- This topic has 38 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Once again, I ask why they can’t have some outriders. Instead of redesigning fences and shortening the course why not go for some less-severe safety measures.
A good assessment by Tony Smurthwaite in the Post today.
Evidence from 2011 Grand National review
1 The possibility of reducing the run to the first fence by bringing forward the start position found no support whatsoever from jockeys consulted.
2 The majority of trainers consulted believed the start position should remain unchanged.
Grand National recommendations 2012
1 Reduce run to the first fence
2 Change the start position
What are these most recent changes based on? One years running?
Yesterdays announcement appear to suggest the Grand National can expect to be tinkered with every year from now on.
The logic of this year’s review is surely that if further horses die in 2013 there will be a further review, and further changes.How easy will it be able to tell if changes have made any difference if things keep changing every year?
Ginger, I’m perfectly serious. Jockeys already feel they don’t have enough time to get organised at the first – how can the solution be to give them an even shorter distance in which to accomplish that?
That first bend would not be nearly so sharp as you think because they have the whole of the Mildmay course to use on the first circuit. The issue for those in a hurry would be the elbow first time round; some re-configuring could be done to it, but how many jockeys are going to be in a mad rush that early in a race of almost 5 miles? They’d have a run of almost 5 furlongs to the first to get the fizz out of the horses and get themselves organised.
Even at that first bend, although those on the outside would be running further in distance, there is plenty of room and I think most wouldn’t be concerned at having to travel wide that early.
The first fence is a huge factor in the National’s problems imo. Jockeys feel they don’t have enough time to ‘get a position’ which, effectively, means to be at the front in case the speed of the ones in front causes them to fall and bring down those behind. Having built that rush to the first they then have a long straight run down that line of fences in which it is very hard to dilute the momentum built up just because of worries about the first fence.
Anyway, I accept my suggestion wouldn’t be considered, but for my money it would have been eminently more sensible, and more acceptable from a ‘heritage’ viewpoint, to have made the race longer rather than shorter – not to mention safer.
Tempted to say what changes? Once they avoided reducing the field size evertything else just window dressing.
Ginger, I’m perfectly serious. Jockeys already feel they don’t have enough time to get organised at the first – how can the solution be to give them an even shorter distance in which to accomplish that?
That first bend would not be nearly so sharp as you think because they have the whole of the Mildmay course to use on the first circuit. The issue for those in a hurry would be the elbow first time round; some re-configuring could be done to it, but how many jockeys are going to be in a mad rush that early in a race of almost 5 miles? They’d have a run of almost 5 furlongs to the first to get the fizz out of the horses and get themselves organised.
Even at that first bend, although those on the outside would be running further in distance, there is plenty of room and I think most wouldn’t be concerned at having to travel wide that early.
The first fence is a huge factor in the National’s problems imo. Jockeys feel they don’t have enough time to ‘get a position’ which, effectively, means to be at the front in case the speed of the ones in front causes them to fall and bring down those behind. Having built that rush to the first they then have a long straight run down that line of fences in which it is very hard to dilute the momentum built up just because of worries about the first fence.
Anyway, I accept my suggestion wouldn’t be considered, but for my money it would have been eminently more sensible, and more acceptable from a ‘heritage’ viewpoint, to have made the race longer rather than shorter – not to mention safer.
A good early position is important, with most Grand Nationals won by those ridden fairly prominently (first third of the field all the way). So going wide on the first bend (if race is lengthened) could ruin a horse’s chance. Therefore whether the course is refigured or not, they’d need to go even faster to get that posi. Furthermore, no horse’s connections will want their runner to give away ground by using the outer going to the first. Needing to travel quite a bit further (from the first bend) to do so, and again travelling further to turn left once reaching Bechers. Leading to a much more bunched field on the inner… particularly now Bechers does not have as much drop, which used to encourage jockeys going wider. Bunched field = more interference = more horses coliding and being brought down = more injuries and death.
Making the start closer may mean jockeys don’t have time to get up a fast pace, so a safer race. I’d rather they brought the start even nearer the first fence.
Value Is EverythingA good assessment by Tony Smurthwaite in the Post today.
Evidence from 2011 Grand National review
1 The possibility of reducing the run to the first fence by bringing forward the start position found no support whatsoever from jockeys consulted.
2 The majority of trainers consulted believed the start position should remain unchanged.
I talked to Grand National winning jockey (now trainer) Brendan Powell today. He was all for the start being moved. In fact said he made the same suggestion to the authorities some time ago.
Value Is Everythingi don’t know i can now imagine more fallers at tthe first fence
also they may have moved away from tattersall enclousre and stands, they will still be near steeplechase enclosure soo will still hear crowds and noise, the no go zone sounds good but id have tried it out on the original start first, give runners plenty of time to get positioned
i also stll think the length of bechers brook acroos the course should be longer so horses wont land on top of possible fallers being brought down as seen with according to petevf
A good assessment by Tony Smurthwaite in the Post today.
