A Great Grand National

[Gingertipster]

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.

The death of Eight Bells in 2008 means an attrition rate of 1.02% in the last 5 years of the Kentucky Derby.

I am sure Miss Woodford, you’d say it is unfair to just look at 5 races (2008-2012) when there’s been 137 years of the Kentucky Derby. True. But you are only looking at the Grand National in a similar way. I think we both agree they’ve made terrific changes to the race, but is your opinion of the old Grand National fair? Just because there were 2 deaths in both 2011 and 2012 does not mean this was the norm.

Before last years event I went through the last 12 years of the Grand National meeting. ie 2012 and 2013 are not included. It would be unfair to look further back, as there’s been many changes to the race in preceeding years.

33 deaths in 12 years of the Aintree meeting, a 3 day meetings not just 1 race a year:
7 were in hurdle races.
1 in a FLAT RACE!
25 over fences.

Of those 25 deaths over fences, just

9

were in the Grand National.

479

horses ran in the Grand National in those 12 years.
9 out of 479 means 9 ‘/, 479 = 0.0188 a

1.88% attrition rate

!!! A rate fractionally

less than 1 per race

. So it was not "

known

" there’d be fatalities before the race as you claim.

Of the 9 fatalities,

only 5 “fell”

.
5 ‘/, 479 = 0.008. Photos of horses falling may look bad, but in fact

Just 0.8% of runners died from falling.

4 did not hit the deck. 3 unseated their jockey and ran loose, 1 was pulled up on the run-in.

1.88% in 12 years of the Grand National
1.02% in 5 years of the Kentucky Derby
Just one more death in the Kentucky Derby in that time would’ve produced a worse attrition rate than the Grand National.

Value Is Everything

[J17star]

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.

Horses will die in this sport. Accept it. Don’t be so naive to expect otherwise. Pre-cautions to minimise the numbers is of course important.

Horses die on the gallops. Do we hear this reported? Do we have to hear whining about how we shouldn’t train race horses because of this? If people complaining about the racing, they should surely also complain about the training, yes? Thus, they may as well simply say … don’t breed race horses.

I’d be more comfortable with someone having that idea rather than simply cherrypicking certain data to support an illogical argument. Hypocritical people picking on the Grand national when if they are going to do that, then criticise everything to do with horse racing from every race to their training.

People mis-use data so much. No horses dying this year is as reliable as 2 dying last year ; on it’s own it is simply worthless data that doesn’t implying anything. The sample size is vastly too small.

Edit ; Good post Ginge. The data has its limitations, but it does somewhat highlight the fallacy regarding the national and fatalities. The national i assume (A guess) will have a slightly higher attritional rate than other races, yet that % differential i imagine isn’t significant, and if one disproves of the national, then they should also disprove of every single race run … since a race horse can and will sometimes perish in any possible conditions race at any time.

[stevecaution]

It will make no difference if you reduce the field size to 30 and it does not matter how soft the fences are. The simple fact is that fatalities WILL occur in the future. Darlan died in a 4 runner hurdle race at Doncaster and fatalities are almost always just bad luck. Horses are not machines and there is always an underlying risk when they are doing the job they were bred for.

Racing is a tough sport for both horse and jockey. It is not a Mills and Boon novel with a happy ending on every final page. Nobody likes to see any of the protagonists paying the ultimate price but I get a bit fed up of those who seem to climb to the top of their ivory towers and point the finger of blame at whoever looks the handiest scapegoat.

The big field is a huge part of the folklore surrounding the race. Tamper with that and we may as well just call it the 4.15 at Aintree (Formerly The Grand National Steeplechase)

Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.

[Factorman]

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.

“That’s not acceptable” where does none acceptance lead too? Are you looking to where your next meal will come from? Or whether the nearest watering hole will be after the local one has dried up?
Good job if you do, putting 100% in are you?

But Christ it’s bad enough you veil your pitiful views on others in your western dream.

Not in an ivory tower Miss W? Mmm,how people will pacify, and then cast their cosset thoughts on others.

I guess you are not looking to where your next meal will come from, you have an ideology.

The “not acceptable” is what you want , you should pull the wool over people’s eyes , you propagate an untruth distorting living being, you betray the very creatures you purport to argue for, a disgrace of truth, a disconnect….. well follow the trail.

