Is Horse Racing Any Different Than Dogfighting?

There are too many similarities between dogfighting and horse racing for me to refute your argument out of hand. Each is a manmade exploitation of the animal's instinct to establish a hierarchy that supports darwinian-type breeding.

But I think that's where the similarities end, and other generalizations and comparisons to pets and zoos are appropriate. What about dogsledding? Those animals are bred to pull things in the snow and it's what they naturally try to do.

When it comes to horseracing, my concern isn't for the relatively rare instance of a broken leg during a race. I think the real abuses in the industry happen behind the scenes as some trainers harshly treat the horses. I've heard of horses getting punched by their trainers.

So just out of curiosity - how many commenters here are involved in raising horses, have lived around horses, or even ridden one? Or any form of animal management?

When it comes to horseracing, my concern isn't for the relatively rare instance of a broken leg during a race. I think the real abuses in the industry happen behind the scenes as some trainers harshly treat the horses. I've heard of horses getting punched by their trainers.

I think when you get to this level of cruelty, you are talking about the type of abuse that can occur to any animal anywhere who is under the control of human beings, with the possible exception of renowned zoos or research centers.

Cruel people have been mistreating animals since time began.

John:

Used to date an equestrian. She showed in equestrian and jumpers.

There were trainers for jumpers who were extraordinarily cruel, and were arrested from time to time for animal cruelty. So it does happen, no doubt.

But it doesn't happen to these race horses, not that type of cruelty.

Dogfights will have the inevitable result of a dog being hurt--EVERY TIME.

Yeah, I'm sure the horses love being whipped.

I'm against excessive whipping, but I think banning the whip would create a whole other set of problems seeing how the whip allows riders "to direct and control the horse during the course of a race. This tool provides safety for all participants in the race, including other horses and riders, by reducing contact with other horses as well as the rail."
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/BUSINESS/805060357/1003

I'm not endorsing banning the whip. I'm endorsing banning horse racing. The point I was making is that it's pretty blatantly false to say that the introduction of pain to the animals is what separates dog fighting and horse racing.

Adam:

Are you for banning animal testing (for medical, psychiatric, cosmetics, etc)?

Are you for banning hunting?

Are you for banning the eating of meat, and the attendant death of those animals.

Are you for banning the ownership of pets?

I'm just wondering, really not being argumentative. Many go quite far with banning certain exploitations of animals, but not others. Seems strange to me in this way.

Are you for banning animal testing (for medical, psychiatric, cosmetics, etc)?

Yes, for many reasons. Chief among these reasons is that animal testing is generally meaningless. Something still has to be tested on humans for it to be deemed safe, and there are plenty of examples of drugs or cosmetics being fine on rats or whatever animal, only to endanger humans in trials.

Are you for banning hunting?

Banning, as in making illegal? Probably. Morally, there is absolutely zero defense of the act of shooting a living thing for fun or for food. There is no scientific defense either.

Are you for banning the eating of meat, and the attendant death of those animals.

This is really a pointless question, used only so people can corner vegans/vegetarians and say "you're crazy." The answer is yes, but I also realize it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

Are you for banning the ownership of pets?

No, though I wouldn't really see it as "ownership." Is life really better for a stray cat than for a cat that is given good food and a safe place to sleep at night?

In general, I don't think legislation is the answer, and it's pointless to discuss because such legislation wouldn't even be possible until people are educated to realize that, to name one issue, they don't need to eat meat to be healthy.

Adam:

I really wasn't trying to bait, seriously.

I am also against animal testing. As you point out, it is not usually worthwhile as the animal physiology and human physiology are different, and it seems quite unethical to me, especially the manner in which psychiatry has and continues to treat animals.

As to hunting, I have different ideas there. For one, the main killer of deer in most areas is starvation, as their natural predators are gone. That is not a good way to go. There are other issues as well which hunting tends to ameliorate.

It is an area that I consider often, and swing one way or the other depending on the issue. Just wanted to know your rationales.

Morally, there is absolutely zero defense of the act of shooting a living thing for fun or for food.

You're quite the authority on morality, huh? You've obviously never been poor and literally had to hunt to survive. I've lived in some very rural areas in which the people were extremely poor; the only way they could feed their family was by hunting. Is that morally wrong? I don't think so. I'm against hunting for "sport," such as it is; but for the survival of my family, I'd certainly hunt and fish.

You're quite the authority on morality, huh?

Would you use this same argument to defend the killing of humans unnecessarily? Or are you a moral authority on that issue?

