Does that mean killed? Why kill the horse? So it can't race well, why kill it? Should we do that with Olympic athletes? "You got the bronze! Die!"
2007-01-29 05:13:50 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Horse Racing
Yes, euthanized means killed. No, he wasn't put down because he couldn't race well. He was never going to race again. They were trying to repair the leg so that he could merely survive. He wasn't even going to be able to breed again, the leg was so badly damaged. But, now the vets have decided that the leg was so badly destroyed that the animal would be in constant pain and even unable to stand on his own. Euthanizing him was the humane thing to do.
So park your righteous indignation. Horse breeders aren't so cold hearted they were going to destroy a Derby champion just because he couldn't race anymore.
2007-01-29 05:26:31 · answer #1 · answered by penhead72 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, euthanized means killed. Barbaro was not put down merely because he could no longer race. In fact, his owners have invested many thousands of dollars in the last eight months trying to treat his condition and keep him healthy.
The condition from which Barbaro suffered, laminitis, is a very dangerous and often painful condition that destroys the horse's hoof, rendering him crippled. In addition to a case of recurring laminitis, Barbaro also developed an abcess in his right hind hoof that was causing him pain. His vet inserted steel pins in the former shattered left hoof, hoping that it could bear his weight while the abcess healed. The procedure did not work. Barbaro would not have been able to walk at all. For a horse, this is a death sentence.
I commend Barbaro's owners and vet for trying so long to save him. Others horses who have had his same injuries are euthanized immediately. I'm sure it was a very painful and difficult decision for them.
2007-01-29 13:27:28 · answer #2 · answered by Sharon B 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He is dead and I feel really sorry about that. Barbaro was a great racing horse and the vets did for the best of not only the horse's interest but the interest of others. Barbaro will always be a legend.
2007-01-29 13:21:46 · answer #3 · answered by aaron_esq 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they had to put him down. It was more than not being able to race. The horse could not stand, with one hind leg weakened by the triple fracture he suffered and the other compromised with a very dangerous and very painful infection of the hoof. Then, he developed another painful infection in the other hind hoof.
It's very sad, but the owners and his vet made the best decision for Barbaro.
2007-01-29 13:24:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Horses are very heavy and for him to put all that weight on his other 3 legs would have caused many other problems. That's why they put horses to sleep when they break a leg. With Barbaro they tried everything they could to keep him alive. He's not in pain anymore.
2007-01-29 13:23:56 · answer #5 · answered by lonestar 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You apparently know nothing about horses. In a nutshell, his two back feet were ruined. One from a broken leg, and the other from bearing the weight out of balance. There is no way to keep a 2 legged horse alive. no matter how hard you tried. come to think of it, you can't even keep a 3 legged horse alive, no matter how hard you try (ie: Barbaro), because of uneven weight distribution, they end up 2 legged. Even if he was "on bed rest", he would have died from not standing up. They weigh too much to "lay down" for any great length of time. It causes them to suffocate.
2007-01-29 13:23:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If he were my horse,he'd have been put down May 20 06 on the track. He was kept alive because he won the derby and had a high stud fee.
2007-01-29 13:21:40 · answer #7 · answered by barfield4ny 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they put him down this morning. The problem wasn't that he could not race anymore. The problem was they could not fix his leg without him being in constant pain. That is what their decision was based on. They were going to breed him not race him.
2007-01-29 13:23:36 · answer #8 · answered by Chad K 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
just as in all sports, there is a "use them until you use them up" mentality. in his quest to gain fame and fortune for those who owned and trained him, he suffered an injury that would not allow him to race again. this made him expendable because he could no longer earn his keep so to speak. it is this "what have you done for me lately?" attitude that all sports organizations seem to employ. nobody cares that the athlete(in this case, a horse) has made a ton of money. it's a thing about right now! killing him was cheaper. that's what it boils down to.
2007-01-29 13:26:30 · answer #9 · answered by d. w 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes..killed. :( It's such a shame but the article says the horse wouldn't be able to live without pain. :(
2007-01-29 13:21:26 · answer #10 · answered by Jenniphur 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