- This topic has 622 replies, 90 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The Rabble are constantly publishing reviews into safety, and anyone who has had the misfortune to have to plough through them can attest to their ‘comprehensive and detailed’ nature.
For those without the time to read the originals here’s my quick capsule review of The Rabble’s safety reviews:
1) Sixteen runners around Kempton Park/Southwell/Plumpton hurdles/Lingfield in a handicap with a 390% place book is definitely unsafe.
2) Forty runners in what is, year after year, a snuff-movie of a race, that belongs in The Colosseum, with a 500%+ place book is as safe as houses.
It’s the game Mighty M. You know, I know it, Jonjo knows it. If your not playing then your getting burned!
I find it hard to imagine that Jonjo didn’t actually believe Sunnyhillboy was going to fire in the December Gold Cup. McCoy would not get on a loser when he had the chance to ride the winner – unless that horses was the Gold Cup winner.
Sunnyhillboy your legend. He travelled on the outside for 4m4f and covered around an extra furlong than the rail (I don’t know but it seems that much!). A little horse that everyone was worried about his size and his jumping going into the race. He runs his heart out and is as genuine as they come. McLernon didn’t need to hit the horse 4, 5 or 6 times – the horse was at full tilt and had run around 5 miles.
Sunnyhillboy you little ripper!
(I did not back him each way by the way!)
From the BHA –
2012 Grand National
BHA findings regarding Synchronised and According To Pete
BHA report following review of the startFollowing the running of the 2012 John Smith’s Grand National, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) announced its intention to examine the circumstances that led to two horses, Synchronised and According To Pete, being put down. In addition, the BHA also announced that it would conduct a review of the start of the race.
In both cases the BHA has completed the task of establishing, as far as possible, the relevant facts and sequence of events. These will form part of the evidence and data collected from across the 2012 Grand National Meeting that will be considered alongside the findings from the comprehensive Grand National Review published by the BHA last year.
Jamie Stier, Director of Raceday Operations and Regulation for the BHA, said:
“The review into how the two sad fatalities came to occur was conducted using veterinary evidence together with detailed analysis of all available television footage. The findings include reference to Synchronised getting loose before the start as it was felt important to establish beyond doubt that this episode played no part in the events that resulted in his injury.
“In the case of both Synchronised and According To Pete, it was apparent that factors one could neither have foreseen nor prevented were prevalent in the events that led to the two horses sustaining their injuries.
“In relation to the start, we reviewed the television footage and members of the Starting team gave their views. We found that in the course of the three occasions on which the field lined up before the race was underway all forty riders appeared to be in breach of the Rules, in that they either lined up prior to being instructed to do so, or lined up despite being instructed not to do so.
“However, taking into account the mitigating circumstances caused by the delay to the start of the race, firstly Synchronised getting loose which was then compounded by the complications experienced with re-setting the starting tape, it has been decided that no disciplinary a_ction will be taken. Instead we have written to each of the riders expressing both the BHA and Aintree’s disappointment with their conduct at the start.
“At this stage, it remains too early to speculate as to whether any changes will be made to the Grand National; either to the start or to other aspects. Naturally, we will be liaising closely with Aintree in collating and examining all relevant evidence from this year’s meeting.
“While the focus of attention is inevitably on the Grand National, it should not be forgotten that throughout the three days Aintree staged top class and highly competitive jump racing under near perfect conditions. The course deserves considerable credit for implementing the changes recommended in the 2011 Review to such good effect and for the overall success of the meeting.”
Appendix A – Injuries incurred by Synchronised and According To Pete
Evidence has been gathered from the Racecourse Veterinary Surgeons who treated the horses in question and the BHA’s own Veterinary Officers. In addition, there was detailed analysis of all available television footage, including material that was not broadcast, from the BBC and Racing UK, as well as Stewards’ patrol video footage.
Synchronised: Firstly, following the incident going down to the start when AP McCoy was unseated and Synchronised proceeded to canter loose for a short period of time (approximately two minutes), it can be confirmed that the horse was subject to veterinary examination before being cleared to race.
The Senior Racecourse Veterinary Surgeon examined Synchronised before AP McCoy remounted the horse, including monitoring his heart rate. This was found to be barely elevated above normal resting rate. The type and rate of respiration was also examined and, again, was found to be hardly elevated. The BHA’s own Veterinary Officer was also present and he spoke with the Stewards who were monitoring the incident from their respective viewing positions and on television.
Synchronised was running in about 23rd position when he fell at Fence 6 (Becher’s Brook). He appeared to have a clear sight of the fence and did not make a significant error but became unbalanced prior to landing and fell sideways on to his left side. AP McCoy was dislodged forward and clear of the horse. There did not appear to be any other factors which contributed to this fall.
