- This topic has 23 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Okay I know you probably expect ExRubyLight to be posting this and if it had been Sedgefield, Worcester or Southwell he probably would be. But Cheltenham has a worse record for horse deaths than any of these courses given the lesser number of meetings it has. According to Animal Aid’s website with today’s death count of 3, Cheltenham’s total horse deaths since 2000 is 49. Compare that to Sedgefield (55), Worcester (43) and Southwell (42) in the same period.
So – do we care less because it’s Cheltenham? Is the racecourse so big in racing’s world view that these deaths can be ignored for the sake of the spectacle? Don’t get me wrong, I love watching Cheltenham, the big fields (so rare to see these days in the UK), the rousing finishes up the hill. But are our equine heroes paying too high a price to race at this particular course?
Those stats mean nothing in the way you’ve presented them.
What is meaningful is the rate of deaths, not the total number.
Please show the number of horses who ran at those tracks during the period, also if possible split hurdles/chases.
Only then can we draw any useful conclusions.
As well as the course itself, two other key factors in determining racecourse fatalities are likely to be quality of racing and state of the ground. I’d imagine fatalities may be more likely where the ability of the participants is towards the lower end of the scale or, as in Cheltenham’s case, it is at the highest end of the scale and therefore ultra-competitive in nature. In other words, if the Festival were held at another course, the level of fatalities would probably be very similar.
That said, I am concerned about how fast the Cheltenham going seems to be, and hope that this Festival does not end up making headlines for all the wrong reasons.
Look firstly Cheltenham has more runners per race and therefore I would suggest that the fatality rate per horse is far lower than most courses. Secondly the races are more competitive and run at a faster speed. Horses are more likely to be interfered with, collided with and trampled on in big fields which are more common in Cheltenham. Id imagine if 20 horses entered a 4 mile Chase or a 2.5 mile novice chase at every meeting in any other course then similar results are likely
Okay I know you probably expect ExRubyLight to be posting this and if it had been Sedgefield, Worcester or Southwell he probably would be. But Cheltenham has a worse record for horse deaths than any of these courses given the lesser number of meetings it has. According to Animal Aid’s website with today’s death count of 3, Cheltenham’s total horse deaths since 2000 is 49. Compare that to Sedgefield (55), Worcester (43) and Southwell (42) in the same period.
So – do we care less because it’s Cheltenham? Is the racecourse so big in racing’s world view that these deaths can be ignored for the sake of the spectacle? Don’t get me wrong, I love watching Cheltenham, the big fields (so rare to see these days in the UK), the rousing finishes up the hill. But are our equine heroes paying too high a price to race at this particular course?
The obstacles at Southwell are indeed a crime and yes the rate is what matters. Southwell is also in this department by far the worst and it should be closed down unless the obstacles are modified to be more forgiving.
The reason for today’s fatalities is a very simple one. Too much speed on ground that is too fast. Horses are breaking track records , but doing 360s when they fall. But since some people still treat them as machines, no changes will occur. You can’t blame the obstacles but maybe the track is just too tight with not enough room to manouvre especially in the closing stages. Look at Auteuil or Enghien: horses have plenty of room when they jump any obstacle.
It is not a great spectacle to see horses doing 360s or even 720s. Let’s face it: looking back at today’s falls makes me think that there were ONLY 3 fatalities.The fast times for the Supreme Novice and Champion Hurdle stem from the change in the starting procedure – in both those races, the field were already up to full speed by the time they passed the official start and you inevitably get faster times with a rolling start.
Compare with the 3M handicap chase, when there was a standing start after the jockeys rushed the tape, and you’ll see that race was run in a time that looks quite normal and ties in with the good to soft going report.
The times for the 2M hurdle races have been much the same since the new starting procedure was introduced ahead of the 2014 festival, so nothing unusual about today from that point of view.
It is dangerous when rail posts are left sticking up on the course.
Annie Power and the rest of the Champion Hurdle field did well to avoid a potential disaster just after the second last flight.
Whoever had the job of checking the course was clear got very lucky.
