Mark Todd - Horse Beater
-
Ooffff.
Todd apologises for actions in video clip
Former Olympic champion Sir Mark Todd apologises after a video on social media showed him appearing to hit a horse with a branch.
-
@majorrage said in Mark Todd - Horse Beater:
Ooffff.
Todd apologises for actions in video clip
Former Olympic champion Sir Mark Todd apologises after a video on social media showed him appearing to hit a horse with a branch.
Hmmm. That's a curly one ...
-
@hooroo said in Mark Todd - Horse Beater:
I hate to see any animal get tuned up. Why was he letting himself be recorded? That's mad
Although I agree, I think the real question is, why was he doing it at all?
-
@bayimports said in Mark Todd - Horse Beater:
@hooroo said in Mark Todd - Horse Beater:
I hate to see any animal get tuned up. Why was he letting himself be recorded? That's mad
Although I agree, I think the real question is, why was he doing it at all?
I can understand smacking the horse to move forward as that's more the noise than the impact which they just don't notice.
Beating a horse is just cruel
-
I think this is the clip.
regarding your question.
This will be incredibly unpopular, but I hope people will read it charitably. Even if you disagree with hitting a horse, his use of negative reinforcement is at least consistent with behaviour change.
Let me state that I'm not a fan of hitting horses to make them go forward, because once you start hitting them, you can't stop until the desired behaviour (i.e., going forward) happens due to the negative reinforcement (hitting them).
In other words, if you make the decision to hit a horse, you can't stop until you get the behaviour change needed. He was consistent with the negative reinforcement and it was immediately removed once the behaviour changed.
I bring this up because I often saw (it's been 10 years since I've been around the show circuit) people hitting horses once in that type of situation, then if it still didn't go, they would stop and go around again (you see this with people trying to load horses on trailers too). In that situation, they are essentially training their horse to do stupider things because a) it won't won't to jump in the water (or go on the float), and b) it won't want to stick around the front of the water(or on the ramp), because it knows that they'll be getting punished for being there, so you'll end up with stranger (and more dangerous behaviour) or won't even be able to get them close to the water jump (or on the float ramp).
I know people will disagree with the purpose of hitting a horse (which is fair - I'm a huge fan of Buch Branaman *), but I thought I'd post that to try to explain why he continued to hit it, as many people would say 'it clearly doesn't want to go in, why is he hitting it'?
By the way, if you'd like to watch a great documentary, which even shows him carrying out actions that some might consider to be 'violence', I highly suggest the following:
-
@gt12 said in Mark Todd - Horse Beater:
I think this is the clip.
regarding your question.
This will be incredibly unpopular, but I hope people will read it charitably. Even if you disagree with hitting a horse, his use of negative reinforcement is at least consistent with behaviour change.
Let me state that I'm not a fan of hitting horses to make them go forward, because once you start hitting them, you can't stop until the desired behaviour (i.e., going forward) happens due to the negative reinforcement (hitting them).
In other words, if you make the decision to hit a horse, you can't stop until you get the behaviour change needed. He was consistent with the negative reinforcement and it was immediately removed once the behaviour changed.
I bring this up because I often saw (it's been 10 years since I've been around the show circuit) people hitting horses once in that type of situation, then if it still didn't go, they would stop and go around again (you see this with people trying to load horses on trailers too). In that situation, they are essentially training their horse to do stupider things because a) it won't won't to jump in the water (or go on the float), and b) it won't want to stick around the front of the water(or on the ramp), because it knows that they'll be getting soon, so you'll end up with stranger (and more dangerous behaviour) or won't even be able to get them close to the water jump (or float ramp).
Thanks for posting this, I dont agree with hitting animals however I was expecting far worse when I saw the headline, in fact that "branch" was almost "twig" worthy and the horse wasnt physically harmed..
and I agree with your point on this too, wont be popular with all, but as you say
He was consistent with the negative reinforcement and it was immediately removed once the behaviour changed.