You've obviously never been poor and literally had to hunt to survive.

It has been many, many generations since any human being "had" to hunt to survive.

It has been many, many generations since any human being "had" to hunt to survive.

You're kidding, right?

Any human being? You're saying that no human being (or even community of human beings) on the face of the planet is in a position where hunting is a necessity for living?

Subsistence hunting still goes on:

http://tunt.blogspot.com/2005/03/30-hunting-for-subsistence.html

It has been many, many generations since any human being "had" to hunt to survive.

I know quite a few people for whom hunting makes the difference between feeding their families and going hungry.

As I stated before, in areas of this Country (generally suburban areas) hundreds of deer a year starve to death as there is not enough food and they are not culled as there are no natural predators.

Is it better to cull a herd, a population through hunting, or allow unfettered starvation?

Methinks the former.

Any human being? You're saying that no human being (or even community of human beings) on the face of the planet is in a position where hunting is a necessity for living?

That resources are not made available to people to eat without killing other animals is not the same as saying hunting is vital to survival. Poor education and a government that leaves people in that position does not change the fact that humans now do not need to eat other animals to survive.

In other words, does an uneducated person in a extremely poor community "have" to resort to crime to feed their family? Consequently, do they not deserve to be charged for, say, stealing from a rich person? If your answer is yes, you are at least consistent. It doesn't make it make any sense, but it would be consistent.

That resources are not made available to people to eat without killing other animals is not the same as saying hunting is vital to survival. Poor education and a government that leaves people in that position does not change the fact that humans now do not need to eat other animals to survive.

The naivete, not to mention downright lack of knowledge of the physical world many societies inhabit, inherent in that view is jaw-droppingly dumb.

So answer my question, Bill. Would you say a poor, uneducated person in a poor, uneducated community unaware of or unable to attain means to escape the cycle of poverty "has to" resort to crime? Is there any instance in which, say, robbery at gunpoint is justified?

I'd like to add this:

You cannot win this argument the way you are presenting it, because "They don't have a means to live any differently," in reference to anyone, acknowledges a problem in the way the person in question is living or behaving. If you have to defend hunting by saying "they can't avoid it," you are saying it is unfortunate that they hunt. I don't think you or Brian Ford or any other person who eats meat (assuming you do) despite the access to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle can honestly claim to hold that position.

If you want to defend killing animals needlessly, do it. That is a separate argument. I understand why some people think they have to eat meat - but thinking you have to eat meat and having to eat meat are not the same thing. Much in the same way I would sympathize with the "criminal" in my hypothetical, I sympathize with people that just aren't aware of the alternatives. It is a result of @!$%#ty education and a negligent government. That it warrants sympathy does not mean an act "has to be done." These are two absurdly different concepts.

It is scientifically false to say any person has to eat meat. It's really that simple. People who think they have to hunt could farm or something. I can't really offer a blanket solution, obviously, but there are always alternatives. Land currently used for the factory farming and mass killing of cows, chickens and other animals could be used to provide healthy living for some of these people that "have to" kill animals to survive, whatever that means. But it's not going to happen anytime soon, because most people hold an attitude like yours - except only on this one specific issue. Crime doesn't "have to" be committed. But animals "have to" be killed.

I tell you what chief. Why don't you try going into say the interior of Borneo or the Amazon and tell some of the locals that they shouldn't be hunting or eating meat. Just leave me the names of your next of kin before you do.

You still didn't answer my question.

And that others are willing to kill me over something makes it true?

...but there are abuses taking place, which many people don't know about.

Agreed.

The press does need to stop glossing over the issue, too.

Agreed.

These horses are treated better than 99% of all other animals. These horses are worth so much money, there's no way an owner would allow them to be abused. They need these horses to reproduce.

Yes, the two recent tragedies were shocking, but comparing it to dog fighting is going a bit too far. The Derby is a race, not a death match. The losing horse isn't shot and buried in some guys backyard. There are interesting socio-economic factors at play, and I enjoyed that part of your article. Horse racing is a highly regulated sporting event, and to compare it to a backyard free for all is too far of a stretch for me...

Agreed, this whole dog fighting vs horse racing comparison is ludicrous. The objectives are completely different, and obtained through completely different ways. The only similarity is that animals are hurt...but that ignores the fact that in dog fighting, the animals are ALWAYS hurt, while in horse racing, injuries and deaths are relatively rare.