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
I believe two of the fatalities came at the business end of their respective races when the horses are not actually travelling at their fastest speed but decelerating and was simply a result of a jumping error whereas with Ponte Alexandre he seem broke a leg between fences and not as a result of an actual jumping error.
If you take The Govaness’ fall at the last today it was not much different than how AP hit the deck in last years race (she was a stride further away from the flight) and Rezorbi and Willow’s Saviour both fell at either ends of the second last – Rezorbi actually jumped the fence cleanly whilst WS actually brushed through the top of it – unfortunately they both failed to get their front legs out in front of them and landed face first into the turf in almost identical fashion, I have seen countless falls of the exact same nature on all types of ground and for the life of me I couldn’t tell you the reason why AP & WS were able to survive it but The Govaness & Rezorbi sadly didn’t.
Re the ground being too fast, if there were a number of horses pulling up or finishing with lameness injuries then the argument for the ground being unsafe would need to be address but to my knowledge that was not the case. I don’t think Cheltenham is inherently dangerous compared to other places, what it is is a serious test of a horses jumping ability (probably more so than most every other course).
When you get half a ton of racehorse leaving the ground at 35mph+ to clear an obstacle 3.5ft (hurdles) and 4.5ft (fences) high then if there is any misjudgement injuries/fatalities are a possible outcome – I am not sure what the answer is but if TPTB deem that genuine good ground (Cheltenham official going is now described as good to soft good in places from good to soft soft in places) is too quick to be raced on then we might as well pack up and ban NH racing altogether unless you want all future festivals starting on soft ground, but what happens if we do that and we still get fatalities?
It is dangerous when rail posts are left sticking up on the course.
Annie Power and the rest of the Champion Hurdle field did well to avoid a potential disaster just after the second last flight.
Whoever had the job of checking the course was clear got very lucky.
That was one of the most shocking things I have seen – had no idea it was there until a reply was shown on RUK after racing had finished for the day.
It is dangerous when rail posts are left sticking up on the course.
Annie Power and the rest of the Champion Hurdle field did well to avoid a potential disaster just after the second last flight.
Whoever had the job of checking the course was clear got very lucky.
It was a spigot used to spray green dye over the crossing.
Race 4 – 3:30pm THE STAN JAMES CHAMPION HURDLE CHALLENGE TROPHY (CLASS 1) (Grade 1)
The Stewards enquired into why a spigot was left in the crossing after the second last flight of hurdles, approximately a metre from the inside running rail, causing the runners on the inside to have to take evasive action. They interviewed the Clerk of the Course, who stated that the spigot had inadvertently been left when the groundstaff had shifted the running rail to enable them to spray the crossing with green dye. He added that to avoid this happening in future he had instructed the groundstaff to leave the spigots in situ during spraying. Having also viewed video recordings of the race they forwarded the matter to the Head Office of the British Horseracing Authority for further consideration.
The fast times for the Supreme Novice and Champion Hurdle stem from the change in the starting procedure – in both those races, the field were already up to full speed by the time they passed the official start and you inevitably get faster times with a rolling start.
Compare with the 3M handicap chase, when there was a standing start after the jockeys rushed the tape, and you’ll see that race was run in a time that looks quite normal and ties in with the good to soft going report.
The times for the 2M hurdle races have been much the same since the new starting procedure was introduced ahead of the 2014 festival, so nothing unusual about today from that point of view.
The times were “much the same” as previous years Alan, but were the going descriptions right in other years?
Most times today were a little faster than last year, so – even allowing for the rolling start – I believe the ground is genuinely good.
Last year the official description was Good-Soft Good in places, compared to today’s official Good-Soft Soft in places – much the same… But Timeform described last year as “Good“.
2014 was even quicker, Jezki won the Champion in a time quicker than Annie Power’s “course record”. :lol:
2014’s official going was again “Good-Soft Good in places“, Timeform called it “Good-Firm“.Once they’ve looked at everything I’d be amazed if Timeform don’t describe today’s going as “Good”.
