- This topic has 48 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
- Posts
Watch them jump Foinavon second time round. After the leaders have kicked the spruce away the solid bit that’s left looks about 2 feet high.
Frankly, with what’s left I think I’d rather just have ordinary park fences.
No they are not hurdles. Mullins would have been prepping On His Own in steeplechases to protect his hurdles mark.
Sheer genius Willie.I’d rather it be a "hurdle" race that’s safe than a ~proper Grand National~ with multiple injuries and fatalities. If a race must be "dumbed-down" so that it doesn’t kill horses, then yes, go ahead and dumb it down!
How is it that the moment a Grand National is run with no casualties people whine and moan about how it’s no longer truly a Grand National? Is it a requirement of the race that it must be deadly and dangerous? Judging by the recent thread about how "horses are killed in racing, it’s a fact of life", some racing fans are quite content having a bloodsport. If that’s the case, then good f***ing luck expanding the popularity of steeplechasing.
Good point. I’d say it was just about perfect this year. The fences still look huge and dramatic even if they are soft and flimsy inside, so the race loses none of it’s spectacularness (not a word) yet all the horses come back safe and sound. Perfect.
I’d rather it be a "hurdle" race that’s safe than a ~proper Grand National~ with multiple injuries and fatalities. If a race must be "dumbed-down" so that it doesn’t kill horses, then yes, go ahead and dumb it down!
How is it that the moment a Grand National is run with no casualties people whine and moan about how it’s no longer truly a Grand National? Is it a requirement of the race that it must be deadly and dangerous? Judging by the recent thread about how "horses are killed in racing, it’s a fact of life", some racing fans are quite content having a bloodsport. If that’s the case, then good f***ing luck expanding the popularity of steeplechasing.
I’m not disagreeing with the premise of your post but that word ‘bloodsport’ is a dangerous and misleading way to describe any field sport. National hunt racing, indeed racing generally cannot possibly be made absolutely safe. There will always be those calling for the ‘exploitation’ of animals to be banned. Every little milimetre of ground conceded to the hand-wringing liberal element of society chips away at the protective veneer that shields racing and other field sports from those who would see it discontinued. So the changes made to the Grand National, and the wider implication of those changes should not be taken lightly.
A hurdle race is no safer than an fence race. There have been plenty of deaths over the years in hurdle races. Horses can break bones or fall badly no matter what type of obstacle they’re jumping.
Great race. Anyone know anybody who actually backed the winner though? Still good for Aintree. Not that critics won’t complain, even saying how bad it was that some horses hadn’t completed the course. There’s no harm to man or beast in "pullingup"
Thankfully the race went off without incident and, believe me, no one is more pleased with that than me.
It certainly looks as though the fences are more forgiving without the wooden cores and, in hindsight, it’s a pity it isn’t something done sooner.
Also they still had sufficient time to get sighted before the first.
All in all a good result and race for racing.
This is my point really. The National has had a desperate run of luck over the last couple of years, and this was publicised starkly by the very public death of Dooneys Gate followed the next year by the loss of a horse who had won the Gold Cup just weeks previously. Compounded by the fact that just about every horse the BBC chose to track in the run up ending up injured or dead. Talk about kiss of death. But there have been many Nationals where there were no casualties: just look at 2001 as one recent example
Even with the changes made there will be further fatalities, just as there can be in any hurdle, chase or even on the flat. How will the authorities respond next time? Where does it finish? Even if the fatality is a Persian Punch type incident, the Animal Aid types will say that the horse has been run to death.
I have no doubt that certain editors will have been disappointed last night that they couldn’t this year place the usual prurient focus on allegations of barbarity and cruelty and for that I’m very happy. But don’t let’s pretend that the problem has been fixed by further watering down of he event itself. Unless racing is prepared to draw a line in the sand and use effective PR to defend that position we might as well turn the lights off.
Exactly. Just look at poor Darlan the other week. Yet I didn’t hear anyone crowing about how hurdle racing should be banned after this unfortunate accident, high profile horse that he was.
