- This topic has 119 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“If all the unique features about the Grand National are going to be taken away, is there any point continuing with the race”?
———————
Exactly my point, CAS.
Better to reduce the field size than have to change the “unique features”…And better to reduce field size than losing the race altogether.
Value Is EverythingIs there any evidence a reduced field size will make the race safer?
I can remember seeing runnings of the Topham that were like a Demolition Derby, although I recognise they will have been going a stride or two faster in a race over a shorter distance.
As AP Racing said earlier, why 34? Why not 33 or 35? It is just an arbitrary number, rather like the number of times jockeys can use the whip.
I made the point earlier but what happens if there is one or more fatality next year? A further reduction in the field size?
The unique features in the race have almost gone now. It is only worth saving because if the Grand National goes, you can guarantee the anti-racing lobby will move on to the rest of National Hunt racing.
“Thankfully your not in charge of it anyway ginge, thats all my brain was saying reading your opinion on it”.
———————–
So in your opinion it does not matter how many horses jump the corner of Canal Turn, ham? One behind the other… Just waiting for a year when the leader falls and the Grand National is no more.
Why 40? Why not make it 50.
Tell you what, let’s make it 100 so we can be sure of a pile up.Value Is EverythingNothing stays the same forever and the Grand National isn’t the race it was when I first watched it in 1974.
But it will have been a different race again if you go back far enough before that.
Whether that is a good thing or not is a moot point and personal opinion.
But it just isn’t tenable to expect the passage of time not to erode things you might hold dear.
Different world, different race – and this will continue to be the case.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"They may have just come with the 34 figure to match the the 34 runner Cesarewich on the flat.
“Is there any evidence a reduced field size will make the race safer”?
————————————
Are you serious CAS?
Fewer runners means more room, easier to jump, easier to avoid a faller, fewer injuries that happen when one horse jumps into another… therefore fewer fatalities.Only question is whether 34 is still too many.
Value Is EverythingI agree Ginge that reducing the number of runners theoretically reduces the chances of fatalities mathematically but the race isn’t played out on a chalk board.
The things I want most in life are the things that I can't win.
There will always be risk.
It’s about reducing the level of risk to an acceptable level.
Not an “acceptable level” for the so called animal rights campaigner, but an acceptable level for the general public.Value Is Everything“the Grand National fan?”
A group of 34 to 40 Grand National fans turned up at Wolverhampton to give the “Racing League” fans a bit of aggro
They were the only ones thereAt least the once a year punters won’t see any difference
someone at work asked me who McCoy was riding a day before the last National..
Blackbeard to conquer the World
I agree Ginge that reducing the number of runners theoretically reduces the chances of fatalities mathematically but the race isn’t played out on a chalk board.
——————
Sorry RTB but the truth is yes it is.
The amount of risk matters when the future of a race is concerned.
If the chalk board says “NO” then there is no race.Value Is EverythingThey won’t see any difference, put up a momentary shot of 34 and 40 horses lined up you would be hard pushed to decide which is which.
The things I want most in life are the things that I can't win.
“Not an “acceptable level” for the so called animal rights campaigner, but an acceptable level for the general public.”
How do you know what that level is?
Aintree was sold out on Grand National day. There was a large television audience and plenty of people will still have had their once a year bet.
Are these changes being driven by “public pressure”, as the animal rights crowd want us to believe? Or are they being driven by an unrepresentative but highly vocal group of protesters with a sympathetic hearing from the media, especially the BBC?
Nobody knows for sure what that acceptable level is CAS, but if because we don’t know we don’t change then that level will soon be reached. Am sure the authorities have looked into things more than they are likely to admit. Expect every one of us knows someone (if not many more) who is / are against the Grand National (if not Racing in general) on safety grounds… Whereas when Ioi were a laad very few people (in fact none that I was aware of) were.
I would hope all changes are made to reduce the risk of injuries and fatalities to an “acceptable level”. I know my own acceptable level has changed a lot over the 40+ years I’ve been interested in Racing and as I’ve come to understand those risks. Several times thinking that’s my last bet on the race unless changes are made, but thankfully changes have always been made.
Value Is Everything“someone at work asked me who McCoy was riding a day before the last National.. ”
I hope you told them he is concentrating on selling crisps these days
I guess this measure is safety bases, probably in line with to please the non racing public.
As Ian said it’s changed throughout history, in 1839 the first four Nationals they had to jump a brick wall. Also the first few Nationals was a level weight contest then it changed to a handicap.
More recently it’s dropped in distance by a furlong and half and the jumps made “safer” although it’s means they run faster.
So does fewer runners lessen the race.
I only know the race from the 1970’s period but the have been races ran with less than 34 runners.
Gay Trip 1970 (28 runners)
L’Escargot 1975 (31 runners)
Rag Trade 1976 (32 runners)
Rubstic 1979 (34 runners)
Ben Nevis 1980 (30 runners)
Rough Quest 1996 (27 runners)
Bobbyjo 1999 (32 runners)Fatalities from these years was
Racoon in 1970 Incurred a cervical fracture upon falling and was euthanised.
Land Lark in 1975 Suffered a heart attack while jumping the fence.
Beau Bob in 1975 Incurred a cervical fracture upon falling and died.
None in 1976
Alverton 1n 1979 Incurred a cervical fracture upon falling and died.
Kintai in 1979 Injured in fall and later euthanised.
None in 1980
Rust Never Sleeps 1996 in 1996 Pulled up lame before the 13th fence, diagnosed with a broken shoulder and euthanised.The best things in life are free.
But you can give them to the birds and bees.I think these changes are reasonable. Something had to change, horses dying every year isn’t tenable. Even I find the Grand National difficult to watch, particularly the initial cavalry charge to the first fence that inevitably causes several fallers. A reduction in field size and screening out obviously poor jumpers will not in any way make the race less “special” and I’d rather adjust those aspects than make the fences more generic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.