I don't know how big a story this is outside the Philadelphia area, but yesterday, the 2006 Kentucky Derby
Winner Barbaro was put down. For those who don't know, Barbaro was the odds on favorite to win the
Triple Crown. The undefeated colt, in the previous 6 races, won the Kentucky Derby by 6 1/2 lengths, the
largest margin of victory since 1946.

Favored to win the Preakness Stakes, the horse suffered catastrophic, multiple fractures in his right hind leg in the
first furlong.A splint was applied at the racetrack then he was taken the University of Pennsylvania's Bolton Center
in Kennett Square. There he endured a 5 hour surgery to insert titanium plate and 27 screws to his ankle.

The owners and surgeons knew he would never race again but they did their best to save the horse's life. Almost
a year later the laminitis in his other legs, caused by unbalanced weight distribution, was too great and the decision
was made to put the colt down.

Now I ask, was this caring or cruelty? Had this been an average horse in an ordinary race the horse never would have
left the track alive. I believe the owners saw dollar signs in the Stud market. Not only Barbaro's offspring but their offspring
as well, could rake in millions. I think the owners of this horse gave him 8 months of agony just to see if he can recover
enough to be put to stud.

I am no animal rights activist, I enjoy going to the track and betting a few races now and again. I know these horses
are bred to win at any cost but what they did to this horse the past 8 months was just cruel. Barbaro should have
been put down at the track.

I guess I wish I knew a little bit more about vet medicine to qualify to answer this...  ::)

I don't have an issue with the doctors attempting to save Barbaro, as long as they thought he had a decent shot at recovery.  However, I know this whole treatment was "experimental" at best, and it doesn't appear that he had much response to it after all.  I wouldn't go as far as calling it cruel, because there was a sincere effort to save his life.  Ill-advised, perhaps.

Very sad for Barbaro  :\'(

I understand they tried to save the horses life but this is why I think it was cruel. On July 13,2006 it was disclosed
that Barbaro had laminitis, a painful and often fatal disease. The vets removed 80% of his left hind hoof to treat
the condition and his chances of survival were termed "poor."

This is the reason Horses are put down when the break bones in their legs. Recovery is rare and painful. The
trainers and doctors knew Barbaro's chances of survival were slim to none, why did they make the horse suffer
for 8 months?

Do you find it weird how it's okay to put an animal down but when a human requests it all kinds of bigwigs go up in arms about it?

I don't think the horse thing is cruel per se but it was certainly ill-advised considering the odds.

I would only call it cruelty if they intentionally wanted to cause him pain and then ultimately, his death.  I think they were doing all they could to give him some quality of life and they finally saw that it just wasn't to be, and they had to put him down.  No matter how you look at it, it's sad. 

It's very sad yes, but the paper here stated they euthanized him. Which to my way of thinking means he was suffering more if they hadn't so they had no other choice after trying to doctor his ailments for 6 months.

I guess I wish I knew a little bit more about vet medicine to qualify to answer this...   ::)

I don't have an issue with the doctors attempting to save Barbaro, as long as they thought he had a decent shot at recovery.  However, I know this whole treatment was "experimental" at best, and it doesn't appear that he had much response to it after all.  I wouldn't go as far as calling it cruel, because there was a sincere effort to save his life.  Ill-advised, perhaps.

Very sad for Barbaro   :\'(


I think the effort was sincere.Condidering the fact that many humans in far worse shape undergo extrordinary efforts to save them,i don't see anything wrong with the effort to save the colt.he kind of gave them the signal that it was getting to be time for him to go,so that's why they put him down.Animakls don't have the concept of suicide the way humans do.

I think it is so sad what happened to Barbaro.. I feel it is animal cruelty.. i know people think Im nuts but I feel it is just wrong to make money off animals that way.. This poor horse suffered for so long and not for the good of him, but for the good of the owners and the rest of the people making cash off of him.. he suffered so long and Im glad they finally did the right thing and put the poor creature down. :\'(

I understand they tried to save the horses life but this is why I think it was cruel. On July 13,2006 it was disclosed
that Barbaro had laminitis, a painful and often fatal disease. The vets removed 80% of his left hind hoof to treat
the condition and his chances of survival were termed "poor."