This comparison and article is sensationalist bull@!$%#. If you have a problem with how inhumanely the horses are treated, then fine, but don't drag up a terrible comparison to push your cause.

Jazz:

I'll admit the abuses of horse racing may not be as bad as those of dog fighting, but there are abuses taking place, which many people don't know about.

If that was your purpose in writing this article, bravo. You have succeeded, and are correct.

It is not only in horse "racing," also. Horse showing, jumping, all have abuses, drug use.

Jazzman - 5.3----dark side? I know myself that I've very aware of the risk of injury to the animals.....which is why I literally pray from the moment they leave the gate to the moment that get across the finish line. I believe steps could and should be taken to minimize the risk of these "freak" accidents. But I feel strongly that these horses literally are born and bred to run. You say if there was no race --Eight Belles would still be alive ---I say if there was no race---she would never have been born.

To all:

In a race for a job promotion, are you aware of the emotional injuries of the losers?

Everything in this life is for competion and rewarding.

With regard to #5

Doping goes beyond steroids. Amphetamines, diuretics, you name it. Diuretics are particularly difficult to detect. By removing circulating volume, its thought that cardiac efficiency is improved, however, I believe this causes bleeding in a horse's lung during the race itself, and may cause death.

humans chose to do that sort of thing and are aware of the risks.

Oh, Jazz that's a terrible point.

Kind of like saying a murderer who beat a guy to death shouldn't be in jail while a boxer who accidentally killed a guy during a match isn't.

Sorry, doesn't track. Vick belongs where he is.

The real question with Vick, is whether he will be able to play when he gets out?

Jazzman - and now Atlanta has gotten my cutey pie as their new quarterback ---I'm SOOOoooo jealous!

These horses would not exist if it were not for racing. They are bred to be racehorses.

Just as the dogs are bred for fighting. But as, a number of people have tried to explain to you, the treatment of the vast majority of racehorses is far more humane than what fighting dogs, especially the losers, endure.

You have tried, with rather dismal success, to compare the two in order to make a point about race and class. You need a better comparison because you will lose this one badly.

But I'm now of the opinion that horse racing should end.

Jazzman - that ain't never gonna happen.....but I do believe steps need to be taken (switching to safer surfaces at bare minimum) to make this sport safer for both the horses and the jockeys. These horses are bred to run....it is literally in their blood. But like any other great athlete ---steps must be taken to ensure we are not sending these beautiful animals off to their deaths when they leave the gate.

Jazzman - 9.7---your point is well taken.....improvements can surely be made in all sports I guess.

Jazz, you're reaching here. I respect that you are against the mistreatment of animals. Let me ask you this: Do you oppose the Westminster dog show? These poor animals are groomed excessively and forced to run for about 5 minutes while thousands of fans clap their awful hands. I bet you one or two of the competitors has suffered an injury while training for the event, so therefore it should be banned, right? Or can we admit that comparing horse racing to dog fighting is just as ridiculous?

Now your comparing horse racing to the cattle industry? This might be an even bigger stretch, if its possible...

We don't breed race horses to feed ourselves and the rest of the world. Horses aren't treated like pit bulls in Michael Vick's backyard. You are against the exploitation of animals for profit, that's a fine and fair point. But, don't make ridiculous factual comparisons to exaggerate a point and not expect people to call your point an exaggeration. Anyway, thanks for bringing a debate to an issue that probably isn't discussed enough.

There are betting lines/odds on just about everything. There are even lines/odds on most events at the 2008 Olympics! Those events, arguably, are both entertaining and can be gambled up, but would it be a fair comparison to liken them to either of the sports you debate about here. I think not.

Yeah, winning the Kentucky Derby and becoming rich and famous is sure heartbreaking.

You are thinking of Eight Belles.

Considering I have gone to horse races and have hunted deer, I find neither is like each other. Hunting is NOTHING like animal fighting!! More animal activist drivel!

More animal activist drivel!

yes, because simply dismissing somebody who is trying to voice protection for creatures that are being exploited is excellent.

Andimia:

Being a lover of animals myself, I believe you are way off base for several reasons.

1. Hunters are by far the single group of people that contribute the most money to keep pristine land, pristine. They are true environmentalists, as they live (many times) and play in the wild environment. You should thanks hunters/fishermen each time you walk the woods, the national forest, etc.

