- This topic has 119 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
That’s exactly what it will become and not necessarily for the prestige of winning it which after a while may lose it’s appeal, it has a whole heap of prize money.
The things I want most in life are the things that I can't win.
Great piece from Brough Scott in the RP under the headline:
A safe Grand National is the ultimate oxymoron – and even mentioning it creates dishonest expectations:
Hands up for starters. I am aware that anything written by someone who rode in the Grand National before most who read this were born and who has reported on it for more than 50 years can be suspected of wishing back to the ‘good old days’, when men were men, fences were fences, brandy bottles were under the benches, falls were vertical, and quite a few of us headed off to hospital with the Duke of Albuquerque. I did that last one actually.
But with respect for different times and admiration for the work of all parties in the latest changes, I believe there is a multi-syllable but crucial word that needs discussing in this debate. It is anthropomorphism – treating animals as if they were humans.
As broadcasters and journalists, we often stray into that area, attributing all sorts of human characteristics and some of their faults to the horses we fancy. It’s all done with the best of intentions but it can lead to dishonest expectations, in this case that most perfect of oxymorons: ‘a safe Grand National’.
We have to be realistic about what is involved. Half a ton of horse and ten stone of jockey hurling themselves over five feet of fence at 30mph is an awesome sight. Thirty of them thundering over together evokes huge excitement and, yes, a bit of terror too. This is the test we have chosen and, which in the case of the Grand National, has enthralled more people than any other annual event with animals on the planet.
It is a race whose glory has been earned in the strain and danger that has to be overcome. Yes, the danger. Why is it we are so frightened of that word? Challenge is good, but danger is bad. Once you stress danger in front of challenge then you are battling against that most overbearing, not to mention most litigious phrase in modern life – the safety risk.
We can’t turn the clock back and we must accept that in a democracy we can only operate with public support. But the attraction of the Grand National is that it has been the highest mountain that racing’s participants set out to climb. If we do any more to ease the route, the uniqueness of the challenge and of the attraction will be lost.
There are two species in this activity. The humans have training in expertise and fitness as never before. The horses have quite a bit else. They are not pets, or pleasure ponies or ordinary livestock. They are hardened, purpose-bred athletes whose whole lives have led to this. The Grand National is equine fulfilment, not animal abuse.
But both species are liable to injury, falls are inevitable, and the central but avoidable truth is that in severe cases humans almost always at least partly recover, horses rarely do. Four horses fell in last season’s Grand National but 11 other riders got unseated and bit the turf. One jockey, Johnny Burke, went to hospital and recovered. One horse, Hill Sixteen, didn’t.
So everything in this issue ultimately comes down to choice. Do we, as humans, have the right to put animals to the sporting risk we ourselves are prepared to take?
If we have that right, we must then do everything to ready our four-legged partners for the risks ahead and to care for them in the case of injury. But they are horses and need to be treated with the respect and also the reality that their species demands.
We cannot please everybody but should stand firm and friendly to the belief that the Grand National is a glory of which our nation of animal lovers should be proud. It is a challenge that should be met.
“So everything in this issue ultimately comes down to choice. Do we, as humans, have the right to put animals to the sporting risk we ourselves are prepared to take”?
—————–
Hmmmm, oh Brough.
“The sporting risk we ourselves are prepared to take”…
I can just imagine the public reaction to that one.
Only one jockey has ever lost his life in the Grand National, Joseph Wynne.
…And that was back in 1862.
The risk jockeys take – especially these days – can not realistically be compared in that way.imo A better argument is to say that an F1 driver gets a pampered life for his work.
Racehorses are given a pampered life for their work.Value Is EverythingElliot and Mullins saying it about become more classier race and not a lotto.
Well shouldn’t if int hat regard scrap the handicapping of runners in raceVF x
An honest question to the forums: if every race had the same rate of fatalities as the Grand National, would you still support horse racing?
Fair question Miss Woodford.
I suppose the honest answer is, I don’t know… In that I am already a Racing fan and therefore my instinct would be to continue supporting it.However, if I was considering supporting the race for the first time and someone gave me these stats… Then I very much doubt it.
…Which is presumably your point.Therefore, should I really be supporting the race?
Well, had they not made these latest changes the answer would have to be, No.
Hopefully the latest changes will work.Value Is EverythingThis is from the 56 page report published in Nov 2011 by an industry wide review group:
”
6.13 However, the Review Group found no
recurring trend whatsoever of horses
systematically failing to get a clear sight of
the fences as they prepared to jump them.
Virtually all the fallers reviewed during that
period had a clear run to the fence where
they fell or unseated their jockey.6.14 Furthermore, the Review Group
considered research carried out through
its Inspectorate team and established that
the average available “width of fence per
horse” on the Grand National course was
comparable to the averages for all licensed
Jumps courses, including the width of
fence per horse at other very high profile
jumps fixtures.6.15 Taking into account a) the information in
6.13–6.14 above, b) the participant
feedback, and c) the many of the other
recommendations being made in this
Report, the Review Group is of the
opinion that the Safety Factor for the
Grand National should remain at 40 at present.”There’s a stack of detailed data contained in that report. Now it’s claimed they don’t have any data because there are no other 40 runner races, so reduce it to 34, a number seemingly plucked out of thin air at random.
You can find that report by doing a search for ‘Grand National Report 2011’.
Apracing agree with you.
They trying saying they viewed elsewhere races away from Aintree. But why thought the national was meant to be unique.