This is the reason Horses are put down when the break bones in their legs. Recovery is rare and painful. The
trainers and doctors knew Barbaro's chances of survival were slim to none, why did they make the horse suffer
for 8 months?

Do you find it weird how it's okay to put an animal down but when a human requests it all kinds of bigwigs go up in arms about it?

I don't think the horse thing is cruel per se but it was certainly ill-advised considering the odds.
Rice brings up a good point.  Why is it considered "cruel" to try to save an animal's life, but when it comes to humans, it's expected?  My mother has cancer and her chance of "survival" is 0%.  Her treatment has been extremely difficult, but it has extended her life....although her "quality of life" has diminished dramatically.  She is currently undergoing an "experimental" treatment that has improved her life a bit, but there is no chance of her ever being "cured" or even "in remission".  After her last surgery, she had a strange reaction and the doctors didn't think she would make it, but she eventually bounced back.  About a year later, the doctors wanted to try surgery again and she refused......the doctors were beside themselves trying to convince her to do it and couldn't comprehend that she didn't want to go through what she had previously experienced....

Rice brings up a good point.  Why is it considered "cruel" to try to save an animal's life, but when it comes to humans, it's expected?  My mother has cancer and her chance of "survival" is 0%.  Her treatment has been extremely difficult, but it has extended her life....although her "quality of life" has diminished dramatically.  She is currently undergoing an "experimental" treatment that has improved her life a bit, but there is no chance of her ever being "cured" or even "in remission".  After her last surgery, she had a strange reaction and the doctors didn't think she would make it, but she eventually bounced back.  About a year later, the doctors wanted to try surgery again and she refused......the doctors were beside themselves trying to convince her to do it and couldn't comprehend that she didn't want to go through what she had previously experienced....


I'm so sorry to hear that Kim.  :(  I do agree with your point though...it's cruel to prolong a life that is full of pain.  I know I certainly wouldn't want to live that way.  Best wishes to you and your family.

I think it is so sad what happened to Barbaro.. I feel it is animal cruelty.. i know people think Im nuts but I feel it is just wrong to make money off animals that way.. This poor horse suffered for so long and not for the good of him, but for the good of the owners and the rest of the people making cash off of him.. he suffered so long and Im glad they finally did the right thing and put the poor creature down. :\'(



Hi, I totally agree with you.  I live in Indiana just right across the bridge from Louisville, Ky where the KY Derby is held.  I saw Barbaro get hurt.  Sad Day :\'(

Rice brings up a good point.  Why is it considered "cruel" to try to save an animal's life, but when it comes to humans, it's expected?  My mother has cancer and her chance of "survival" is 0%.  Her treatment has been extremely difficult, but it has extended her life....although her "quality of life" has diminished dramatically.  She is currently undergoing an "experimental" treatment that has improved her life a bit, but there is no chance of her ever being "cured" or even "in remission".  After her last surgery, she had a strange reaction and the doctors didn't think she would make it, but she eventually bounced back.  About a year later, the doctors wanted to try surgery again and she refused......the doctors were beside themselves trying to convince her to do it and couldn't comprehend that she didn't want to go through what she had previously experienced....
The doctors must have had a good relationship with her.it is possible for experimental rtreatments to turn out tobe a cure,and your mother did try it,and things didn't turn out as she wanted.it's her decision.maybe she can convince them not to be besides themselves.

The doctors must have had a good relationship with her.it is possible for experimental rtreatments to turn out tobe a cure,and your mother did try it,and things didn't turn out as she wanted.it's her decision.maybe she can convince them not to be besides themselves.
Unless they come up with some "cure" in the next few years, it's doubtful.  She has basically exhausted the rest of her options because she's been on chemo so long (almost 4 years now) that they're becoming "toxic" to her system.  Right now, the focus is on keeping it from spreading more.  She did get the docs to see her point of view and they don't even bring up surgery anymore....