- This topic has 110 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Good Morning All
I’ve just done a bit of research on the 2m4f old course at Cheltenham
Since 2000…
69 horses have fell or unseated
21 of those have been 2 out
2 horses were killed at the fence GJ yesterday and Brother Joe in 2003Over 30% of all fallers at one fence when their are 15 fences over that distance is a lot.
There were 13 who fell or unseated 3 out ( the other downhill fence) so between them those 2 fences account for almost 50% of fallers.
I’ll look at the other distances later. I was very surprised at the amount of anger on other forums about what happened yesterday and clearly Cheltenham will have to do something. They have reacted well to recent fatalities with the watering policy and imo the fences don’t look as stiff as they used to be.
I’ve been looking at incidents just this season. At the two day October meeting, there were five races over fences. Here are the RP comments for events at the second last.
Iris Royal – led, blundered and headed 2 out
Minella Tipperary – blundered and all but fell 2 out, tailed off
Craven – sprawled on landing and unseated rider 2 out
Private Be – knocked over 2 out
Aldiruos – hit 2 out and lost place
Three other horses were reported as ‘hampered’ or ‘badly hampered’ in the incident involving Craven and Private Be.
That’s a pretty long list for one fence in just five races!
AP
I looked at stats for fallers at the 2006 Festival a while back. I don’t have the figures to hand but this fence accounted for something like half of the fallers on the Old Course, and the majority of them had not made a mistake at the fence, but jumped it cleanly and sprawled on landing. This makes it less than ideal as a test of jumping.
Well the 1.10 at Cheltenham today once again highlights this controversial issue and credit to Lydia/Steve on Ruk for giving this forum a mention and Mr Potts suggestion.
I’ve only just noticed this thread and I agree with Alan 100%. I for one would not grieve the loss of the downhill at all. It’s as if the whole idea of the second last, going back to when it was fair game to try to ‘take out’ horses, is there for that reason alone. It’s a far too bigger ask of a horse to be at full stretch on a downhill gradient, at the end of a fast 3m.
I say get rid of. The downhill is an unfair test of horse and jockey.Another two fallers at the second last in the 1:10 today. I now dread watching horses jump this fence and it is ruining the pleasure I get from the racing at this course – this fence is too dangeous. Hope Cheltenham get rid of it or take up AP’s suggeston.
I’ve got a couple of form books from the 60’s, 70s and have had a look to check the attrition rate at the second last. Massive fields, firm and hard, yes hard going on occasions, and just a handful of fallers.
Races back then where generally run at a steadier pace, thereby the horses had greater energy left for the closing stages. Over the past 20 years races generally have been run at a frenetic early pace leading to the horses being more tired at the business end. Perhaps this may be a factor as to why more horses seem to come to grief at the fence in question than used to be the case. Just a theory!
I have long held the belief that Cheltenham is such a severe test, that to have trap fences, 2nd last and 4th last on the new course, and the 4th last on the old course, is too much. AP’s idea of splitting the 2 courses is very much the way to go, the hurdle course on the new course is a farce, 2 hurdles in the final 7 furlongs!!! I would suggest that trainers and jockeys would welcome this with open arms, so I would like Cheltenham to come up with the reasons why this cannot be done.
I’m delighted about the response to this issue because the welfare of these animals is paramount.
The second last at Cheltenham is probably the most notorious park fence in the country. When viewing respective chase races on TV, you can always identify this fence due to the fairly unique camera angle that Channel 4 have always used at this particular obstacle. It has such a visual impact that it’s always very much a ‘heart in the mouth’ moment.
Purists will say ‘jumping’s the name of the game’. This is true, but it shouldn’t be detrimental to the wellbeing of the horse. The art of jumping is not about how stiff the fences are, it’s about coordination and jockeyship.
Sandown has always been my favourite park course. The Railway fences, due tho their close proximity, puts the emphasis on rhythm and, due to the nature of the course, jumping at speed. This course provides a stiff, yet fair test for both horse and jockey. Perhaps someone can provide this forum with the number of fatalities at this course compared to Cheltenham.
Cheltenham is a fantastic venue, the atmosphere it generates is outstanding and the sporting action unparalleled. This attraction, however, should not jepordise the wellbeing of the horses.
Agree totally with AP. Great idea about using the acres of space they have available.
Slightly off topic, is there a dramatic photograph on the wall of the pub in East Garston of an almighty pile up at this fence also?
