- American Pharoah led all the way to win the Belmont Stakes by 5 ½ lengths on Saturday, becoming the first horse in 37 years to sweep the Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont Stakes — one of the sporting world’s rarest feats.
The first Triple Crown winner since Affirmed in 1978.
I grew up in Kentucky, the thoroughbred capital of the world. On road trips, my Grandpa would tell strangers that Kentucky is known for three things, "Fast horses, fast women, and good whiskey." My mother wouldn't let us see the Derby, because she doesn't like how it ruins the horses. But they love it. They're born for it. I'm 28 and my knees hurt all the time from distance running. But I wouldn't trade it for the world. Socrates said, "It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable." I'd not deny that to a horse any more than a human.
The grace and power of these creatures takes my breath away. It's one of those rare things America took early and made her own. When I think of defining videos of America's history, I think of FDR's declaration of war, Martin Luther King's speech, Neil Armstrong's landing, and Secretariat's win:
And now there are twelve.
Yours is a very interesting point in the animal welfare debate: that thoroughbreds might want to race, and the real cruelty would be in denying them an opportunity to experience the joy of doing something they are so good at. I hadn't picked up on the fact that you are a runner. I only saw one sign, searching now. I hope you'll contribute more to the #running tag; it is ironically a slow, sleepy one. I regret having missed the horse race yesterday and a moment in history; someone mentioned it in the morning but I didn't follow up to figure out how or when to watch. I think we were having sushi downtown at the time of the event, and I recall UFC was showing on the TV. A few thoughts come to mind on reading your equestrian "born to run" idea. 1. Indeed, thoroughbreds are born to run, because they are the product of selective breeding. This, with forced sterilization, is the technique behind the unsavory eugenics movement. Are the animals themselves better off for having been engineered for racing? Don't they break legs all the time? I'll have to defer to your mother, who certainly knows more than I about ruined horses. 2. You and I are not the products of a series of forced marriages, selected for running skill, but we could still be much better runners if, instead of choosing ourselves when we feel like training, and how we want to eat, we were forced to run on a schedule someone determined ideal, forced to eat food chosen for us, and prevented from having access to things considered likely to impair our performance. I agree with Socrates, but it's another step to say people should be forced to experience the beauty and strength of which their bodies are capable. I don't know enough about how horses are kept and trained to imagine how nice or unpleasant it is. Perhaps the horses enjoy an excellent life, with dental and hoof care, veterinary attention, and ample food and good grooming. At least in the ideal case. Surely there are abuses as well. But a life "in the wild" would not be idyllic either. In my view, when an animal is brought into the world by choice of a human master, the human owes it more than simply a better life than it would have had in the wild, born by accident. It's hard to say how much better. 3. The money. Despite my ignorance of the horse business, I doubt that it is very different than most other businesses in that decisions affecting horse welfare come down mostly to profit. If a horse were to express a preference to do something other than run fast, what happens? 4. Whipping. A quick search shows that plenty has been said about this. No doubt jockeys would not use the crop if it were not effective, but it's an awkward argument that claims a horse was "born" to be whipped. 5. The horse brain. These discussions always run into the issue of suffering and self-determination. I would not have the slightest concern about thoroughbred scallops (I think Costco sells them). Horses seem beautiful and intelligent creatures to me, capable of expressing preferences and suffering. I probably don't need to make this point to you, you don't seem like the type to respond with "what about plants?"
Not recently. I'm hoping to avoid a knee replacement. She does, for the record. She was a blue-ribbon barrel racer for years. Ah, now that's a different question. Whether we ought breed selectively, and whether existing animals ought be used (or allowed) for a purpose are different. The Fatal Injury Rate in the US is %0.192 or about 2/1000, and has been around that rate for the last twenty years. I think this question is also two different issues. Whether selecting for skill, in humans or animals, and forcing such, are different. The biggest moral problem with eugenics is forcing breeding, and murdering bad specimens. If two Olympic runners voluntarily had a child for purely genetic reasons, would that be bad? What if a thousand did it? But horses can't make decisions. So, we come to a third issue: do we have the right to impose artificial selection on animals? I don't think that's significantly different than any other animal rights question. People, no. Animals? Once again, animals can't legally make decisions. Although, if a horse is greatly opposed to doing something, no amount of whipping will force it. And excessive whipping is abuse, and illegal in the US. Also hard to say what is better. Is it better to live in comfort, or to push your limits? Each human has to make that decision for themself. Unfortunately, horses can't. No simple answer. If it expresses strongly enough, it becomes a pet instead of a racehorse. Or maybe it's illegally abused. Depends on the horse and owner. Yes, I'd probably support stricter laws on that. That said, the riding crop is a slap, not a punch. Yeah, slapping people is bad, but punching people is exponentially worse. You don't go to jail for slapping someone, and you shouldn't. In my opinion, having grown up on a farm, the cultural perception of horse intelligence is a projection of our appreciation for their beauty. In my opinion, a horse is about as smart as a cow, and measurably dumber than a pygmy goat. But yes, even a hamster is capable of expressing preferences and experiencing suffering. In summary, I think most of your concerns seem specific, but actually reduce to animal rights. Which don't have a simple answer (unless you're an extremist). Animal rights are complex for the same reason child and invalid rights are: because they're not legally capable of making decisions. Any time you (or the state) have to make a decision for something intelligent, it's difficult, because everyone involved believes the creature wants or needs something different, often fiercely.you are a runner
your mother, who certainly knows
Are the animals themselves better off for having been engineered for racing?