-
-
@dan54 said in Mark Todd - Horse Beater:
I agree I don't like it, but I have seen horse racing too, so......
hadn't posted till now when i saw the clip...yes, slippery slope, id say thats less violent than horse racing whip
But like i think everyone else very much dont like the idea of hurting an animal
-
@gt12 said in Mark Todd - Horse Beater:
I think this is the clip.
That's what they're complaining about? Holy fuck, imagine the outrage if they saw cattle being run through a dip.
Also, what arsehole released the footage? These days it makes sense to enforce removal of phones from people least some arsehole ruins it for everyone.
-
@hooroo said in Mark Todd - Horse Beater:
They will eventually ban the whip in racing and then there will be more hurt and killed horses on race days.
While they use the whip to gee them up, it is also used to steer the horse.
You would know better than me, but give how tough a horse's hide is, I always thought the whip didn't hurt them at all more just geed them up as you say
-
@junior said in Mark Todd - Horse Beater:
@hooroo said in Mark Todd - Horse Beater:
They will eventually ban the whip in racing and then there will be more hurt and killed horses on race days.
While they use the whip to gee them up, it is also used to steer the horse.
You would know better than me, but give how tough a horse's hide is, I always thought the whip didn't hurt them at all more just geed them up as you say
Not much good research on this, but earlier studies (of dead horses) suggest it's about the same as humans and that they feel similar pain (quite a bit of conjecture on this).
On the whip thing, I agree with Hooroo, but I think the only study so far (UK) compared apprentice races (no whips allowed) versus regular races, and found no difference in 'steering' issues.
All in all, the whip will be banned. On the topic of this thread, if that girl had a stick in her hand and had ridden the thing a bit more, I imagine she would have got it off the bank without Toddy giving it a tune up.
Edit: summary of those studies here. The 'deductions' may be correct but the conclusions are pretty far from the findings.
-
@junior said in Mark Todd - Horse Beater:
@hooroo said in Mark Todd - Horse Beater:
They will eventually ban the whip in racing and then there will be more hurt and killed horses on race days.
While they use the whip to gee them up, it is also used to steer the horse.
You would know better than me, but give how tough a horse's hide is, I always thought the whip didn't hurt them at all more just geed them up as you say
It depends on the Jockey but yeah, a "good" jockey can leave a mark.
You often see jockey change the whip to the other hand to straighten the horse or to stop it veering into the rail.
It takes a lot to inflict harm to a horse though.
@gt12 I don't love the apprentice scenario of the study. They need to use pro jockeys do this and see. Apprentices are still learning the trade and are hesitant.
I don't think Whips should be banned. I like what they are doing now by decreasing the number of times they can be hit. My absolutely hatiest is when you see a jockey hitting a horse that is at the rear of the pack and going backwards with no chance of running in top 4 or 5. To me it looks like they are taking it out on the horse after a shit ride on their part.
-
Storm in a teacup for the easily outraged.
Funny how people who have probably never dealt with, trained or had to coerce a large beast to do something are supposedly better informed than someone who has spent their life and career doing just that.
Absolutely there are lines that shouldn't be crossed but if that is the short sharp and effective way of teaching that horse not to stop at a drop into water then the safety of riders and the horse has been achieved.
There are far worse practices around and I know that riders like Todd are some of the first to call people out when they see them. For example it used to be quite common for some riders to deliberately hit the horses shins before showjumping to make them want to lift their legs and not hit rails. AFAIK that practice is stamped out now from riders themselves declaring it unacceptable and making stewards deal with in it the warmup area. -
@crucial said in Mark Todd - Horse Beater:
Storm in a teacup for the easily outraged.
Funny how people who have probably never dealt with, trained or had to coerce a large beast to do something are supposedly better informed than someone who has spent their life and career doing just that.
This can be extrapolated to just about every scenario/profession. People think they know more than those who actually do the job.