OK we got away with it this year and we may the next 2 or 3 but there will be another fatality in this race whether its at a fence or a collapse and then the Activists will start up again.
OK we got away with it this year and we may the next 2 or 3
but there will be another fatality in this race
whether its at a fence or a collapse and then the Activists will start up again.
That’s not acceptable. I don’t expect horses to be killed in this sport. It should be possible to run a Grand National that doesn’t have horses dying every other year. And if it isn’t possible, then the race ought to be shut down.
I’m far from an animal-rights activist, but I don’t take the deaths of horses (and the injuries/deaths of jockeys) lightly.
OK we got away with it this year and we may the next 2 or 3
but there will be another fatality in this race
whether its at a fence or a collapse and then the Activists will start up again.
That’s not acceptable. I don’t expect horses to be killed in this sport. It should be possible to run a Grand National that doesn’t have horses dying every other year. And if it isn’t possible, then the race ought to be shut down.
I’m far from an animal-rights activist, but I don’t take the deaths of horses (and the injuries/deaths of jockeys) lightly.
With supporters like you racing certainly doesn’t need enemies!
OK we got away with it this year and we may the next 2 or 3
but there will be another fatality in this race
whether its at a fence or a collapse and then the Activists will start up again.
That’s not acceptable. I don’t expect horses to be killed in this sport. It should be possible to run a Grand National that doesn’t have horses dying every other year. And if it isn’t possible, then the race ought to be shut down.
I’m far from an animal-rights activist, but I don’t take the deaths of horses (and the injuries/deaths of jockeys) lightly.
Just an observation Miss Woodford, but the US racing authorities seem to have shied away from moving away from dirt despite the much higher attrition rate. Are you suggesting an end to dirt racing too?
OK we got away with it this year and we may the next 2 or 3
but there will be another fatality in this race
whether its at a fence or a collapse and then the Activists will start up again.
That’s not acceptable. I don’t expect horses to be killed in this sport. It should be possible to run a Grand National that doesn’t have horses dying every other year. And if it isn’t possible, then the race ought to be shut down.
I’m far from an animal-rights activist, but I don’t take the deaths of horses (and the injuries/deaths of jockeys) lightly.
Just an observation Miss Woodford, but the US racing authorities seem to have shied away from moving away from dirt despite the much higher attrition rate. Are you suggesting an end to dirt racing too?
I’m not saying to eliminate any level of risk. But there is a level between "a race that might result in horses being killed" and "a race in which we expect horses to be killed". I do not go to my local dirt track and expect to see a horse die. Having gone to said track countless times, I’ve seen two deaths: one from a heart attack at the finish line (Lacewell), and one the result of a certain Michael Dickinson running a horse who should’ve been retired years earlier (poor A Huevo, he deserved better).
Yes, horses are killed in dirt races and synthetic races and turf races and hurdle races and timber races, but nobody is saying "oh, you
know
that a horse is going to be killed in the Kentucky Derby this year". Because the Kentucky Derby has had exactly one fatality in its 137-year history, and that was a huge deal.
Just compare the number of equine deaths that have resulted from the Cheltenham Gold Cup (or the Velka Pardubicka, or the Maryland Hunt Cup, or really
any
other major jumps race in the world) and the Grand National. Surely there is a reason for that difference? Surely we can do our best to minimize that difference without sacrificing the "spirit" of the Grand National?
I think it’s difficult to argue Chelteham v Aintree Miss Woodford. On the AnimalAid figures from 2007 up to the present there have been 44 deaths at Cheltenham compared to 31 at Aintree, these are for all races of course.
But given that Cheltenham had 11 deaths at the 2011 Festival and 5 the following year an argument could be made that it is the more dangerous of the two courses. Cheltenham reviewed and made amendments to the course, in the same way that Aintree does.
I think the argument to bring the number of runners down to 35 or 30 should be the next step.
I enjoyed it more than usual, and echo all sentiments in this thread. Well done to all involved.
Sheer genius Willie.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.