Don't they break legs all the time?
You and I are not the products of a series of forced marriages, selected for running skill
people should be forced
It's hard to say how much better.
If a horse were to express a preference to do something other than run fast, what happens?
Whipping
Horses seem beautiful and intelligent creatures
capable of expressing preferences
0.2%, actually, which still sounds like a fairly low rate at first, but what is a good rate? These are not broken legs, but “injuries that result in fatality within 72 hours from the race date.” In absolute terms, over 700 horses were killed in races per year (1,532,418 starts × 0.00192 / 4 years). If we disregard the reasons against comparing horses to humans, that rate corresponds to about a thousand deaths a year among marathon runners (based on 541,000 marathon finishers in 2013). The actual marathon death rate is about 3 per year, less than one per 100,000. And, of course, the marathon runners signed up voluntarily and had the option of dropping out. One of my favorite couples is Dana and Emil Zátopek. They were both born on September 19, 1922. She “won a gold medal in the javelin throw at the 1952 Olympics, only a few moments after Emil's victory in the 5 km run.” Emil claimed his victory inspired hers, to which she replied “Really? Okay, go inspire some other girl and see if she throws a javelin fifty metres!” They had no children, but I would be only pleased if they had kids hoping to produce a super-athlete. Partly because parents have surprisingly little influence over the course of their kids' lives, but mainly because the kid would presumably be free to pursue athletics or not. It would be disconcerting, to say the least, if outsiders arranged couplings and controlled individuals in order to breed athletic skill. No objections to your other comments. My opinion on horse intelligence is based on Cormac McCarthy novels. Your summary paragraph hints at a dream scenario for animal welfare activists: putting sentient animals in the same category as children — creatures that deserve our special concern and compassion because they are vulnerable and dependent. There is a world of difference now in that we hope to intervene and protect children for their own good; our primary objective for animals is to meet human needs, with animal welfare a distant second.The Fatal Injury Rate in the US is %0.0192 or about 2/1000
If a two Olympic runners voluntarily had a child for purely genetic reasons, would that be bad?
Thanks for this post. I have never watched that victory by secretariat and it is certainly worth watching. Anyone or anything that can be that much better than the best in their chosen pursuit is worth seeing. M
As for the whipping, wasoxygen -didn't they announce at the end of that video that secretariat was "hand" and not "whip" trained? As for the riding crop, I always thought of it as an extension of the hand, merely elongating the reach. Is that wrong?
It was amazing to watch and something I had never seen. It sounded to me that the announcer said the jockey did not use the whip on the back stretch. I suppose you could think of it that way. Presumably it will only be effective to the extent that it gets the horse's attention. Is entertaining an audience adequate justification for hurting the animal? Seems it would still be a fair race if no jockeys used crops.As for the riding crop, I always thought of it as an extension of the hand, merely elongating the reach. Is that wrong?
Some amazing background from the usual place: A necropsy revealed his heart was significantly larger than that of an ordinary horse. An extremely large heart is a trait that occasionally occurs in Thoroughbreds, linked to a genetic condition passed down via the dam line, known as the “x-factor”. The x-factor can be traced to the historic racehorse Eclipse, which was necropsied after his death in 1789. Because Eclipse's heart appeared to be much larger than other horses, it was weighed, and found to be 14 pounds (6.4 kg), almost twice the normal weight. Eclipse is believed to have passed the trait on via his daughters, and pedigree research verified that Secretariat traces in his dam line to a daughter of Eclipse. In the 20th century, the heart of Phar Lap was weighed and also documented to be 6.35 kilograms (14.0 lb), or essentially the same size as that of Eclipse. At the time of Secretariat's death, the veterinarian who performed the necropsy, Dr. Thomas Swerczek, head pathologist at the University of Kentucky, did not weigh Secretariat's heart, but stated, “We just stood there in stunned silence. We couldn't believe it. The heart was perfect. There were no problems with it. It was just this huge engine.”In the fall of 1989, Secretariat was afflicted with laminitis—a painful and often incurable hoof condition. When his condition failed to improve after a month of treatment, he was euthanized on October 4 at the age of 19. Secretariat was buried at Claiborne Farm in Paris, Kentucky, given the rare honor of being buried whole (usually only the head, heart, and hooves of a winning race horse are buried, and the rest of the body is cremated).