After the fall, the horse got up and carried on running and jumping fences riderless. On review of the footage there is no evidence to suggest he was carrying any sort of injury at this point. This is corroborated by speed sensing data, which shows that the horse was travelling at the same speed both before and after the fall at Becher’s.
The injury that led to Synchronised being put down occurred at Fence 11. He appears to decelerate into the fence and does not jump it cleanly, dragging his hindlegs and hindquarters through the fence. It would appear he fractured his right hind tibia and fibula in the process.
Synchronised was promptly attended to by Veterinary Surgeons who identified the scale of the injury and concluded that the humane option was to put the horse down.
According To Pete: On the second circuit of the race According To Pete was in the front half of the field. As the runners bypassed Fence 21, a maneouvre made on account of medical treatment being administered to an injured rider, Noel Fehily, the horse was in eighth place, alongside eventual winner Neptune Collonges.
After bypassing the fence on the outer, the field, which at this stage stood at 17 runners, together with three riderless horses, returned onto the racetrack proper and began to fan out back towards the middle of the course.
According To Pete was still travelling on the bridle approaching Fence 22 (Becher’s Brook), now in seventh place, with clear space in front. He jumped the fence well but on landing found he had nowhere to go and on the stride after landing he collided with the rear of the faller On His Own, resulting in the horse being brought down with the rider, Harry Haynes, being thrown clear.
As the horse got up, Weird Al jumped the fence and came into contact with According To Pete’s left side. It is not conclusive whether this collision or the greater impact incurred when he was brought down led to the fracture of the horse’s left fore humerus.
Although According To Pete had a clear sight of the fence on approach, On His Own was possibly left a little unsighted due to the leaders, Planet of Sound and Shakalakaboomboom, drifting left from the outer. This caused On His Own to get in close to the fence and consequently he landed steeply with reduced forward momentum, knuckling on landing and rolling to his left, into the path of According To Pete.
Again, Veterinary Surgeons were quickly on the scene, the injury was diagnosed as untreatable and the decision made to put the horse down.
Appendix B – The Start
The BHA has considered the start of the 2012 John Smith’s Grand National. All Stewards’ patrol video footage, including that from a dedicated camera positioned at the start, was viewed, together with footage from the BBC and Racing UK. Verbal reports were received from Sean McDonald, BHA Manager (Scales, Starters, Judges), and Hugh Barclay, Starter.
At some stage between all the runners arriving at the start and the race being officially started, all forty riders appeared to be in breach of the Rules relating to the start of the race. The riders either lined up prior to being instructed to do so by the Starter, or on other occasions lined up despite being instructed not to do so by the Starter.
It is estimated that thirty six of the forty riders were in breach of the Rules when they lined up before being instructed to do so in the incident which led to the first false start. By the time the race had started, after two further attempts to make a line, all 40 riders had breached in some manner the guidelines for conduct at the start of a race.
Despite the apparent breaches of the relevant Rules, it has been decided not to bring charges against any rider. In arriving at this decision the BHA took account of the effect of the delay caused by the late arrival of Synchronised at the start and the complications experienced with re-setting the starting tape.
The BHA has written to all the riders concerned and expressed their disappointment at the conduct of riders at the start, especially bearing in mind that considerable emphasis was placed on this aspect of the race during the pre-race Jockey’s Briefing. In showing disregard to the instructions of the Starter, the riders placed those on the ground assisting with the start in a potentially dangerous situation.
In the longer term the starting procedures for this race will be considered, in conjunction with Aintree, and if considered appropriate changes implemented.
I checked with the BHA regarding the ‘speed sensing data’ which is referred to. They’ve said this is data provided by Aintree and will be referred to further when they conduct their review into the race itself with the Aintree course executive.
It’d be interesting to see that data in it’s entirety so I’ve emailed Aintree to ask whether it will be put into the public domain at any point.
Nobody cares anymore Corm, the bunny huggers and ****-stirrers have done their real-life trolling and dragged racing to the forefont of the news for a few days and got the general populace to reel in horror at the cruelty of it all, along with the corruption and incompetence and left racing to self-flagellate itself while they have moved on, laughing, to some other ‘controvesy’.
They’ll be back next year though, unless all the jockeys behave and there are no accidents in which case they’ll wait until the opportunity presents itself again.
I care SB, and I suspect plenty more do (including your good self).
I thought it was a little too easy to blame the jockeys for the chaotic start. It’s the starter’s job to control and manage the start. I was down at the start for that race and I thought it was a shambles, it wasn’t clear what was going on, I’m sure the jockeys were as confused as anyone. It needs looking at as they are inviting a repeat of the 1993 episode as things stand.
I thought it was a little too easy to blame the jockeys for the chaotic start. It’s the starter’s job to control and manage the start. I was down at the start for that race and I thought it was a shambles, it wasn’t clear what was going on, I’m sure the jockeys were as confused as anyone. It needs looking at as they are inviting a repeat of the 1993 episode as things stand.
