- This topic has 119 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
If the total number of runners and the resultant crowding and rush to the first fence are things you wish to eliminate/reduce, there’s a simple solution that would once again make the National a unique racing event.
Send the runners off one at a time at 10 second intervals. Pause after the first 20 have started to cater for those horses coming round to start their second circuit. When they have all completed, send off the second 20. Fastest time wins the race. Draw lots for starting order, just like the draw for a flat race.
Should provide about 30 minutes of live action and a fascinating test of the ability of the riders to judge the pace. It works OK for the cross country phase of a three day event like Badminton, why not the National.
If indeed ‘something must be done’, then do something original and dramatic.
Nice one, Alan. The last time this blew up – ragged starts, rush to the first etc, I suggested something similar- 3 sets of stalls, modified with plenty room for steeplechasers. Either stagger the opening of each and alter the weights accordingly, or set stalls 2 say 30 lengths behind set 1 with set 3 a time or handicapped equivalent behind set 2.
Another thought- instead of moving the start 60 yards forward, they could have put a small fence at 60 yards, say two foot high, unconventional enough to make jocks think twice about rushing it.
The start was moved 90 yds closer to the first ten years ago and now another 60 yds. Did it make any difference ten years ago when the jockey mentality is to be in a good position at the first, could it make the rush to the first actually worse. Why not actually move the start further away giving jockeys more time to achieve their position and be more prepared for the first.
The things I want most in life are the things that I can't win.
I agree with Marlingford. At some point I think you have to draw a line in the sand. There is only so much can be done and the risk of injury and death cannot be entirely removed.
A point none of the posters defending the changes have addressed is: what happens when there is inevitably a fatality in a field of 34? Because there will be eventually. Does the field then get reduced further?
I don’t remember a great outcry after this year’s race. I was prepared for one but it did not really happen. The press coverage was not that bad and there was no great public outcry.
For once the BHA did a good job putting the case for racing and Kevin Blake comprehensively defeated an animal rights protester in a discussion with logic and facts. All the protester could offer was emotional hysteria and evasion (he claimed he had spent time in racing stables but could not name a single trainer).
Who exactly are these changes meant to satisfy? It seems to me it is a bunch of people who will only be satisfied when racing is abolished and the entire country is rewilded. They are already claiming it as a victory. They perceive (with some justification) that racing is weak and if they keep on protesting they will get their way eventually.
When is racing collectively going to say “Enough”? It might be surprised to learn it will get quite a lot of public support.
The trouble is that saying enough is enough will be taken by opponents and very possibly the general public as “We accept horses will die in the National and have no further plans to try to stop that”
Managing what must remain unsaid is the real problem. It’s little to do with horses and everything to do with the elephant in the room.
I very much consider myself a ‘National Purist’, but I must say that the majority of the changes brought in are generally positive.
Earlier start time and standing starts are long overdue and very much welcomed from me. I’m actually quite indifferent to the first fence being moved. I’d rather they do it this way than move the start closer, thus reducing the race length further. Is it even classified as 4m 2f these days?
I can’t figure out the reasoning behind lowering the open ditches by 2 inches, other than to maintain the steady decline of the heights. I’ll keep banging the drum that all the cores should be conventional park fences dressed up in spruce, but it will never happen.
The one change I just can’t get my head around is the field size. I’d have begrudgingly accepted a drop to 36, but a 15% decrease seems excessive and is an open invite for the “big” yards to load up the top of the handicap to keep potentially better handicapped horses out of the race. An issue that won’t go away until they make much tougher decisions than these were.
Their rational for reducing the field size was based on probability, which itself is built on theory. The fact is, however that the recent fatalities in the Grand National were not relating to field size. Despite their assertions to the contrary; this seems like lip service to fabricate a ‘positive’ headline.
It’s another case of 80/20. I’d say that 80% of yesterday’s news is nothing to worry about. Unfortunately the 20% is written in bold, underline, and italics.
And it makes for disappointing reading.
Half the problems with the start are that it goes off right in front of the stands, not exactly the kind of atmosphere that’s conducive to a calm jog forwards (or standing still for that matter, so good luck to them with that).
If we’re moving the start, why not do it properly. Either put it up where the first fence is (so race is shorter and second jump becomes the first) or go the other extreme and move it far enough backwards to get the horses into a rhythm before they come past the crowds (increasing overall race distance). Both will get an outcry but just pick a direction and do it rather than cutting off a few yards at a time.
