- This topic has 146 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“Nicely voided answer, CAS.
I’ll answer your question.”
In other words, put words into my mouth and totally misrepresent what I am saying.
Nice of you, Ginger.
Let’s be honest, in the distant past people did watch it knowing that there would be spectacular falls at Bechers. I’m pretty sure that I would be campaigning about it now if Bechers hadn’t been changed.
On the issue of acceptable risk, the current fatality rate in British racing is 0.2%. I think most fair minded people – the middle ground mentioned in Richard’s earlier post – think that is within the parameters of being acceptable.
The problem is the Grand National gets scrutinised like no other race does. There have been three fatalities in the last three days, at Chepstow, Hereford and Kelso. Has there been a public outcry? I must have missed it if there was. Or is it only unacceptable for a horse to die in the National but OK anywhere else because the once a year crowd and animal rights brigade are not watching?
It is also worth noting the Kelso fatality was in a bumper and the Hereford incident occurred on the flat between fences. Nothing to do with jumping.
“People who preferred the old National don’t want to see fallers or horses dying, they just want to see a proper spectacle akin to what was a great race. Lack of argument and cheap shot is correct”.
—————————-I’d personally love the “proper spectacle akin to” what the great race was too – in my perfect World.
But being in the real world means I can not have that without having more fallers and more fatalities. Therefore I don’t want the “proper spectacle”.
Value Is EverythingI don’t for a moment believe anyone who is criticising the changes to the National wants to see horses or jockeys injured or worse.
But the logical consequence of wanting to see it becoming more of a “spectacle” or “jumping test” again is that there will be more falls. Anyone calling for this has to be implying that they want to see more falls and unseats.
I’m not criticising anyone for this and understand there are good reasons why people hold the passionate views that they do, but I think we need to acknowledge what this means even if it is uncomfortable.
Properfences, I really enjoyed your recollections of your visit to Aintree in 1984. Am envious that you got to see the fences in their formidable old form.
When I imagine the scene, it has that magical quality that I associate with the old Nationals. Perhaps shrouded in mist, with the theme music to Champions playing in the background! Those were the days…
Marlingford, if the Holy Grail of jump racing has to be reduced to near zero risk then the obstacles at all jump tracks including Cheltenham have to be reduced to near zero risk and the sport effectively terminated. We can’t be having any discrimination. Is the GN to become like the last stage of the Tour de France a celebratory jaunt through the countryside and a bit of a sprint at the end!
It’s very easy to come off a sterile race with no fallers and say if the fences went up there would be more fallers. Why did Corach Rambler exit? Was the fence so small he gave it zero respect?
We need to get away from pretending that falls somehow shouldn’t happen. What’s the point of the obstacles if every horse jumps them, in fact what’s the point of the sport?
Zilzal,
It is not about “zero risk”, it is about acceptable risk.
The “risk” in the Grand National even in recent times has been / is greater than the risk at any other racecourse in Britain or Ireland.
You say about Cheltenham, but they did have a problem with the second last and it has been changed. So to think it is only the Grand National that’s been changed is not true.
Value Is EverythingGinger, the competition and pace at the Cheltenham festival is mad compared to Aintree. By your logic those obstacles need defenestration too in the interest of safety.
Corach Rambler is normally held up in his races, but doing that in the Grand National leaves you a hostage to fortune. Because with 34 runners it is often difficult to make ground unless they’ve gone quick in the early stages or you make ground going too wide. So last year connections made a decision to race nearer the front in the Grand National which paid off. This time around it did not pay off and Corach Rambler paid the price for an awkward landing at the first. Just like Aldaniti and Hallo Dandy did after their victories.
Value Is EverythingThat link I posted would suggest not, Zilzal.
Take a look at the percentage of fallers to runners.
Value Is Everything“We need to get away from pretending that falls somehow shouldn’t happen”.
——————————tbh Zilzal, I don’t know anyone who is saying that on here.
It is about what the acceptable risk is.Value Is EverythingThe never ending alterations in the Bland National have been exposed later on down the line by the law of unintended consequences. Hence more alterations. Expect more of the same.
It normally doesn’t take long. What was considered acceptable for horse & rider by Aintree Racecourse, owners & trainers prior to the 2023 renewal is now unacceptable 12 months later.
Give it another few years and we’ll hear those immortal words yet again ‘the race has to evolve’. God knows what it will look like in another 10 years? Perhaps we won’t have to worry if Putin goes nuclear!
If a bland boring National is the price we have to pay to get the anti racing protesters off our backs then I’m all for it. Because I’d reached a point where I couldn’t defend the race with people that I know that only take an interest in racing once a year.
I don’t know if you are getting things wrong on purpose, but Corach Rambler exited because he didn’t get anywhere near high enough. It’s immaterial that he sprawled afterwards.
It’s ludicrous that anyone has to justify a sport to someone who watches one race a year. If they think it really is that bad why are they even watching? Shaping a race around people who watch one race a year? If that’s the attitude then you might as well throw it in the bin.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.