[Gingertipster]

To be fair guys, I don’t think Miss Woodford is saying any race should have no fatalities, just it should be a lot less than she sees the Grand National to be. A view I myself concur. It’s just I believe she was exaggerating the death rate of the old National.

Let’s make an estimation of around a 2% attrition rate for the old Grand National (1 in 50 runners). That’s still 5 times the 0.4% (1 in 250) of all runners in National Hunt racing. (Can’t remember what the figures are for chases against hurdling)…

I approve of all improvements made to the new Grand National course. Yes, it is true that you can not judge the improvements by just one race, just as you can not judge the old Grand National on one or two races. But the fact there were no deaths is to say the least encouraging. Even more so considering all 40 got to the Canal Turn, only 2 "fell" in the race and so many finishers.

Value Is Everything

[Solihull]

I thought it was a great race. You know the saying everything that could go wrong did, well this time it was everything that could go right did go right. The start went of fine , no fallers/unseated till the 8th fence (canal turn) 17 finishers and a 66/1 shot winner to show it is still anybodys race. In my opinion the grand national is the greatest race ever.

[Getzippy]

Being honest – I did watch it and think the race had been somewhat emasculated.

The fences just did not look as formidable as usual. Maybe it was just down to the good ground?

It doesn’t seem the same anymore – I suspect that if you polled the jockeys in the race anonymously, the majority would say the race has lost some of it’s challenge to horse and rider.

IMHO, sometimes you can’t have a great spectacle without inherent danger.

Zip

[Miss Woodford]

To be fair guys, I don’t think Miss Woodford is saying any race should have no fatalities, just it should be a lot less than she sees the Grand National to be. A view I myself concur. It’s just I believe she was exaggerating the death rate of the old National.

Let’s make an estimation of around a 2% attrition rate for the old Grand National (1 in 50 runners). That’s still 5 times the 0.4% (1 in 250) of all runners in National Hunt racing. (Can’t remember what the figures are for chases against hurdling)…

Yes, this. 7 of the past 10 runnings of the Grand National had one or more fatality. It’s no wonder that many people -racing fans, even- are hesitant to watch the race live now.

To me the biggest improvement to the race would be to add outriders. I know I’ve mentioned that before. Since so many injuries occur either to horses that are running loose or are caused by the loose horses, being able to catch them or cut them off away from the main pack would make the race safer without taking away from the difficulty.

[Ten Plus]

There were outriders this time.

[runandskip]

If say the next 3 grand nationals are like this years with little incident is there a chance the general public will see it as the bland national and stop tuning in? After all there must be a reason why so many watch it compared to the derby

[Gingertipster]

It beats me why people want to see horses fall.

Value Is Everything

[franklyjim]

If say the next 3 grand nationals are like this years with little incident is there a chance the general public will see it as the bland national and stop tuning in? After all there must be a reason why so many watch it compared to the derby

The Derby (or any group 1 for both jumps/flat) point is really interesting. I personally don’t find the GN that gripping from a racing side of things, especially compared to both gold cups, king George’s or the Derby/oaks/guineas etc. However, there is something that catches the publics imagination with the GN, something that makes thousands of people put on their only bet of the year. I believe it is the position the race holds in the publics imagination/national psyche, and sadly that is most likely linked in with the considered toughness of the race.

[CarryOnKatie]

While I did notice that this years National field didn’t have some of the "edge of your seat" drama as of previous years – on reflection I think this years race is the blueprint going forward.

It’s far easier to go into work on the following Monday Morning and describe a race where horses who don’t take to the test fade one by one and get pulled up rather then turn a somersault and end up under a tarpaulin.

It’s drama to suit a 21st Century Audience.

All in all, it rather felt like watching a Scottish National but with green spruce fences. N ot a bad thing when Aintree is trying to a) impress a new broadcasting partner and it’s prospective advertisers and b) looking to catch the eye of potential new partners.

[moehat]

I was wondering if women have to defend their interest in racing with fellow women work colleagues more than men with male colleagues? I’m constantly on the defensive with a barrage of quotes like ‘the horses don’t choose to do it’ etc. Of course, it’s probably my own fault for not keeping quiet about it, but I get so excited round Cheltenham/Aintree time that I can’t shut up.

[CarryOnKatie]

Moe,

It’s not just women (the username is named after my wife), although in my experience (I work in an office) I do find that women are more likely to steer the conversation along the cruelty line, whereas men tend to want to know if you won on the race.

Sean

[Author]

Posts