- This topic has 119 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The number 34 means a reduction of 15%.
Probably reducing the field by
10% = 4 runners wasn’t enough and
20% = 8 runners would have been too muchI guess that’s why they went for 15% which is somewhere in the middle and it left them with 34 runners.
In my opinion the first fences until Bechers should have been made a bit wider and I would have kept the heights as they were years ago, but with a closer look at the take off angle. My idea would be to have all horses take off in a more perfect or let’s call it natural angle without losing momentum and being able to land on a stride. Have no clue, if this is realistic, but it surely wouldn’t hurt the equine athletes.It might still remain a test especially as the crowd noise will always be there. Let’s give it a try and see how it works out in the next 3-4 years.
My bigger concern are the Irish fatalities we’ve had in recent weeks and months. They are of a greater concern and yet they remain unmentioned, just like the outcome of the charity race or the Karloss stable change and his easy win at a very ridiculous price.
If every track and every race would be as safe and well documented like the ones at Aintree……
Agree Ruby. Even injured horses stand a far better chance (Cape Gentleman for example).
I don’t have a problem with reduction in numbers, indeed I would rather that they had trief this before tinkering with the fences (aside from obvious measures like filling in the ditches and creating an escape route for loose horses).
Of all the theories about “34” Alan’s sounds easily the most plausible to me.
Cambridgeshire safety factor recently reduced to, err, 34 – ditto the Cesarewitch.
It’s a World Pool thing – step aside Poirot, Inspector Potts of Swindon strikes again!
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"The slow death of the Grand National continues. Every time they tinker they make things worse until we are left where we are now. This is no longer the Grand National and it’s time the Jockey Club/BHA changed the name of the race too. They’ve changed nearly everything else.
How often has a horse suffered a fatal injury in the National when there weren’t even 34 runners still going? Last season a horse died in the Foxhunters with 27 runners.
They have absolutely no data to back this up because there aren’t any other races with 40 runners. Something I observed a while back was how many fatalities involved horses wearing headgear of some sort. Should we ban that too?
The ‘National’ is being backed into a corner with no way out. Personally I would ban the race now and leave us with the memories of Foinavon, Red Rum, Aldaniti etc. Racing is no longer in safe hands.
As for those in Racing trying to show a united front about these changes we know full well Walsh doesn’t believe in what he is saying to the media. They are more concerned about the anti’s coming after the rest of racing. You can’t appease ignorance and those intent on stopping the sport.
Be warned, today it’s the Grand National that animal rights protesters want abandoning. Tomorrow they will be targeting other races, perhaps even flat races, if they got their way.
The best things in life are free.
But you can give them to the birds and bees.We should call it the Bland National, VF.
Yes, having fewer runners *should* make it safer. But we’ve all seen fatalities in small fields, in hurdle races, and on the flat. Horses die on the roads, on the gallops and in their stables.
What grinds my gears about today’s news is that the RSPCA and their pals – who are understandably claiming credit for the latest changes – won’t pack up and say that’s enough. Now that the sport has given ground, they’ll be back for more.
Yes, having fewer runners *should* make it safer. But we’ve all seen fatalities in small fields, in hurdle races, and on the flat. Horses die on the roads, on the gallops and in their stables.
Entirely in agreement.
The best things in life are free.
But you can give them to the birds and bees.I have mixed feelings about the changes.
On one hand it was almost inevitable that they would feel the need to “do something”.
On the other, I am not convinced that this will be the last time they decide to tinker. Although reducing the field size should give more space to jump cleanly from the start, we’ve all sadly witnessed horses sustaining fatal injuries in races with less than 34 runners. So where does it end.
Well broadwood that what auto spell correct wants to call it.
Back onto topic agree with you seaing stars. I agree with earlier start time is a positive like it used to be earlier back in the days fine by.
But the reduced field could have negative impact and not positive what if these now all go for inner route.
Which is what jockey club say is the issue with 40. And it won’t slow them down at all.
Look at last week Velka Pardubicka small field and speed they go and result and the horse that went across others as to refuse jump.
