- This topic has 119 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Grand National field size to be reduced to 34. Should’ve left it as it is imo. Other changes announced too. Becoming less and less unique as a spectacle every year, they keep changing things.
Agreed 100%, Mike.
Racing is twisting itself into knots trying to appease people who will never be appeased until racing is banned.
I just dont think they understand that it will only INCREASE the protests on course, as in their view this is a win, so if they do the same next year, something else will change again etc etc
All nonsense, increasing the handicap to 130 also, plain stupidity,
Standing starts IMO are half the problem with first fence fallers and the first fence neeeds to be pused further away, not brought closer to the tape
All nonsense
“Horses with Grand National entries and have made jumping errors in 50 per cent, or more, of their last eight races will be further scrutinised by the Grand National Review Panel.”
Just as well that was not in force in Maori Venture’s year. He was such a poor jumper, the panel would probably not have let him even travel to Aintree.
Why 34 – why not 30 or 35? Well I’m a full time cynic, so I’m guessing the reduction to 34 just happens to fit in with the biggest field elsewhere, the Cesarewitch, thus allowing Tote Worldpool to have that as the maximum handled by their software.
And 34 – the best story the National has produced in recent years was the win by Rachel Blackmore on Minella Times – he was # 35.
Much the most depressing part of that RP article is the support expressed by Lucinda Russell and Ruby Walsh.
I don’t mind the start time being moved back to a more traditional slot. I was never convinced the race needed to start after 5pm. And anything that might stop the scenes we saw with loose horses in this year’s race has to be worth trying.
The rest is just nonsense. Where is the evidence the 11th fence is a problem? And the race beginning with a standing start means I might not even have a bet in it.
Not quite sure how removing six horses from the equation makes any difference.
The more I know the less I understand.
Reduction in numbers a no-brainer. Difficult enough for the brave equines to face 16 difficult fences without having to negotiate potentially 39 other unexpected ones in front of fences, behind fences, standing, falling or prone, with riders and riderless ie general mayhem. Best to take measures to reduce the chances of a serious public relations disaster and give the four legged athletes a fairer challenge.
Animal Aid is already gleefully saying the changes have been “made in response to public pressure”. And the RSPCA says it expects further changes in future.
“Reduction in numbers a no-brainer.”
What happens if there is a fatality next year? Reduce the field size to 28?
I’ve been calling for a reduction in field size for many years now.
Authorities could not keep burying their heads in the turf.For safety reasons when field sizes are considered at every other racecourse the width of the course (space between runners) matters. Aintree had to narrow many obstacles in recent years to allow them to be omitted (if necessary) on the second circuit… Yet no change in field size was made.
However, the main reason 40 is too much is Canal Turn. Absolutely nobody takes the fence more than about three horse widths away from the corner – and even then there’s far less room between those widths than at any other fence in Britain (with the possible exception of the fake “Canal Turn” at Cheltenham’s X country). Fences are easier now too, so more horses than ever are jumping Canal Turn on the first circuit. Sometimes 40 horses trying to jump as close as possible to the corner…
If the leader was to fall…
Many horses jumping on top of each other…It would be the last Grand National.
Value Is EverythingI get the Canal Turn especially on the first circuit being the 8th fence when the horses are still in a bunched group but what difference 34 runners, even 30 you still have the same scenario.
The more I know the less I understand.
There is certainly a case for fewer RTB.
But the scenario of 34 runners instead of 40 is a bit different in that there is less possibility of a mass pile up happening and less chance of multiple fatalities… Just not as much as it would be at 30 or indeed (as “animal rights” brigade) zero runners.Value Is EverythingIs it possible to make Canal Turn just a normal bend in the course instead of a right angle fence?
…And if so how would that go down with the Grand National fan?
…Probably worse than a reduction in field size imo.
Value Is EverythingThe problem with making the Grand National course easier to jump is that doing so makes some connections think their horse who’s made mistakes at other courses could get away with mistakes at Aintree. So again, I can understand the authorities trying to stop poor jumpers running and / or (in this climate) being seen to be trying to stop poor jumpers running.
Yes, Maori Venture wasn’t a good jumper and might possibly not been able to run / win the Grand national. But if many poor jumpers had been stopped from running / falling / dying… imo Maori Venture not winning would’ve been a small price to pay. Decades ago I called for horses with a Timeform X for poor jumper (or the equivalent jumping ability) not being allowed to run.
Value Is Everything“Is it possible to make Canal Turn just a normal bend in the course instead of a right angle fence?”
If all the unique features about the Grand National are going to be taken away, is there any point continuing with the race?
It might as well be reduced to 20 runners and run on the Mildmay course. Then the area beyond the Melling Road could be sold off.
Thankfully your not in charge of it anyway ginge, thats all my brain was saying reading your opinion on it
Is your real reason for wanting less runners so when you back 22 of them at combined odds of 6.86/1, the probability increases you might pick the winner if theres only 30 or 34? Instead of 40+?
So 34 this year, in approx 5 years 30, then 26… then…?
Hopefully the sponsors pull the money so this horrible decision can be corrected before all is lost
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.