- Joined
- Jun 11, 2014
- Reaction score
- 212
Horse Racing Exposed: Abuse, Drugs & Death
- Thread starter Bite Size Vegan
- Start date
Clueless Git
Plant powered
A few years back BBC radio had a phone in debate over horse racing just before our annual horse-locaust, The Grand National, was due.
Pro racing side represented by John McCrillick' who's arguments were limited to;
1. Horse racing is fun for people who get fun out of watching horses race..
2. Horses wouldn't race if horses didn't like racing.
3. Anti-racers were clearly b'stards who, if successfull, would be solely responsible for horse owners having to kill all the horses they could no longer make worthwhile money from.
(#3 being a variant of "But, but, if we stopped killing the animals then all the animals we were going to kill would have to be killed". A particular favourite of mine.)
Plan was to get on the show and back McCrillick up untill he was fully publicly committed that I understood his position and reasoning perfectly. That I totaly agreed with and so he totaly agreed with me.
Next was to reiterate McCrillicks entire argument BUT in favour of dog fighting. Then to enjoy McCrillick having to systematicaly demolish his own pathetic excuses in order to dis-ally himself and get back off that hook.
Unhappily the shows phone line closed before my frantic calling got me through
Pro racing side represented by John McCrillick' who's arguments were limited to;
1. Horse racing is fun for people who get fun out of watching horses race..
2. Horses wouldn't race if horses didn't like racing.
3. Anti-racers were clearly b'stards who, if successfull, would be solely responsible for horse owners having to kill all the horses they could no longer make worthwhile money from.
(#3 being a variant of "But, but, if we stopped killing the animals then all the animals we were going to kill would have to be killed". A particular favourite of mine.)
Plan was to get on the show and back McCrillick up untill he was fully publicly committed that I understood his position and reasoning perfectly. That I totaly agreed with and so he totaly agreed with me.
Next was to reiterate McCrillicks entire argument BUT in favour of dog fighting. Then to enjoy McCrillick having to systematicaly demolish his own pathetic excuses in order to dis-ally himself and get back off that hook.
Unhappily the shows phone line closed before my frantic calling got me through
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2014
- Reaction score
- 212
A few years back BBC radio had a phone in debate over horse racing just before our annual horse-locaust, The Grand National, was due.
Pro racing side represented by John McCrillick' who's arguments were limited to;
1. Horse racing is fun for people who get fun out of watching horses race..
2. Horses wouldn't race if horses didn't like racing.
3. Anti-racers were clearly b'stards who, if successfull, would be solely responsible for horse owners having to kill all the horses they could no longer make worthwhile money from.
(#3 being a variant of "But, but, if we stopped killing the animals then all the animals we were going to kill would have to be killed". A particular favourite of mine.)
Plan was to get on the show and back McCrillick up untill he was fully publicly committed that I understood his position and reasoning perfectly. That I totaly agreed with and so he totaly agreed with me.
Next was to reiterate McCrillicks entire argument BUT in favour of dog fighting. Then to enjoy McCrillick having to systematicaly demolish his own pathetic excuses in order to dis-ally himself and get back off that hook.
Unhappily the shows phone line closed before my frantic calling got me through
for horses not racing it they didn't want to- the young ones have to be broken to do so- they often buck off jockeys, run off the track, and do all manner of things to escape.
and that would have been a wonderful tactic had you gotten through!