From RP website
CHELTENHAM on Sunday defended the fence that on Saturday claimed the life of Granit Jack but volunteered to re-examine the already modified obstacle should racing professionals request them to do so.
Granit Jack, hot favourite for the Paddy Power Gold Cup and among the most highly regarded inmates of Paul Nicholls’ yard, looked poised to win the showpiece handicap until knuckling over after jumping the Old Course’s signature penultimate fence. The five-year-old broke his neck and died instantly.
Like many other past fallers at the jump – which many consider reflects the essential character of Cheltenham – Granit Jack made no semblance of a mistake but instead seemed to be brought to the ground due to the speed at which he was travelling.
That view was supported on Saturday by Granit Jack’s trainer Paul Nicholls, who said: “For some reason it’s always the good ones who fall at that fence. It’s the ones that are going too well. It’s the momentum that brings them down.â€
The comments by Claisse about the number of fallers in recent seasons don’t match the reality most of us seem to recognise – how can he just dismiss two significant fallers in the Arkle earlier this year? And of course it isn’t just an issue of fallers or fatalities, but of races spoilt by mistakes that put horses completely out of the race.
I have sent an email to Edward Gillespie and perhaps we’ll see some comment in the press during the week. I’ll post details of any reply I get from the course.
Many thanks for all the supportive postings on this thread – it makes me feel that we have the right answer.
Wallace,
Don’t know, haven’t been in the Queens Arms for years, not since it changed hands.
AP
Thank you for posting that EW.
Of those quoted I would applaud Paddy Brennan’s more than any other and all credit to him for standing out from the crowd over this.
"What happened on Saturday is not good for racing, for jockeys, for horses or for the public…"
Disappointing comments from the others.
At least I got an email reply from Cheltenham today [from Mr Clifton] acknowledging the concerns but generally mirrors what Mr Linley says there.
It’ll take an earthquake to shift it.
I’d like to see some stats, but from the posts on here it seems this part of the track is probably causing more incidents than it should and it looks like it needs investigating properly..
The horses are what make the Great Game what it is imo and the lack of concern from the experts is a little surprising tbh
Lets hope it don’t take a serious injury to a jockey for those experts to show some concern
I’ve had the following response from Edward Gillespie, which I offer without comment.
"An interesting idea which would require us to get both courses up to
raceable condition for meetings such as that, whereas we currently
manage only one track. That would require a totally different approach
to storing water and the investment of and use of irrigation equipment.
I’m not saying it could not be done but it would be significantly
different from the way we currently approach the challenge.We shall now be moving over to the New Course for December and January
so let’s hope your theory holds good on the lack of injuries"AP
Perhaps the end-to-end style of racing that has developed over the last 20 years or so is an important contributory factor, after all, there have been considerable improvements in racecourse safety,including fence siting, over the last 40 years, yet the reducton in fatalities has not been as great as it should have been.
We can "blame" messrs Pipe and Dickinson for this, I suppose, for getting horses really fit so they can blast off right from the start and run their rivals off their feet, with victory going to the last man standing.
This attritional style, rather reminiscent of American dirt racing, means that horses are more fatigued in the latter stages of a race than they used to be. Certainly, they need to be able to stay the distance more thoroughly than they used to.
In the "good old days", races used to run at a relatively sedate pace for the first half, then quickening up in the last mile or so. This meant that horses were relatively fresher coming to the last few obstacles, including "that fence" at Cheltenham.
Quite what can be done about this aspect of the problem is hard to know, we can’t uninvent interval training.
I’m sorry to strike a discordant note here.
Alan, and others, do you really want to see the Old Course emasculated? The second-last fence, IMO, is the epitome of what Cheltenham is all about. The fence has been signicantly modified in recent years, as Simon Claisse has said, and now is actually an uphill fence. If you want to see Cheltenham retain its position as the home of the "equine Olympics", then you must accept some unique challenges for horses and jockeys alike. And the second-last on the Old Course, without question, provides such a challenge.
I think the comments of AP McCoy, Philip Hobbs and Nicky Henderson provide some thankful perspective.
Thank you for letting us see that. It seems they are only really interested if jockeys/trainers make enough fuss.
I’ve heard no comment from Paddy Power regarding this and as sponsor’s of the 3 days I feel they should say something about it too, it would be nice. How many sponsor’s want to be associated with continuing bad publicity.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.