Letters to the Editor
-
For or against?
If two year-olds were prevented from training and/or racing, the Derby would still have a winner. Every race has a winner, no? The winner would perhaps be slower, but older and sturdier. Unless, of course, the race is designed in such a way that it cannot be won other than by a horse trained beyond the boundaries of its anatomy. If that's the case, the Derby should be stopped. Gasp! Sorry, but it just ain't that old that it needs be venerated above the health and safety of horses. It's not as if we'd be cancelling the Olympics, or Christmas, or reverting back to English before the Great Vowel Shift.
And why isn't Andrew Beyer's critique properly addressed? It is unbelievably abhorrent to me that McClelland follows and indictment of the sport's flawed and irresponsible breeding practices with, "Horses that delicate may require more forgiving footing." Um... what?!? Change the track but nor the breeding???
I know nothing about racing. I don't think it should be banned, as I think horses enjoy the race to an extent and I think it's a lovely sport. But after reading this article, I'm in agreement with PETA (which I generally find extreme, unrealistic and sometimes ludicrous) and think that the sport should be limited to three year-olds and up.