2. Hunting is necessary in many areas to keep the herds of animals under control. This is just a fact.

3. A starving deer is just as dead as a deer shot by a rifle. The difference? Starving to death is a terrible way to go.

4. There are many, many areas of life where animals are truly abused, and for no real purpose.

Here is an interesting site (I do not condone site as it has a religious bent, just the information on it which is true to my knowledge).

Animal Abuse

I did a thesis on animal abuse in my third year of law school. Had Scalia as my professor. It is really scandalous what happens in this world, especially the medical community.

Descartes really started it all for modern christian society.

Here is an interesting site:

Reasons for cruelty

Brian - there is no doubt these horses are athletes......Big Brown is one great horse and ran one helluva race on Saturday. Like all athletes ----some of them want to win more than others......but I believe they know when they win and they are proud of themselves when they win just like us when we compete.

I happen to believe if horse racing wasn't the sport of the rich and the famous, and that same race on Saturday was held on some field on a low income farm in Kentucky, and attended mainly by blacks and Hispanics betting on those animals, and that horse went down and had to be killed. Many more people would be outraged and calling for a ban.

Great point, Jazzman. You have brought up many good points, both in your article and in your comments. For my part, I agree with you. I don't like to see animals being exploited for entertainment and/or financial gain, whether that comes through racing or fighting. However, I get the feeling that many of the people involved in horse racing do love horses and try in every way to treat them well, while I suspect that those who fight dogs may not have such tender feelings toward their animals. At any rate, great food for thought here.

I happen to believe if horse racing wasn't the sport of the rich and the famous, and that same race on Saturday was held on some field on a low income farm in Kentucky, and attended mainly by blacks and Hispanics betting on those animals, and that horse went down and had to be killed. Many more people would be outraged and calling for a ban.

But, what evidence do you have to support that belief, other than the comparison you've made here, which I still say is poorly considered, as there aren't many similarities between the two events? If you're starting from there (the question posed by your article) to support your belief about racial/economic unfairness, I would suggest you're not really providing a fair or credible analysis.

Again, I certainly believe that the welfare of these animals should be considered and regulated. I also believe that those who breed these animals care about them, and certainly have no desire (or expectation) to see them injured.

Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is unethical or not is a valid question, but I don't believe that the comparison to dog fighting or the belief that one is acceptable because rich white people like to do it is sensible, nor does it do your concerns regarding the sport of horse racing any favors to make such an argument. The set of concerns are so vastly different that they must be addressed before you can even GET to a comparison, or your conclusion.

Bullfighting, on the other hand -- now there is an event I can see comparing to dogfighting.

Since the horse can't talk, we have no idea how it feels about being whipped, except we know it makes it runs faster.

I missed this.

Sure we do. Animals that feel mistreated tend to stop behaving, they lash out. They eventually turn on their owners or refuse to perform or fight or any number of other reactions which indicate that they're being forced to do something that they have no real desire to do.

This is exactly what these pit bulls and other fight dogs are trained to do, and their instincts are amplified by clear examples of abuse.

It's not natural for a horse to allow a person to ride it. So is even riding a horse humane?

That's a slippery slope to go down. By ruling out "what is natural" to determine "what is ethical" you're opening up a can of worms that I doubt you'll want to be applied to your own lifestyle.

It's not natural for any animal to be domesticated, a whole new "can of worms" I argee.

Running for fun is one thing. Being doped up and whipped into running faster then you want to until the point where you break an ankle and have to be shot is another.

Andimia:

Some horses are whipped. On the other hand, some are not.

Secretariat, whom I saw win the Preakness and the Belmont Stakes, was not touched with the whip, not once. He just flat out loved to run.

At the Belmont Stakes, he was in the pack at the middle of the back stretch, Ron Turcotte then just leaned forward, released the reins and that big ass red horse took off. Won by 32 lengths, set a track record, and was never touched with the whip.

Horses love to run. Can there be abuse, sure. I am sure there is. I know there is in jumping and other areas of horse entertainment. But some horses, the best horses, just flat out love to run, whip, or no.

Andmia:

By the way, the "whipping" that is done to a horse is not what one would really consider whipping. It leaves no marks. It serves the same function as blunt spurs do, to let the horse know it's time to go, and really go.

Now, in the past, spurs weren't a pretty thing either.

Including pets, seeing-eye dogs, police dogs, ect...?

Including pets, seeing-eye dogs, police dogs, ect...?

I don't think that would qualify as entertainment like Shasta said.

So you it's OK to abuse an animal as long as it isn't for entertainment?

Did I say that? Did anybody say that? Nope, I don't see that so please don't put such awful words in anybody's mouth.

