- This topic has 119 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“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 have talked quite a lot about an acceptable level of risk, CAS.
Of course there will be fatalities after reducing the field size to 34.
Whether more changes will be needed will depend on the percentage of fatalities to runners or years, judged hopefully by several renewals… And whether that percentage is seen (not by the animal rights brigade but) by the public as an acceptable level of risk.Any further change might involve the number of runners, it might not. But given the history of the Grand National since it’s inception in 1839 and how it’s changed so much over the years; it’ll be surprising if there are no more changes. You’re surely expecting far too much. Historically, it’s not as if it’s always been 40 runners anyway. Indeed having fields of 40 was a comparatively new change in itself.
Value Is EverythingThe slow death of a once unique race continues.
When you are asking half a ton of racehorse to jump a 4ft+ obstacle at speeds of 30+mph there will always be the risk of fallers and reducing numbers will not reduce that risk. I would argue the more runners you have the more careful jockeys will be in trying to ensure they make it round still on aboard their horse – back in the day (when it was a true jumping test and the fences were truly respected) the strategy was always: hunt round on the first circuit and on the second circuit then think about riding a race).
Interestingly, I looked through all the runnings back to 2013 and this was what I found:
2023: 39 ran – 4 fallers (10%)
2022: 40 ran – 3 fallers (7%)
2021: 40 ran – 5 fallers (13%)
2020: Abandoned due to Covid
2019: 40 ran – 3 fallers (7%)
2018: 38 ran – 6 fallers (16%)
2017: 40 ran – 4 fallers (10%)
2016: 39 ran – 5 fallers (13%)
2015: 39 ran – 8 fallers (21%)
2014: 40 ran – 8 fallers (20%)
2013: 40 ran – 2 fallers (5%)So over that whole period we had a combined 395 runners of which a total of 48 fell, which to my math is 12%.
I used to say that at some point a line in the sand has to be drawn but I am really not sure the powers that be actually know how to do that – nobody was asking for this review but they seem incapable of doing any kind of review without it automatically meaning they change things.
The best bit was in order to try and slow down the speed of the horse arriving at the first fence they are moving first fence 60 yards closer to the starting line and then are having them all standing at the starting line rather than walking in to start (really….because we all know how well the starters are able accomplish that task with just single digit field sizes).
You know what tended to slow horse down a little bit in this race……..a big a*sed imposing 1st fence that was followed by a various number of other big a*sed imposing fences that you had to actually jump over and not jump through the top third of it at a crazy speed.
I seem to remember people did notice the reduction in fatalities when the softer core fences first came in, Marlingford. Yes, there will still be lots of years when there is a fatality with 34… And even when there are no fatalities it won’t stop the animal rights brigade finding fault and finding fatalities elsewhere. When there was a dip in Grand National fatalities they changed their emphasis to “Fatalities at the Grand National meeting”… So those not understanding what the meeting consists of would think every race is over the Grand National fences. However, we should not judge these things by noise made by that particular faction. It is the public’s perception of the race that matters. We don’t need to “change the opinion of anyone who was against the race previously” or not many anyway, it’s the rest we need to take with us… if we can.
True the difference between Ayr and Aintree Grand Nationals isn’t perhaps what many would expect. But as am sure you know there are many things that alter how many fatalities occur. One of them is the going. Ayr is for some reason allowed to have ground on average firmer than Aintree.
I would not have had a problem with 32 or 30 runners. Whatever the changes are I don’t think they will be the last. But together with the other changes 34 might just be enough for a number of years to come.
I am quite pessimistic anyway when it comes to the long term future of Jump Racing as a whole, not just the Grand National.
Net zero jump racing by 2050?
Value Is EverythingNet zero jump racing by 2050 , you are a cup half full person Ginger , sadly i think more 2035 ish if that , once the dish lickers are banned the jump racing will be next , Greyhounds wont make 2030 my bet
.
Maybe Portman Park or Steeplechase Downs might just survive , iam sure they were tracks on screen when i was last in UK at William Hill .“And whether that percentage is seen (not by the animal rights brigade but) by the public as an acceptable level of risk.”
