why horse breakage (if there is such a term) is occuring now more than ever.

I don't agree with them barking up this tree either. But I can tell you as a person who grew up in Texas and raised animals throughout my formative years (hogs mainly), I was shocked to learn that currently there are absolutley no restrictions on the breeding of horses. None.

Every animal industry I 've ever come into contact with has restrictions on breeding. Granted, most of those industries are breeding for food supply, so it's a bit of a different situation. We aren't going to eat the horses after their done with their racing days.

But no restrictions means that the breeders are probably doing two things: 1) breeding solely for speed, even if it means sacrificing some stability that the horse needs and 2) hiding deformaties to those clients that they are breeding for.

I honestly believe that the combination of those two things is what is leading to today's horses, seemingly, being more fragile than ever.

And it's an easy fix. You don't have to police every breeder around the world. You just have to start requiring that the horses that are to race competitively meet certain guidelines (weight, bone density, etc.). With all the money involved, I promise you that breeders will start breeding more competently if there is a requirement on what horses do/don't make it into competitive racing.

Not to defend PETA, but without them bringing this ridiculousness (jockey suspension is just asinine), ESPN wouldn't still be doing stories with experts on the matter today. It would have been done. So in a messed-up way, PETA actually did some good in this case.

They just have a funny way of going about it.

Jeremy Fischer