Don't get me wrong I don't think it's without problems, but I think it's a bit incorrect to say they "don't have a choice". They do.
And I don't personally think boycotting it is a particularly mature response to feeling that animal welfare could be improved. If I want animal welfare improved, I might do better to campaign, or write to an MP, or do something else to highlight the issue, rather than pretending that as long as I'm shutting my eyes and ears to it that everything's OK and that it doesn't exist.
Ben, don't you think it' possible that people boycott and campaign?
Yes, absolutely - if you want to boycott and campaign, that's great!
I just reserve the right to elect to do neither. I don't see how that means I have to agree with everything about it.
I stand against the oft-touted 'status quo' that if you have any disagreement with something whatsoever you should really boycott it, and if you don't, then you are a 100% supporter.
Let's not forget that the horses set off
before the jockey first hits them with the crop. It's not like, the gates open, and they just stand there until the jockey hits them at which point they grunt 'oh,
go on then', and
then start running. They
want to do the race as much as the humans. That's why it's fundamentally morally ok, per se. I do think hitting them with the crop should be banned or at least limited, but I genuinely don't think it hurts them that much, I think they've got much thicker skin than humans have.