I have to disagree with you there David – these are the top 40 jockeys in the business, not a group of inexperienced Conditionals.
They know full well what is required at the start of a race like the National. There is a briefing before the race which clarifies what is expected of them.
What happens is gamesmanship and (no pun intended) jockeying for the best position and common sense goes out of the window.
Paul is on the money …they all knew the score entirely (the Jocks )
Blame apportionment is a silly pastime , the race is becoming shambolic , the RSPCA love them or hate them (I detest them)are becoming more and more vocal , their latest set of demands on the national are further proof if any was needed , that we either sort the race , scrap the race , or tell them to take a hike
We cannot go on year on year trying to justify running the Grand National , it is what it is , we either stick with it or dump it
Ricky
The GN start is no less shambolic than you see in NH racing every meeting, it’s just bigger.
But when we’re in ‘bash up the national’ mode, we forget that everything we’re bashing it up about happens hundreds of times more often every day in jumps racing.
Ricky is right about the RSPCA, they should be told to take a hike as regards the GN as racing is sticking with it.
Those that don’t like it only have to go make a cup of coffee at 4.15pm once a year, or polish their shoes or whatever, for ten minutes once a year.
And I know you care Corm, as do I about racing and many other things, I just don’t like false elitsm, snobbishness, cliques, irrational prejudices, etc.
I have absolutely no idea why people get uptight about the start of the race. Sure, with forty runners there’s always a couple of false starts but that’s no big deal is it? It’s the
actual
start that counts.
The replay below shows forty horses going off perfectly in my view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_hgbhX5gg
Mike
the rspca should focus on other issues on animal cruelty happening everyday, i heard they where stoppng taking in abandoned animals, says alot for them really
vf
I’ll listen to the RSPCA’s opinion when they stop putting down thousands of perfectly healthy animals year after year.
But aside from that, i do think the jockeys have to take some of the stick here. I’m tired of hearing that the fences make the horses go faster, they don’t the jockeys are the only people with any control over the speed.
Good God, what’s with all this RSPCA bashing!? Quite right that they should be involved in the GN, as with all racing, and seen to be involved too. We may not agree with all their views and practises, but they are on the side of the animals, which we should be too.
Surely we all care that the fatalities are investigated, in case there ARE lessons to be learned for next year. If deaths can be avoided in 2013 as a result of any investigations, then it’s worth the effort. It’s not just to shut up the moaners. Some of you talk like you don’t care there were fatalities: we’ve just got to shut up and forget it happened.
BHA are sleepwalking
They seem to ignore the real issue that on good going and after all the safety measures deemed necessary, only 15 out of 40 finished the race. Any of the 25 non-finishers could break a neck or shatter a limb at any stage.
They also do not seem to realise how reasonable the UK RSPCA is being as compared to the far tougher line which recently got jumps racing banned in the rest of Australia. UK RSPCA already has full legal powers to take owners and BHA Directors to Court for criminal prosecution – just as they only had to threaten in Australia."Cruelty complaint lodged over jumps race death
11 May 2009
Animals Australia alleges jumps racing death breaches Vic Animal cruelty laws
Animals Australia has today lodged a formal complaint of cruelty to the RSPCA over the death of Clearview Bay who died at Warrnambool during the running of the Grand Annual Steeple race on Thursday 7 May.
The 9 year old horse was the fifth to die in Victorian jumps races this season and died after falling and breaking his neck at the 30th hurdle in the 5.5 km, 33-fence race. His death immediately preceded a suspension by Racing Victoria of all jumps racing pending a final decision this week.
The Animals Australia complaint names Clearview Bay’s jockey, trainer and owners and allege cruelty and aggravated cruelty under Section 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (POCTA).
In part, the POCTA states in Section 9 (1) (c) that it is a cruelty offence if .. A person does or omits to do an act with the result that unreasonable pain or suffering is caused, or is likely to be caused, to an animal.
Glenys Oogjes, Executive Director of Animals Australia states;
“The jumps racing industry and their trainers are not above the law. They are entering horses into jumps races in the full knowledge that horses have been routinely falling, being injured and as a result being destroyed.
“The entering of Clearview Bay in the arduous Grand Annual Steeple is a clear example of the mindset of the jumps racing industry where the high risks for horses are considered acceptable. That he was not pulled up as he tired and was out of contention towards the end of the race is unforgivable.
“Racing Victoria must now permanently ban jumps racing. If they fail to do so this week, then the Brumby Government must act and ban it, or be a party to an industry that is flying in the face of the laws passed to protect animals”, Ms Oogjes concluded.
