- This topic has 17 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
When the new obstacles were introduced I did make the observation that there appeared to be an increase in horses taking off early and landing on them.
The question of whether they have caused the issues with Constitution Hill’s jumping have of course been discussed on another thread.
Yesterday we sadly lost 3 horses at Kempton and 2 of them appeared to be because the horse took off too early.
The situation could have been even worse as both Old Cowboy & The Doyen Chief walked through the fences.
I know horses have always fallen but are these new obstacles causing certain horses to misjudge or not see them? Not that BHA would admit to it.
I believe the stats show that there are less fallers with the new type hurdles and if you go back through jump racing horses will stand off an obstacle too far no matter what the construction or colour bars are on fences/hurdles or if there is low sun or no sun.
Some horses are too brave for their own good and will let fly regardless when they are on a long (or too longer) stride and depending on how much scope they have or don’t have that can lead to a fall. Strangely enough tiredness can also cause a horse to take off too early and because they don’t have the same energy left they don’t clear the top bar of the flight or fence and land on it.
Others are not overly proficient at being able to shorten their stride when meeting an obstacle and thus either take off too early or take the extra full stride that means they get in too close and belt the fence/hurdle half way up it (not as dangerous when hurdling but can easily cause the horse to tip up over a fence).
Horses can also be influenced by what another horse near them are doing – i.e. horse (A) could meet the obstacle on a long stride and take off and jump it fine whilst horse (B) who is maybe half a length behind horse (A) at the time and takes off at the same time as horse (A) and lands on the obstacle and falls. Horses can be strange creeatures in that while some can be extremely intelligent and learn from a mistake, others don’t seem to and end up making the same mistake repeatedly and some frighten themselves enough to never be capable of jumping again (mainly in chase races to be fair).
I only saw Kalif’s incident live and I have no interest in going back to watch the replay of other two horses fatalities and try to work out what was the most likely cause of each fall but I would have to say that I am fairly certain it wasn’t the new hurdle itself that was the problem because if it were the case, the number of fallers would be increasing not decreasing.
That being said, I didn’t think the evidence that was provided was compelling enough to warrant changing from the old style hurdles (and colour changes) to the new ones but that is just me.
Well, whoever gave the go ahead to introduce these white hurdles must’ve had **** in their eyes.
You look at a colour test and white (along with yellow) stands out the most prominent against a dark background. White appears to look nearer than other colours. Surely this is causing the horses to jump earlier than they need to … especially that they have panoramic vision. This makes their vision of depth weaker than humans. It is for this reason why I strongly feel why this affects horse and jockey.Surely it’s time that instead of actual hurdles and fences we simply have large projectors on race courses to produce virtual fences!?
Or we could put the old hurdles back in, make the fences thick enough so that horses can’t simply plow through them now and accept that with those types of obstacles, sadly we’re going to lose horses and stop trying to assuage the anti horse racing and the professionally offended groups who won’t be happy until there is no horse racing and no risk taking whatsoever left in the world and we’re all living in clouds eating kale and almond milk 5 times a day.
Thanks LD73. One counter-argument could be those stats won’t show the reduced field sizes nowadays and less obstacles jumped so you might expect to have a lower fatality rate.
Yet another horse landed on top of a fence at Fontwell today with sadly fatal consequences.
Going back to Kempton yesterday had The Doyen Chief & Old Cowboy’s mistakes been fatal (but for the grace of God they weren’t) we would have lost 5 horses in 4 races with just a total of 22 runners in those races.
Just the imagine the headlines had nearly 1 in 4 runners been killed. It would be difficult to argue it was just a horrible coincidence.
I’d say yesterday was a serious warning that these new obstacles need looking at again by the BHA.
I didn’t think that chase fences had been changed, though? Only hurdles ( which seem to change on a regular basis).
The BBC and The Guardian have both picked up on Kempton yesterday. No surprise about the former, which is generally only “interested” in racing when it can show the sport in a bad light.
At least the reports are not too sensationalist:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/horse-racing/articles/cpv7r7mk8eno
BHA have issued a statement saying they are going to look nto the deaths at Kempton
VF x
Moehat, I hadn’t realised that there had been changes to fences as well as hurdles either. All the initial publicity was about the changes to hurdles.
Sadly I suspect that three fatalities at the same meeting is not as extraordinary as most of us would wish, especially allowing for injuries that have a fatal outcome in the days that follow.
I’m not persuaded either way regarding the new obstacle design at present. This debate can only really be resolved by having some comparative statistics for fall rates and fatality rates from before and after the changes. I don’t recall seeing anything substantive on this as yet, and hope some are forthcoming.
I see the uprights in the photo are zebra-striped. Have they considered using these on the crossbars too instead of plain white? Such bars are much more eye-catching to we humans and frequently seen on swinging barriers, gates etc used to temporarily close roads.
Unlike us with trichromatic vision horses eyes are dichromatic, being essentially red-green colourblind so I’d guess they distinguish black and white pretty much as we do.
I’m sure the BHA review will look at the fences and hurdles, but I hope they’ll also consider whether the going was a contributing factor, and whether it was in fact safe to race on Saturday.
The times in the two 2M 4F chases indicate the ground was riding remarkably fast for mid January. And the track had also reported that take off and landing areas had been covered earlier in the week. I’m not sure whether they had full covers on, but if they did I think that was only done on Friday.
The covers raise the question of whether the going was different where the covers had been. Also, all the key incidents happened at the last two fences/hurdles and the fences down the side of the course, the areas which get the least sun due to the stands and the trees alongside the 3M start. No problems down the far side, where the sun shines all day.
All speculation on my part, but something I hope will be included in the review.
Interesting points AP. Does anyone know at how many positions on the course the going is checked normally?
Had best also clarify that I mentioned fall rates and fatality rates separately for a reason. I wonder if perhaps the newer design leads to fewer falls, but perhaps the falls that still occur tend to be more harmful due to there being more premature take offs.
I think the white markers are easier to see on the new fences and hurdles but I’m not sure that’s a good thing. The white reflects much more light and I think it makes the obstacles look a lot more daunting to the horses.
I think that’s why we’re seeing more horses take off too early or guessing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.