When the official going is “Good-Soft Soft in places” it encourages connections with round actioned horses or horses who’ve had leg injuries (that would be ok on a soft surface) to run on what appears genuinely good ground.To get a true comparrison of courses percentages of deaths need to be looked at. However, the more runners in a race the more dangerous it is, less room and more chance of being hindered or brought down. Some horses also jump well when in front or with an unhindered view of the front, not all “prominent runners” can race prominently in a big field, don’t get that view and therefore jump poorly. All these are contributory factors in deaths.
Cheltenham is also the most valuable and prestigous jump racing. Every owner wants to win there (bar Nicky Richards). Therefore, they’re more likely to take a chance on the ground, connections wait a whole year for this, passing up the chance to win for another year is a difficult choice. A decision that is made even more difficult when official going descriptions encourage them to run.
Value Is Everythingginger now we have the ‘rolling start’ in NH racing surely that will then show in a faster time being achieved,no?Then if that is the case it will make Timeform’s going description faster,as when i used Timeform a few moons a go now,going details(after racing) is worked out by times.
Now i am not saying yesterdays going was not quicker than SC said it was,but sometimes esp now with national hunt racing,be careful of timeform’s description(imo of course)I thought a “spigot” was a rather small thing not the tall thing seen left in the ground yesterday … I don’t actually understand what it is … and what is it made from? What might have happened if a horse had stood on it directly ie could it have gone through the hoof or leg??? I can’t believe no-one spotted this and removed it …
<p abp=”174″>Look firstly Cheltenham has more runners per race and therefore I would suggest that the fatality rate per horse is far lower than most courses. Secondly the races are more competitive and run at a faster speed. Horses are more likely to be interfered with, collided with and trampled on in big fields which are more common in Cheltenham. Id imagine if 20 horses entered a 4 mile Chase or a 2.5 mile novice chase at every meeting in any other course then similar results are likely
Admittedly Cheltenham’s figures are skewed because of that distastrous year when they had 10 fatalities iirc. But even so an argument could be put forward for limiting field sizes to 20 max.
On the other hand we see plenty of big fields at Cheltenham with no fallers so you could argue that this isn’t necessarily that big a factor.
I wonder too if the prestige factor does come into it as well. To me, watching racing over the years, my perception was that while Cheltenham was a big meeting, a horse who wins the King George at Kempton or other big races elsewhere was seen as being at the top of the sport whether they raced at Cheltenham or not. Nowadays I get the feeling that these races are just seen as stepping stones to Cheltenham and if a horse doesn’t/can’t win there is seen as somehow being inferior to a Cheltenham Festival winner. That may put pressure on trainers to send horses there who really aren’t up to it. Almost the first thing you hear out of a commentator’s mouth after a horse wins the King George or the Lexus for example is “?? bookmakers make him ?? for ?? at Cheltenham in March”. It’s like only having a win at Cheltenham matters as far as judging a horse’s racing success goes.
I agree. It concerns me [and has done for a long time] that NH racing is so dominated by the Festival. And I think that the Festival itself is getting greedy; the cost of everything [even the racecard and parking have gone up massively since the last time we were there].
ginger now we have the ‘rolling start’ in NH racing surely that will then show in a faster time being achieved,no?Then if that is the case it will make Timeform’s going description faster,as when i used Timeform a few moons a go now,going details(after racing) is worked out by times.
Now i am not saying yesterdays going was not quicker than SC said it was,but sometimes esp now with national hunt racing,be careful of timeform’s description(imo of course)nwalton,
Timeform take the rolling start in to account in going descriptions.Sometimes Timeform get going descriptions wrong – we all do – but they’re much more likely to give an accurate description using times than a biased course Clerk. Let’s not forget Cheltenham Racecourse tries to pass an exam every year; an exam called “Provide good-soft ground for the opening race”. The person taking the exam is the Clerk,
the person marking the exam is the Clerk! What do we expect the official going to be? Must be easy to look on your own work with rose tinted glasses.Value Is Everything
the person marking the exam is the Clerk! What do we expect the official going to be? Must be easy to look on your own work with rose tinted glasses.- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.