Further observations about Aintree – Add yours here

[sharkenergy2012]

I haven’t done the research for the Sefton/Topham/Foxhunter races, but therein lies the answer to the question of whether reducing the distance and field sizes would have a major impact on the death rate. My guess is that it would.

Good research, but sadly the outcome isn’t what you wanted.

I can remember 3 dying in the topham/john hughes the year Dublin Flyer won for a start. The year 2 fell at Valentines in unison. Toni’s Tip at the first. A german bred horse at Becher’s.

Then you factor in a number of foxhunters deaths.

Then 2 the other year in the Becher – one a Ginger McCain horse.

Also the nature of the deaths in the other races I recall being less accidental by nature i.e. straight falls.

Thanks Shark,saves me a job as in response to Sean’s response to my post I was going to do some more digging.

So it would seem that the Grand National fences are predisposed to producing significantly higher than average equine fatality rates irrespective of the race distance or the field size.

I still find it hard to buy this arguement that the reduction in the size of some of the fences has caused more rather than less deaths. The table on page 7 of Tuesdays Racing Post seemed to contradict rather than support the argument of former jockeys such as Messrs Culloty and Davies – the time to the first fence in 2012 (27.71s) was only marginally quicker thatn the time for the same section in 2006 when the race was run on gd sft, whilst the time to the first Becher’s was quicker in 2005 than it was this year (in 2005 the going was also gd sft so if anything you woudl have expected the time to be slower).

The number of fallers has fluctuated but without really shoing a trend either way. In other words the data doesn’t appear to support the theory.

Which is why I set about using the Gold Cup, run over conventional fences, as a comparison tool. Maybe the Scottish Nation (because the fields are bigger and the distance longer) would be a better comparison and perhpas that is my weekend homework.

In conclusion I remain unconvinced that it is logical to suggest reducing the size of a fence, even if it does inject greater speed, causes greater harm to the horses, when all of the evidence oon courses with conventional fences and hurdles is that smaller fences cause less fatalities even if the competitors travel at faster speeds. To suggest that somehow it works differently with the Aintree fences than anywhere else strikes me as flying in the face of fact in order to maintain the status quo.

I think the big time difference you will see is from the 80s into the 90s and 00s. 1990 being the biggest reduction in fence height.

Pre 1990 there were bigger fences, a horrible Becher;s brook, and crappier horses. Therefore the field was spread out more (the 1977 race there appear to be at least 4 horses tailed off before the 6th). Into the 90s, but more so the 00s, you have 40 competitive horses running at a championship pace over 4ms (or 2ms in the Topham with 30 runners) and on lower fences. The only real danger pre 1990 was Becher’s – that claimed most of the lives.

I think a fair comparison would be deaths in races at Cheltenham with more crowded fields such as the Coral cup.

Sidenote – Interesting fact I have found out. The National fences are STILL as wide as they always were – the runouts were made using the road to the side.

[Author]

Posts