Steeplechasing, I agree with much of what you’ve said in your most recent post above, and we should never say enough is enough re safety improvements. But I think that reducing the field size to 34 is not the best approach to achieving the tricky balancing act of making a significant safety improvement and maintaining the race’s character.
The focus is likely to be increasingly on the field size variable in future now that it has been reduced once. Give it a few more years, and we will have a field of 16 with a minimum rating of 150. And then there will still sadly be fatalities.
“We accept horses will die in the National and have no further plans to try to stop that”.
If you have any kind of horse racing, there will always be the possibility of accidents and injuries, which sometimes can be fatal. The only way to remove that risk is to stop racing, which would be a far worse outcome for the Thoroughbred as a breed.
If racing is going to keep on making changes after fatalities, there will eventually be nothing left.
Ironic that it was an Australian who started the ball rolling by reducing the distance of the race thereby consigning to history the records of all those who had competed before. Just look at the state of Australian jump racing where appeasement and tinkering has virtually destroyed the sport.
It has been mentioned that perhaps cynically 34 was plumped for because it fits nicely with the World Pool? Surely the Aintree executive wouldn’t lie to us that it’s all data driven?!
As a massive fan of the race over many many decades I just feel empty when watching the race most years now. This generation don’t deserve a Red Rum.
Peter h agree with what you just said. I also just read racing post article and Davy Russel says similar on numbers
Vf x
“Their rational for reducing the field size was based on probability, which itself is built on theory.
The fact is, however that the recent fatalities in the Grand National were not relating to field size”.——————
No, this probability is based on facts.
How likely something is to happen over time.
It has to be judged over a longer timespan, because any “recent fatalities” may or may not be coincidence.What of the following is not a fact, Peter?
Fewer runners means more room at the fences.
More room makes it easier to jump and therefore a horse is less likely to fall of its own accord.
More room makes it easier to avoid colliding / being brought down by a faller – moving right or left.
All of which mean – over time – fewer runners mean fewer injuries and fewer fatalities..…And I come back to the Canal Turn.
40 horses all jumping the corner of a fence with very little room…Value Is EverythingGinger, I agree that fewer runners means fewer fatalities. But I don’t agree that reducing the field from 40 to 34 is going to make any significant difference.
When the fatality rate is already so low (in a statistical sense – I’m not trying to make light of the fatalities), the reduction will be very small to the point of being unnoticeable.
I do agree with you though that Canal Turn is worth looking at further.
34 at the Canal Turn will be the same scenario.
The things I want most in life are the things that I can't win.
Ginger, I agree that fewer runners means fewer fatalities. But I don’t agree that reducing the field from 40 to 34 is going to make any significant difference.
When the fatality rate is already so low (in a statistical sense – I’m not trying to make light of the fatalities), the reduction will be very small to the point of being unnoticeable.
I do agree with you though that Canal Turn is worth looking at further.
————————————————————————-
I suppose it would all depend on what your definition of “significant” difference is, Marlingford. Yours might be different to mine or anyone else.
…And there are other changes that have been made too, so it’s not just reducing numbers to 34 that should make a (significant) difference.However as I’ve said it is the Canal Turn that worried me most when it comes to 40 runners. ie On the first circuit – if the leader / or worse the two leaders both fell at the Canal Turn… Then imo the 15% reduction in runners to 34 could easily reduce the number of fatalities by 33 or as much as 50% at that one fence in that one year.
For such an incident the reduction from 40 to 34 may even make such a significant difference as to SAVE the Grand National.
Value Is EverythingGinger, by “significant” I mean a reduction in fatalities large enough so that anyone actually notices. With a field of 34, there will continue to be lots of years where one or more fatalities occur.
We know this from watching much less demanding races with smaller fields. Also races that are reasonable comparators such as the Scottish National often have fatalities sadly.
The reduction will be too small to make any real difference to safety or change the opinion of anyone who was against the race previously. Only zero fatalities will satisfy the race’s more persistent and vocal opponents, which is sadly impossible.
Rather than potentially saving the race, I think that reducing the field size may help speed it on its way to oblivion. Don’t get me wrong as I hate it when a fatality occurs, but I genuinely don’t believe this change will improve safety to a noticeable degree.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.