I don’t believe there is huge public pressure to make changes. It is all being driven by protestors who will not be satisfied until the entire sport – Flat as well as National Hunt – is banned, cheered on by their supporters in the media who give them sympathetic and extensive coverage out of all proportion to their actual numbers. Giving way all the time emboldens them to push for more and more.
I think far more people are broadly supportive of racing and the Grand National, as shown by the crowd at Aintree, the television audience and the huge numbers of people who still have a bet on the race.
Even the contestants I mentioned on “Only Connect” did not appear to be hostile to the race, just a bit indifferent. They have probably not even noticed the story about the changes.
But if racing is not prepared to defend itself then maybe it does deserve to wither away. 2035, as mentioned above, does not look implausible. If that happens, the blame will rest with the BHA for its complete lack of leadership.
Agree with all of that CAS. I too was surprised there was not a stronger reaction against the fatalities in the past few years. I think sometimes perceptions can be clouded by the loud anti voices that give the impression that there is more widespread negative sentiment than is really the case.
These changes will do nothing at all to appease those voices, and I maintain that the field reduction has been introduced unnecessarily as it will make negligible difference while emboldening those who wish to see all racing cease.
“I don’t believe there is huge public pressure to make changes.
But if racing is not prepared to defend itself then maybe it does deserve to wither away. 2035, as mentioned above, does not look implausible. If that happens, the blame will rest with the BHA for its complete lack of leadership”.
——————————
Am sure you are correct, CAS; there is no “huge public pressure” – if “huge” means a majority. But if you yourself believe there is a danger of no racing by “2035”, then surely you will concede the direction of travel at the moment is all going one way – the wrong way. If the public believes Racing does not care then imo the momentum will increase.
We need the excellent Kevin Blake style defence of the Grand National and horse racing. BHA should certainly be stronger in its defence. But we also need to be responsible and change when change is likely to help. imo It should not be a choice of one or the other but both.
If there is no change it is likely to hasten the Grand National’s / Horse Racing’s demise.
Value Is Everything“and I maintain that the field reduction has been introduced unnecessarily”.
“I do agree with you though that Canal Turn is worth looking at further”.
————————————-
If reducing field size is “unnecesssary” but you think the Canal Turn is worth looking at further… Then surely you must have an answer for the Canal Turn, Marlingford – if not field size?
Flatten it?
Value Is Everything“But if you yourself believe there is a danger of no racing by “2035”, then surely you will concede the direction of travel at the moment is all going one way – the wrong way.”
Only because racing is so weak and defensive all the time. It is letting its opponents set the narrative.
As I said earlier, the BHA did do a bit better after this year’s Grand National. Certainly better than the recent year when two horses died. But it still could do better. It should not be left to private individuals like Kevin Blake to do Julie Harrington’s job for her.
You have not said what you’d do with the Canal Turn either CAS.
If not reducing the field then…?Value Is EverythingI believe the Canal Turn used to be an open ditch many years ago. Perhaps if that was reinstated jockeys would not be inclined to cut the corner so much? And less inclined to bunch up because they would have to treat the fence and the right angle turn with more respect.
The reduction in field size only bothers me because it is being spun by the anti-racing lobby as a victory. They also see it as a first step in abolishing the race.
40 runners are not really necessary and if racing had voluntarily reduced the number to something like 30, then I would not have minded so much. But it has been done after caving into pressure from a hostile lobby and therefore for the wrong reason.
What is most frustrating about all of this is the Grand National has arguably become more unsafe because of measures taken to make it more safe! A classic case of meddling.
I agree again with Marlingford. It appears the race was safer when it was plodders slowly popping over big, upright fences. A combination of better horses and easier fences have increased the speed and tempo of the race, which is the real problem.
Of course, we cannot turn back the clock. But it is still frustrating to have reached this point!
