- This topic has 110 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
I wouldn’t actually go as far as saying they had no problem with it, Wallace; rather, they got on with it (or were made to get on with it), and beggar the consequences.
I know there are one or two Forumites who bemoan jockeys’ lack of spine where racing (or rather not) into low sun is concerned – and that’s those Forumites’ prerogative, of course – in the same way that they may have bemoaned the replacement of wooden railings / wings with plastic variants and the introduction of the body armour.
I am one of those bemoaners re: lack of spine on behalf of jockeys – however, I have never met anyone who has questioned the merits of replacing the old wooden railings/concrete posts or back protectors.
I drive regularly into low sun – I (and the rest of the population) just exercise a little more care when doing so. Jockeys are not spineless, just lazier, and less attracted by risk than their predecessors. I think the jocks of the Biddlecombe era were amatuers at heart, attracted to race-riding by the danger and the thrill of jumping fences at speed, whereas modern day jocks are in it more for the money. If I was paid the same amount for writing 100 words as for writing 1000, of course I wouldn’t bother with the extra 900 – consequently jocks aren’t going to complain if they are only asked to jump 6 fences instead of 12 (Aintree last meeting), or if the last hurdle is dolled off while T.Murphy conducts a fingertip search for his whip (Wincanton last Saturday).All well and good, Nick – you’ll notice I said “may have bemoaned”, not an emphatic “did bemoan”. I think we pretty much agreed on all else, other than the fact I probably would still churn out 1,000 words in the example you gave. That, though, would have more to do with the fact I NEVER SHUT UP.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
We had noticed, Jeremy!
Nick, do you get paid for the words you put up on here?
Colin
No, I am not in in for the money, just the risk of venting my spleen at high speed. I am an amatuer – no, a gentleman journalist.
Mr T W Wizard (7) has a certain ring to it.
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Figures issued today in the RP state that since 2003, 30% of the fallers have occurred at the second last fence on the final circuit. I do not know how this compares with other courses as I would expect most falls to occur at the final few fences of a course due to tiredness etc but as stated previously on this thread, it seems to be the speed at which the horses are travelling downhill beforehand which is causing the problem and not necessarily the fence itself. The fence should therefore be repositioned or removed for safety reasons imo.
I was disappointed with Alistair Down’s article on this subject in the RP today. He talks about a kneejerk reaction to last weekend’s events but this fence has been causing concern to many genuine jump racing enthusiasts for a few years. The recent events may have given this problem more publicity but it is nothing new.
He seems to suggest that incidents at this fence are just part of jump racing and we have to accept them or not follow the sport. There is a limit regarding how much risk we can expect the horses/jockeys to take and I think that the dangers associated with the positioning of this fence exceeds that limit.
In the past Cheltenham racecourse have listened to the concerns of the public and have acted. I hope they will do so in this case but I fear that more horse deaths or serious injuries to jockeys will have to occur before they do.
AP’s suggestion seems to have received little publicity which is a pity as it makes a lot of common sense.
Have to say I also found the Down column this morning disappointing and felt that his reaction was just as much knee-jerk as those he was criticising.
Also seems to me a pity that the stats provided by the Post have looked only at falls, which ignores the number of horses that are put out a race by that fence without falling (see my earlier post with close up comments from incidents at the October meeting). Nor has anyone tried to compare the stats for second last on the Old Course with the second last on the New Course.
If it’s the speed, the crucial importance of the the stage of the race, the proximity to the finish, then surely both courses should have a problem.
AP
Is it possible some of the other fences are too "easy" rather than the second last too "difficult"? I would like to see some stats going a lot further back than the last 5 years. How many fallers overall are there now compared to 15 or 20 years ago? It seems to me that there are a lot less fallers in steeplechasing now than there used to be.
"AGONY FOR NICHOLLS ON A GREY DAY"
"GRIEF AND GLORY GO SIDE BY SIDE"
"TWO HORSES DIE ON A DAY OF PAIN FOR NICHOLLS AND WALSH"
"TRIUMPH AND TRADEGDY"
"DAY DARKENED BY GRANITS LOSS"
"A SICKENING BLUR OF SILVER AND YELLOW"Roared the newspaper headlines.
Racing whether it likes it or not cannot afford to ignore the public’s perception of it anymore. I was very surprised at the public reaction to the fatatilites at Cheltenham beacuse if you follow the game on a daily basis you have to accept it as distasteful as it is.
Cheltenham evidently is a different case altogether when it comes to equine fatalities probably because of the high profile it enjoys in the greater world of sport as a whole. The stats clearly show there is a problem with this fence and its a problem thats not going to go away by itself.
Surely in this technological day and age where they can build beautifully lush and profiled golf courses in the Arabian deserts the topography of the terrain around the fence can be altered to make it safer for jockey and horse alike. If that’s not possible (no reason it shouldn’t be) then why not go with AP’s excellent suggestion.
They cant afford to bury their heads on this issue imo.
I think the, dare I say it, OVERREACTION, there it is out in the open, is due to the high profile of the meeting, of the race and the fact that it was a young grey horse who started favourite for the race.
If it had been a low level race at say, Cheltenham’s Hunter Chase evening, there would have been none of this "knee-jerk reaction".
That is not to say that I think it is OK to leave the fence as it is.
Every time a horse approaches this fence I tense up, half-expecting a disaster.
Didn’t there used to be the same sort of problem with the open ditch at the top of the hill. Again a number of high-profile falls in high-profile races, not sure if any changes have been made to that fence but the horses seem to be jumping it better these days.
No doubt some of the falls are down to tiredness and perhaps jockeys should be more prepared to pull up before the fence, but I don’t think that was the case with Granit Jack, or most of the disasters that I remember, perhaps Ruby might have taken that option with his horse that fell on Saturday, sorry the name escapes me, but every decision is easy with hindsight, isn’t it.
Colin
Colin,
The Hunter chase evening uses the New Course, so they don’t jump the fence in question.
In fact it is mainly used for high profile meetings – three days for the one just ended, two days at the festival, plus the October two day meeting and as that’s now a Friday/Saturday event, even the main race then is shown on C4.
That’s it, just seven days each year, six of them on terrestrial TV, so not much chance of any problems slipping under the radar.
AP
I watched the Arkle finish again at the weekend. Two horses fell at the fence while in contention and even MWDS, which is the best jumper around at the moment, made a mistake and nodded on landing.
Alistair Down is a waste of space. Why would the mainline presenter of C4 want to upset the management of Cheltenham and risk upsetting future contract negotiations?. Enough said.
EW
My point isn’t that you have to be a jockey or trainer to comment on the fence but moreover that, my own opinions aside, I [and others] are more likely to give weight to the arguments of those professionals directly involved rather than posters on an internet forum who have none of the experience or knowledge of said professionals.
FWIW I do not think that there is a problem with the fence in question and I agree with Alastair Down’s article – there’s a rare occurence!! In my eyes there are far too many knee jerk reactions from people who possibly aren’t as clued up on the subject as they like to think.
If the fence is such a "death trap" would someone care to explain to me why the falls are happening on the last circuit and not in earlier circuits? It’s because the main reason behind the falls is that the horses are not being balanced properly in the descent prior to the fence or being ridden properly into the fence in question at that time as they are challenging (I fully accept that this was not the case with Granit Jack however, that was a tragic accident) and being shaken up to get into the finish. It takes very little to steady or half halt the stride whilst going down the slope approaching the fence; indeed it can be done without halting forward movement if the momentum is harnessed correctly.
Come on people, lets have less of the knee jerk reactions, please?!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.