Do you have any pets Jazzman? If not, do you believe that others should be allowed to have pets?

Even though I've never attended one, I'm going to go with the assumption that there are not veterinary staff and emergency equipment at 100% of dog fights in the US (I'll use common sense and assume it's zero) as there are at every horse race.

If it were legal and funded by the rich and affluent then there would be. After all, it's about protecting your investment not really preserving the life of an animal.

Andimia:

If it were legal and funded by the rich and affluent then there would be. After all, it's about protecting your investment not really preserving the life of an animal.

Well, I will give you the "legal" part. But the "rich and affluent?" Nope, Michael Vick and those like him (many basketball players, etc) can only be classed as "rich and affluent."

It ain't about the money, it's about the character.

Well, here is some food for thought. Say horse racing is deemed a barbaric practice tomorrow and hereby outlawed. What will happen at that juncture?

"Free the horses!"
Yeah, cause there are lots of those running around now a days.

Well, here is some food for thought. Say horse racing is deemed a barbaric practice tomorrow and hereby outlawed. What will happen at that juncture?

Not that it will happen anytime soon but the horses will (probably through the ASPCA or area SPCA's) be put on ranches where they can run around with other horses or used for some leisurely riding lessons by young children.

be put on ranches where they can run around with other horses or used for some leisurely riding lessons by young children

Absurd! It's animal torture and tantamount to slavery!

(Sorry, but that's the argument I'm seeing from some people on here.)

Ultimately, this argument is about drawing a line and every time you or I draw a line some radical on one side or the other is going to push it back or forward. PETA, for example, doesn't believe that there IS a line. Anything beyond animals free in the wild is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The trouble is, when you make silly comparisons (like comparing horse racing to dog fighting) instead of comparing like for like, you have a battle of who has drawn the line in the correct place, instead of a discussion of sensible things to do in an effort to minimize (or stop) some of the issues that have been cropping up.

If we want to talk about the cruelty of whipping horses, or the use of drugs to keep them running, etc. Let's talk about that. Please write an article which supports the idea fairly that these are practices which could or should be abolished. If you want to be really successful, don't suggest banning a sport that simply isn't going to be banned, no matter how much you want that to be the case. Arguing extremes (or bad comparisons) does nothing for the horses, it just creates disagreements that don't solve problems. (For the same reason, I don't really buy the argument that the acceptability of one over the other is a matter of socio-economics. To get there, you really have to ignore the differences in the two sports, which run deep, and to ignore those differences or assert that they don't exist simply isn't a fair way to frame an argument.)

used for some leisurely riding lessons by young children.

I watched more mistreatment of horses by children than from adults.

Is there no moral difference between telling your kid that he's going to enroll in a football league whether he wants to or not, and he's going to practice every day whether he wants to or not and starving your kid and abusing him physically so that he turns into a savage who will automatically kill and lash out at other similarly trained children when put into an underground cage match?

The first might make you a bit of a prick of a parent, but it's in no way comparable to the latter criminal.

But, that's essentially the analogy that you are supporting and that is being made in this article.

If you force your kid to play football and their legs hurt or their muscles hurt they can tell the coach so. When parents dope their kids to play football then we'll be getting somewhere close to what horse racing is.

Jazzman
More power to you for not forcing your kids to do what they don't want to do. Do you know how many parents live vicariously thru their children and DO force them into things they don't want to do. In my small town of 350 people, it is expected that the native (family has lived there for several generations) kids WILL be in 4-H, FFA, school sports, etc....because their parents, grand parents, aunts, uncles, etc were doing that.

When it comes to 4-H fair time, you see all sorts of parents get bent out of shape when their child didn't win the Grand Champion Ribbon for their project. How many times have you watched TV where it's reported that a fight broke out between the parents of the opposing sides or between the parents and the referee?? Parents are too wrapped up in their children and yes, many are forced to do what they don't want to do.

Andimia:

When parents dope their kids to play football then we'll be getting somewhere close to what horse racing is.

I had to laugh at that. Parents, kids are already taking steroids in Junior High and High School.

If that is your benchmark, then hate to tell you but we are already there!

your argument would be much more powerful if you didn't attack the author. Just a tip.

King George is still on his Thrown, but not for long..

As for Horse racing well. Horse meat is the culinary name for meat cut from a horse. It is slightly sweet, tender, low in fat, and high in protein.[1] Like beef and pork, it is a taboo food in some religions and cultures. The name for eating horse meat is hippophagy.