Statistics: The death of Clearview Bay further contributes to the damning statistic that for every 24 horses that have commenced a jumps race this year, one has died. There have also already been 22 falls in jumps races this season – approximately one fall per four races run. In the Grand Annual Steeple race in which Clearview Bay fell and died, only 8 horses finished from the 14 that commenced the race. Measures introduced after enquiries in 2002, 2005 and 2008 have not made the ‘sport’ safer for jumps horses.
Note: Animals Australia lodged two previous complaints in 2008 over the deaths of jumps horses Spanish Symbol and Crying Storm. The RSPCA Inspectorate has completed its investigations and the files are with the RSPCA Executive."
No way , the BHA have got to tell the Rspca to mind their own affairs , if they(Rspca) want to end jump racing , then the following questions must be answered
Have they got any chance
have they got the money for the legal action
have they got the slightest clue what they are doing
In my opinion the answer to all 3 is no
Lets move on
next case please
Ricky
I care SB, and I suspect plenty more do (including your good self).
I thought it was a little too easy to blame the jockeys for the chaotic start. It’s the starter’s job to control and manage the start. I was down at the start for that race and I thought it was a shambles, it wasn’t clear what was going on, I’m sure the jockeys were as confused as anyone. It needs looking at as they are inviting a repeat of the 1993 episode as things stand.
Ridiculous but expected in blaming the jockeys.
The starter has to have his 15 minutes.
From my blog:
The BHA’s findings regarding the deaths of Synchronised and According To Pete, as well as those concerning the start of the 2012 Grand National were published today.
The cause of Synchronised’s injury appears to have been the solid structure around which the National fences are built – thick wooden stakes which have a rubber-covering applied before being dressed with spruce. The report does not conclude that these posts caused the fractures to Synchronised but I believe the evidence points very strongly in that direction.
Here is the relevant section
After the fall, the horse got up and carried on running and jumping fences riderless. On review of the footage there is no evidence to suggest he was carrying any sort of injury at this point. This is corroborated by speed sensing data, which shows that the horse was travelling at the same speed both before and after the fall at Becher’s.
The injury that led to Synchronised being put down occurred at Fence 11. He appears to decelerate into the fence and does not jump it cleanly, dragging his hindlegs and hindquarters through the fence. It would appear he fractured his right hind tibia and fibula in the process.
This finding should signal the end for these wooden stakes. Aintree will have to come up with a way of building those famous fences around a material which has sufficient give to keep bones intact.
As for the start, the BHA has managed to find all 40 riders guilty of offences there while enforcing no punishment. They excuse themselves from this by applying discretion:
Despite the apparent breaches of the relevant Rules, it has been decided not to bring charges against any rider. In arriving at this decision the BHA took account of the effect of the delay caused by the late arrival of Synchronised at the start and the complications experienced with re-setting the starting tape.
In taking account of these factors, what logic was applied? Did the delay caused by both events cause the horses to become so difficult to control that the riders could not be blamed? If so, then how can the jockeys have been guilty of the offence(s)? Or did the delay justify in some odd way the jockeys’ behaviour? If the latter is the case, then what is on offer is a post-National dispensation from what the riders were instructed to do pre-National, so no offence there either.
The only other conclusion is that the BHA has finally and publicly accepted what we all knew anyway – pre-race briefings to Grand National jockeys are a complete waste of time and breath. The post-2011 BHA GN report carried strong evidence that speed over the first six fences is highly likely to be a factor in the number of casualties. In light of that it seems foolish to tacitly concede that the jockeys can pretty much behave as they like at the start; why offer them carte-blanche regarding their intended tactics, the most favoured of which seems to be ‘get a good position’ (go fast early)?
If changes are to be implemented effectively, the BHA is going to have to take a much stronger stance on the behaviour of jockeys at the start and perhaps even in the early stages of the race itself.
In this case, the BHA has decided to write to riders ‘expressing disappointment’:
The BHA has written to all the riders concerned and expressed their disappointment at the conduct of riders at the start, especially bearing in mind that considerable emphasis was placed on this aspect of the race during the pre-race Jockey’s Briefing. In showing disregard to the instructions of the Starter, the riders placed those on the ground assisting with the start in a potentially dangerous situation.
Disappointment is a Victorian concept in my opinion. It’s like saying ‘It’s not fair!’ When disappointment occurs, the fault lies with the disappointee not the disappointer. People will not change their behaviour because you are disappointed; they will change it if the penalty for not doing so is severe enough.
I am not having a go at jockeys here. I suspect that Mr Bittar is a compromiser at heart: in his position, compromise should come in much smaller doses. "We think you’re wrong but we will let you off" is no foundation on which to build anything. Sensible rules, just punishment and a proper understanding of when to apply these will be critical to Mr Bittar’s future at the BHA. This has been a very woolly start. I hope the recommendations of the full Grand National report contain no fudge.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.