Also what is the reason for altering the height of fence 11. No incidents in Grand National have happened there. Since 2011 was it when sychronised fell while loose sustaining fatal injury.
Before that you have to go back to a horse called struth now that was a long long time ago
Horses have been lost in the Scottish national 30 runners and Irish national.
Then on flat can happen anywhere sadly. Even those turned out into paddocks to be field ornaments
As the antis have already said on the news today it isn’t enough they will be back next year. They won’t be happy till they see racing abolishedVf x
As well as reduction in field size, I believe a standing start is being introduce (might as well be stalls) and the first fence is to be slightly closer, giving them more time between first and second fence. That is according to the person interview on local news.
The best things in life are free.
But you can give them to the birds and bees.Scottish National fatalities:
2016: 1
2017: 1
2018: 0
2019: 0
2020: no race
2021: 1
2022: 1
2023: 1Grand National fatalities:
2013-2018: none
2019: 1
2020: 0
2021: 1
2022: 2
2023: 1All GN “fall” fatalities since 2011 occurred at the first six fences. The rest died between the fences (Discorama and The Long Mile) or while running riderless (Synchronised).
Damned if they changed it, damned if they didn’t. A death in each of the last 3 pushed them right up against it. The public will hardly notice. I suspect only a few could tell you the trip it’s run over and the maximum field size. It’s The National, and the buzz will be the same for the man on the Clapham Omnibus.
An astute observation by Mr Potts. I suspect he is spot on re the World Pool input.
What I hope for from a betting viewpoint is Lucinda to abandon the Grade 1 route with Corach Rambler and concentrate on The National with him. Smaller field, better jumpers (how will they decide on jumping gradings?) and CR’s ability to race much more prominently now makes him superb value at the current 20s. And, as I think Lucinda will come round to it, I’ll be topping up on him.
Nice work, Ruby. Maybe they should make a real radical move and chicane the fences all the way to the Canal turn, which would then be approached pretty much head on like a normal fence, leading them more gently on to the run to Valentine’s. They have plenty land on the inside – currently a nine hole golf course – to do this.
True there are fatalities with 34, 30, 27 or even 5 runner events.
Point is the probability of having fatalities is greater when there is less room to maneuver.
Therefore 40 runners is always going to produce more fatalities than 34. 30, 27 or 5.
…34 should – along with some other changes – bring down the number of fatalities which helps the race (and probably Jumps Racing too) to survive for another few years.However, tinkering with the Grand National has always happened since its inception.
The race had been tinkered with for many years even before any of us became interested in it.
In the 1970’s jockeys of the 1950’s were saying “it ain’t like when I were a laaad”.
Tinkering will continue to happen and – might not like it but – we’ll just have to get used to it.
Value Is EverythingThanks Joe. I hope you’re right with your prediction about CR’s targets. He’ll be ten next year and would have to become the first horse since Cool Dawn in 1998 to win a GC that age.
This should be his first target:
I am all for looking at ways of improving safety in the Grand National, but believe they are only worth introducing if they will make a material difference, and have been balanced against preserving the unique character of the race.
Reducing the field size from 40 to 34 is likely to have a negligible impact on the fatality rate in my view. We can be certain that there will still sadly be fatalities, and then the pressure to make yet more changes will ratchet up further. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think we have just about reached this point now if the race is going to retain any of the aspects that make it “Grand”.
If anything, Thursday’s highly-publicised announcement is likely to have focused people’s thoughts on the National being unsafe rather than achieving anything positive from a PR perspective.
I am far from convinced that the ever-increasing quality of the participants in the race has improved its safety, and note that there is yet another minimum rating hike to 130. Clearly we will never go back to the time of a load of aged plodders taking part, but I do not think another rating increase brings any benefits.
Attempts at slowing down the early stages of the race are worth looking at, albeit I’m dubious how much can be achieved. One of the key areas that I think needs greater attention is the issue of loose horses. Not for the first time, there were some quite serious “near misses” involving them this year. A few years back, Aintree did a trial using outriders, and I would be interested to know why this was not persisted with.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.