Evidence from 2011 Grand National review
1 The possibility of reducing the run to the first fence by bringing forward the start position found no support whatsoever from jockeys consulted.
2 The majority of trainers consulted believed the start position should remain unchanged.
I talked to Grand National winning jockey (now trainer) Brendan Powell today. He was all for the start being moved. In fact said he made the same suggestion to the authorities some time ago.
Nothing is likely to get 100% support from everyone and the BHA are unlikely to tell lies are they?
One of the few times I feel myself agreeing with Chapman, moving the start will make no difference but it is to the detriment of the race, as part of the excitement of going to it was seeing all the runners milling at the start.
Presumably there was nothing wrong with the start prior to last year or surely the BHA would have changed it then.I seem to recall the start not being ideal in 1993.
The start has been borderline / actually farcical for years.
As far as I am concerned the best solution to the Grand National is to reduce the safety factor by forty.
Moving the start is a massive gamble for the BHA/Aintree. If there is a lot of trouble at the first and serious injuries/loss of life, they can pretty much wave goodbye to any credibility.
The reason the start is a a regular nightmare is that the jockeys leave their brains in the weighing room nestling alongside the pointless warnings of the senior steward to go easy toward the first.
When the tapes go up the red mist descends and it’s every man for himself trying to reach the first fence in the lead – the shorter run up this time will, in my opinion, add to the danger, not detract from it.
I understand a similar experiment was successful in The Foxhunters (shorter run to the first). Trouble is the Foxhunters isn’t the National and amateur jocks have a completely different mindset.
I seem to recall the start not being ideal in 1993.
I think some of us are talking about where the actual start takes place rather than the mechanism used.
I personally liked Joe’s (Steeplechasing) idea of lengthening the race so as they run round the bend prior to the first.
Think of the long run to the first in the Welsh National. How about starting at the elbow, run past the Chair & the Water, cruise round the bend and then on to the first.
This increases the race to approx 4m 5 1/2furlong, therefore surely the extra distance should make jockeys think about what speed they go to conserve energy.
Yeara ago, Grand National fields included plodders who were slow, but stayed and jumped. These days there seems to be lots of 2.5-3 mile specialists who fill out the entry spaces as they have higher ratings then the plodders.
Therefore, what about "Win & Your In" for some of the longer distance races (3 1/2 miles plus)?
The lower the fences get the more tempted loose horses are going to be to run on and jump them. When the fences were as high as a house most horses that fell ran out at the first opportunity, now they can see over them they run on, sometimes sadly to interfere with other horses and cause fatalities.
Another small change that I would have liked to have seen following the tragic loss of Synchronised this year is that if a horse should throw his jockey and run loose before the start of the race, then that horse is immediately withdrawn, in effect the jockey is not allowed to remount the horse just as if he had taken part.
The rule is plain enough on the flat now with regard to the starting stalls so why not apply it to National Hunt which, of course, includes the Grand National.
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...The lower the fences get the more tempted loose horses are going to be to run on and jump them. When the fences were as high as a house most horses that fell ran out at the first opportunity, now they can see over them they run on, sometimes sadly to interfere with other horses and cause fatalities.
Another small change that I would have liked to have seen following the tragic loss of Synchronised this year is that if a horse should throw his jockey and run loose before the start of the race, then that horse is immediately withdrawn, in effect the jockey is not allowed to remount the horse just as if he had taken part.
The rule is plain enough on the flat now with regard to the starting stalls so why not apply it to National Hunt which, of course, includes the Grand National.
I think that any horse who runs loose like Synchronised did in last year’s national should be withdrawn, regardless of which horse it is, or which race it’s running in, whether that’s flat or jumps.
I’m very surprised that Synchronised wasn’t even without the tragedy that followed later on in the race.
Moving the start is a massive gamble for the BHA/Aintree. If there is a lot of trouble at the first and serious injuries/loss of life, they can pretty much wave goodbye to any credibility.
The reason the start is a a regular nightmare is that the jockeys leave their brains in the weighing room nestling alongside the pointless warnings of the senior steward to go easy toward the first.
I’m far from convinced with the reasoning and evidence put forward for moving the start forward by Stier & Baker in their unconvincing interviews with Lydia.
I wouldn’t be critical at all of jockeys, I would suggest if any of us where in the same position we would do exactly the same, it’s called being competitive and having a will to win.
Of course the starting procedure has been farcical for years, ably demonstrated earlier this year.People like Grant & RSPCA will never be satisfied whatever is done and of course they don’t want to be. What would they do if all their demands were met in full and horses were still killed?
Maybe they should be using more of their time, money and energy better, dealing with acts of animal cruelty rather than victimising horse racing.I seem to recall the start not being ideal in 1993.
I think some of us are talking about where the actual start takes place rather than the mechanism used.
As Joe rightly pointed out, the problem with the start is the lack of thought employed by the jockeys at the start rather than the mechanism. In 1993 the jockeys were entirely to blame for the fiasco.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.