After 186 (or whatever number it is now)Grand Nationals they have no data VF x
Nonsense from Brough, in its basic term: non sense. He decries anthropomorphism then says ‘The Grand National is equine fulfilment, not animal abuse.’
Good question, Miss Woodward: I cannot quantify the ethical approach, and I don’t think it is honestly quantifiable. If you accept one unnecessary death, you’re in the game already and committed. Having said, that, if the situation you posit becomes real, I’d. walk away, but more through shame than anything else.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:8f64d7d4-ef10-4a6f-9683-29f77d98c555
The things I want most in life are the things that I can't win.
Miss Woodford,
“An honest question to the forums: if every race had the same rate of fatalities as the Grand National, would you still support horse racing?”
What is the rate of fatalities in the GN cpmpared to other races? I may have missed it as I’ve been without the internet for a few days.
Presumably your stats Miss Woodford for your statement, must be since they changed the core of the fences about 10 years ago? What are they? Not forgetting last years fatality was probably due to animal activists.Frankly I think a 6 month investigation into just the one race is farcical. What about all the other races?
And why provide a minimum of good to soft for just this one race and not many more throughout the season? If I was an outsider looking in and saw that there needed to be a 6 month investigation into just the one race I would be appalled and wondering why the race is allowed at all.I was surprised Steeplechasing out of all the posters on here thought the changes were an opportunity for possible personal financial gain rather than looking at the bigger picture. In fact Scu said in an interview a couple of weeks before the changes were announced that they were likely to change plans with CR as they had heard about changes to the GN.
Viking Flagship sums it up well –
“They have ruined it, should no longer be called the Grand National.”
years:
Straight from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equine_fatalities_in_the_Grand_National
“According to the British Horseracing Authority, modern steeplechase races have an average of just over 4 equine fatalities for every 1,000 horses taking part in a race. The Aintree Grand National yielded 7 equine fatalities out of 439 horses taking part between 2000 and 2010, a rate of almost 16 equine fatalities per 1,000 horses taking part (or 0.64 fatalities per race of 40 horses). In the five years to 2023, the fatality rate has risen, averaging 25 equine fatalities per 1,000 horses taking part (or one fatality per race of 40 horses).”Considering what Peter H said upthread:
The 34th horse in this year’s National was rated 143. Elliott runs two thirds of the field in the Munster National tomorrow. The favourite, Frontal Assault, runs off an Irish rating of 140, so if he wins, he’d likely get in the big race. I looked up which Elliott horses are rated by HRI 143 and above.
They include Gerri Colombe, who won’t run in it this season, and Fil d’Or who is still too young (but watch out in future, he came 2nd in a Triumph and is half sib to a 3m chase winner) but the rest are:
Conflated
Galvin
Ash Tree Meadow
Delta Work
Fury Road
Salvador Ziggy
Coko Beach
Farclas
Run Wild Fred
Andy Dufresne
Chemical Energy
Diol Ker
Riviere d’Etel
The Goffer
Hollow Games
Minella CroonerI’d be surprised if Riviere d’Etel or Andy Dufresne ran in it, and possibly Salvador Ziggy, but I could see any of the rest in it. Plus the likes of Mars Harper, Gevrey and Hurricane Georgie- all in the high 130s and young enough to improve.
He ran 11 in it the year of Tiger Roll’s second victory and there is more incentive to pack the race out to block challengers to your real fancied contenders the smaller the field is- you can control a bigger percentage of the race with the same amount of money spent on entry and travel fees . The Irish National is first this season, so he can run everything bar his real Grand National horses in that (plus or minus a few blockers depending on who the highest rated reserves are) then run everything again in the Grand National, again depending on who the reserves are.
Well it’s a bit mean of me to call them blockers I suppose. If a small outfit owned and trained one of the horses in that list I would consider blockers (Fury Road, Coko Beach, Farclas, Diol Ker..and probably some of the too-highly rated, older, declining grade 1 horses – Conflated, Galvin, Delta Work) of course they would take their chance of a lifetime to run in the race. Even Elliott-trained, where are they supposed to go, anyway: he’s got high 130s+ staying handicappers coming out his ears so they have to target something.
But still, if he has a third of the field in the most famous race in the world, it’s not a good look.‘The Aintree Grand National yielded 7 equine fatalities out of 439 horses taking part between 2000 and 2010, a rate of almost 16 equine fatalities per 1,000 horses taking part (or 0.64 fatalities per race of 40 horses). In the five years to 2023, the fatality rate has risen, averaging 25 equine fatalities per 1,000 horses taking part (or one fatality per race of 40 horses).”’
In the years from 2013 to 2018 there were none. It must be the safest race in the world!
A sample of 11 races, followed by a sample of five. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
“In the years from 2013 to 2018 there were none. It must be the safest race in the world!
A sample of 11 races, followed by a sample of five. Lies, damn lies and statistics.”
Quite.if every race had the same rate of fatalities as the Grand National, would you still support horse racing?”
In the 10 runnings of the race since soft plastic cores replaced the wooden pallisades- a sensible time period to look at as yeats suggested- there have been 5 fatalities.
In the last 10 runnings of the Albert Bartlett, there have been 3 fatalities. The average field size of the AB is less than half that of the GN , therefore the AB must be more dangerous than the GN if one ignores such details as statistical significance and whatnot.
And yet there is no “Ban the Bartlett” campaign (or attempt to modify it), and I would think the main reason forumites who don’t watch it avoid it is because they consider the Spud Race tedious and a mere antepost bookies’ benefit.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.