I believe the Canal Turn used to be an open ditch many years ago. Perhaps if that was reinstated jockeys would not be inclined to cut the corner so much? And less inclined to bunch up because they would have to treat the fence and the right angle turn with more respect.
………………………………….
Wow!
Canal Turn is a right angle corner.
Jockeys have to bunch up and cut the corner because otherwise they’d lose too much ground and don’t win.Open ditches at other courses do make jockeys more careful, but that doesn’t make up for making the fence more dangerous. Let alone making a right angle fence an open ditch.
The Canal Turn as an open ditch makes getting to the fence first more important – to make even more ground on the others. Increasing the speed it’s taken at. Likelihood is even greater of a leader falling and bringing down more of the field. More fatalities. Risking not only horses fallen on the other side of the fence getting in the way, but also getting trapped in the ditch itself, with horses jumping over and around them. All while jockeys try and take the corner as tight as possible while jumping a right angle open ditch.
Great for how Racing is perceived as uncaring.
Can just imagine how a change like that would go down when the inevitable happens.
Forget 2050 or 2035 … make that Net Zero Jump Racing by 2025.Value Is EverythingThe only possible alternative I can think of regards the Canal Turn is moving it to 45 degrees out from the corner and height of the fence higher on the inner than outer… Similar to what happened with Bechers. Maybe that will be another future change?
Value Is EverythingThe reduction in field size only bothers me because it is being spun by the anti-racing lobby as a victory. They also see it as a first step in abolishing the race.
40 runners are not really necessary and if racing had voluntarily reduced the number to something like 30, then I would not have minded so much. But it has been done after caving into pressure from a hostile lobby and therefore for the wrong reason.
—————————————–
Of course the anti-lobby will spin any change, CAS.
But that does not mean any change is “caving into pressure”.
I agree we should not cave into pressure but neither should we not do something because of what the anti-lobby might claim afterwards.
Ignore the anti-lobby entirely and do what is best for the race, the thoroughbred and Racing.
It is a voluntary reduction.Value Is EverythingGrand National and Cesarewitch not only have the 34 in common they have the massive overround too
Blackbeard to conquer the World
Only change that could be made re Canal Turn would be pretty drastic to eliminate the right angled turn – it would likely mean doing away with the great fence altogether and redesign that part of the course from after Foinavon so that it is more of a long sweeping left hand turn but that would likely mean no fence at all on that part of the course although at a push you might be able to situate a fence there but it would still be on a turn.
With the way they have altered the nature of the race over the years it wouldn’t surprise me that at some point down the line that the above would be under consideration but by that time it would likey be a 15-20 runner race with a consolation race run beforehand (for those that couldn’t get in the main race) that starts at the Melling Road before the first fence and has had all ditches (including The Chair) converted into plain spruce fences.
For me ‘public perception’ is the biggest misnomer and bs argument as a reason for change – for me you have the public that loves its racing and accept the sad part that fatalities will happen, then the much smaller (but infinitely louder) protester section of the public that for the most part are ill informed about the sport (or just don’t care to learn) and will only be appeased when the sport (in all forms) is banned permanently.
Then there is the biggest section of the public that I would describe as (outside of the National, assuming they still read newspapers or watch the news) having a near on total obliviousness to the sport in all its forms (it just not on their radar)….within that particular group is the opportunity to reach a potentially large new fan base of the sport (if targeted correctly) but also potentially new protesters……sadly with the protester section being the loudest and more media savy it is likely to be their voice this potential new group of fans are liable to hear first and thus make a bad first impression on them of the sport.
Lets face it if you had no previous interest in the sport and somebody came up to you on the street on the eve of the National and asked you what you thought about horses being whipped and killed in horse racing…….
My main concern regards the drop in numbers is the domination of certain owners/trainers. We already had Mullins and Elliott with 1/4 of the field when it was 40. I’d hate our national to turn into the spot your Gigginstown or JP selection from the different cap colour like the Irish National is. One thing I’m not sure I’ve seen mentioned is there were 8 I think out of the weights in last years race, it really wasn’t the classiest renewal.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.