As for Dogs, well.
In some countries, apart from being kept as pets, certain breeds of dogs are raised on farms and slaughtered for their meat.

Whats food for one is a pet to another. Religion is the deciding factor in what is good or bad to eat. Desperation and starving to death, no rules apply.

Lotto:
"As for Horse racing well. Horse meat is the culinary name for meat cut from a horse. It is slightly sweet, tender, low in fat, and high in protein.[1] Like beef and pork, it is a taboo food in some religions and cultures. The name for eating horse meat is hippophagy."

Horse meat was available in the US in the 60's and as a child, we ate what was put in front of us. Then as an adult, stationed on Sardinia (island off the west coast of Italy), I ate it regularly. Even as a horse lover, I enjoyed the taste/flavor. I kept threatening to eat my husband's mare since she and I didn't get along too well ;) .....but she died after getting the West Nile shot and died a horrible death. Now I raise mostly dairy goats with a few meat goats and I eat them also.....along with a couple of the lambs I have this year.

Didn't know that there was a name for eating horse meat......interesting!
MTLaura

Then what do you do with the ones that already exist? Just asking. A race horse retirement home?

There are retirement farms for horses. Of course, these horses also break their legs by stepping in gopher holes when they're running around the field.

Then what do you do with the ones that already exist? Just asking. A race horse retirement home?

Where do the old race horses go currently or haven't you thought about that?

Yes, I did think of it, that's why I put down "Race Horse Retirement Home".

"if the whip is so harmless, why did Randy Moss, a respected horse racing announcer and analyst, openly advocate banning it, on ESPN today?"

I don't know his personal motivations. Perhaps he's swept up in the brouhaha and outrage. There is no basis for it in the thought that it "hurts" the horses.

"And both involve pain and injury to animals."

Again -- You are assuming pain and mistreatment where it doesn't exist.

"Same as at a dog fight, and I haven't been to one of those either. "

I was merely reacting to your assertion that horse racing is a sport for the rich.

"But maybe we need some outrage about horse racing."

No, we don't. Accidents happen. We do not need to revamp or get rid of horse racing because of it. It's a very sad story. But this whole debacle is being inflated by people who have nary a clue as to what they're talking about.

"Is that like bad things happen to good horses?"

Yes, it is that exactly. Life is not fair. Crappy things happen to great people and animals through no fault of anyone or anything besides circumstance. It might feel better to you to try to rationalize it through calling horse racing cruelty, but it does nothing to rebuff the fact that this was a freak accident, nothing more.

"I have close to 80 comments at this point. I think that's a lot of scrutiny, a lot more than I expected with this article."

I'm referring to the fact that your original post was put up on the front page of MSNBC's website.

I'm sorry for the multiple posts... this is my first time at newsvine and I thought that my browser had frozen up when I was posting. I wish you a good evening, and I apologize for any personal insults I've levied your way... they were not necessary.

The pain threshold of a horse is exponentially greater than that of a human.

I'd like to know which horse told you this.

Andimia:

I'd like to know which horse told you this.

Flicka. I didn't believe him, but Black Beauty confirmed it.

:-]

Andimia, wmolaw, and jazzman --

While your snarkiness is so very entertaining, this is basic biology, not rocket science.

The size, musculature, and skeletal structure of a horse bring with them a much greater threshold for pain than that of a human. (Exponentially more than the assumed 2:1 ratio of a "midget riding on my back.") Now, compared to other animals their size, horses have a lower pain threshold in several parts of their bodies... the face and lower legs being prime examples. (Interestingly, pound-for-pound, a miniature horse tends to have a higher threshold for pain than does it's full-sized cousin.) However, getting to the point of what we're talking about here, a jockey using a whip in a horse race would have to exude an impractical and excruciating amount of force to harm a horse in this manner.

How about you do a little research before running your collective mouths?.. this is the internet, after all. Did you know that people actually have studied topics such as the pain threshold of a large, equine mammal?

Here, let me help you:

No horse whispering required... the facts are all out there for anyone who can be bothered to actually look for them.

Aw shucks... looks like newsvine doesn't like me linking to other websites. I have faith that all of you are capable of actually looking this stuff up... unless, of course, you wish to remain in blissful ignorance. Have a great evening, y'all.

colic can also cause a horse not to eat as horses have a very low threshold for pain compared to most animals.

from a veterinary assistant in response to a question about a horse not eating.

Andima:

That's interesting.