- This topic has 146 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Some of the complaints about the Grand National remind me of motorsports fans who complained (and continue to complain) about the various safety measures that auto racing has taken to reduce risk. Compare an old Indy 500 or F1 car to the modern ones. Even NASCAR has changed enormously. There are still people who yearn for the good ol’ days, when men were men etc etc – what they really mean is that they watched for the crashes.
In horse racing people still want the element of danger, and it’s always going to be there, just as there will always be crashes in auto racing. The difference is that in horse racing the vehicle is a living, breathing, animal, and over the years the general public’s assessment of the value of that animal has changed. It might have been acceptable in the past to see a horse die on national television every other year, but it isn’t now. I think that’s a good thing, by the way.I rate this year a 9/10. Do I think all the changes were strictly necessary for a safer race? No, but if the end result is fewer dead horses and the survival of jumps racing as a sport I’m fine with the “emasculated” Bland National.
What about some praise for the people who somehow “saved” the National? The reason why so many horses completed wasn’t only because of the changes made, but also due to the trainers who had the right horses aimed and entered in the race. The first four all rated well above 150 and finishing in that order shows even more what a proper NH horse. And I think that’s what you want to present to the general public: “well, there were 21 finishers, because they are all pretty decent jumpers and not taking part in a “glorified hurdle race”.
It doesn’t matter what options the winner had or the rested and placed X-Country horses. Horses that are able to compete and complete finished where they should have. As for the softness of the obstacles, we should wait another 4-5 years and draw a line there.
I would like to see more “you win and you’re in” qualifying races in order make that “weights lunch or brunch or whatever” more meaningless.
The GN course should be no longer a threat to the antis.
By the way, the reason why horse racing will disappear in four, five decades will be the costs of keeping a racecourse in training. The ROI still stands out for me. What will happen when Mr. McManus and Co. will be gone? Just what happens to the exors of the late Trevor Hemmings and so on.
In France for instance, with the death of Jean-Luc Lagardere an entire horse racing empire vanished. The horses were sold to cover the remaining inheritance costs.I have to confess the National was still more exciting than motor sport, the dullest of the dull. Visions of those idiotic petrolheads basking in the shadows of the totally repulsive Jeremy Clarkson.
Huge difference between banning fox hunting (should have come decades earlier) and national hunt racing. Fox hunting wasn’t a sport it was simply the barbaric act of chasing a wild animal to it’s death for human pleasure. It should have been impossible to defend. Unfortunately, the ban is not being policed as it should.
Well said Mrs. Woodford. I still enjoy the thrill of the Indy 500 ( Indycar Racing in general) despite the numerous yellow flags or full course cautions. Imagine the F1 holding such an event. They couldn’t keep count of the laps the field is behind Max Verstappen.
As regards owners there will always be people with money and egos.
The biggest concern for owners pulling out would be the Arab involvement in flat racing. If they went the cupboard would be very bare.
I think racing will disappear in England because there is less and less interest in it, probably because the general public are so removed from any contact with horses. It seems to be different in Ireland which is more rural and, dare I say it I don’t find people there as sentimental about horses ( or should I say they don’t anthropomorphise them in the way we do here). American racing will continue because it seems far more still part of the National culture. But that’s just my personal gut feeling and not necessarily correct.
I’d say the opposite Moehat. Certainly horse racing has a much larger television presence on main UK channels than on main US channels, and the only race in America that even begins to rival the Grand National in terms of public consciousness is the Kentucky Derby. I don’t think horse racing is going to disappear per se, but a lot more tracks will close
All that said I fully expect the Maryland Hunt Cup to be running over the same fences and same course for another hundred years, even if nobody watches
I listened to the Barstewards podcast last night, where rather surprisingly the guest was Rishi Persad. Fair play to him for going on such an irreverent show.
When he was asked about Aintree, he said the meeting as a whole was very good but he thought the changes to the Grand National had perhaps gone too far and reduced the unique spectacle of the race.
I think his assessment is right but it is all very well in saying it on a minor podcast. Would he ever say it on ITV? Would he even be allowed to say it?
“It might have been acceptable in the past to see a horse die on national television every other year, but it isn’t now.”
But horses will die on television as long as racing is shown. Giovinco suffered a fatal injury in the first race on Friday. The challenge to any broadcaster is to put the incident into its full context.
The sensible middle ground mentioned earlier are prepared to listen. I suspect that large group of people are better disposed towards racing than some people here appear to believe. They realise a lot of the arguments from the anti brigade are extreme. They recognise racehorses get a good quality of life when compared to lots of other animals.
Without being complacent, let us not lose sight of the fact that horse racing is still the second most popular spectator sport in the country. Aintree was packed out on Friday and Saturday.
Perhaps the attendance figures need to be treated with a bit of caution. The attendances in summer are boosted by concerts after racing. But lots of people who might not watch racing every day still enjoy a day at the races and would be opposed to any move to ban the sport. Those people are well aware that injuries and fatalities can and do happen but they still go racing.
“It seems to be different in Ireland which is more rural and, dare I say it I don’t find people there as sentimental about horses”.
I think that is broadly true. Whenever I have been racing in Ireland, I have had the impression it is as much a way of life as a sport.
Having said that, Ireland is changing. It is becoming more urban and there has been a revolution in social attitudes.
I think racing will remain popular in Ireland for a long time but perhaps not as much as it was. I get the impression that racing is not as favoured with the modern Irish political class as it was with the old guard of the Haughey era.
Miss Woodford,
You seemed to have fallen into the same trap as the authorities, in just concentrating on the one race. A six month investigation into just the one race is laughable. What about all the other jump races? Who exactly are they trying to fool?
On the previous thread about the National (40 to 34) you produced seriously flawed statistics to back up your anti National opinion, have you got some fresh ones now?
I think its a fair sign that if you give last Saturdays race 9 out 10 then it’s highly unlikely to have been a proper National and more a Micky Mouse one.I just hope I live long enough to see the end of this farce and the end of a totally false “Grand National”. It’s what plenty in racing deserve.
Those confident that NH Racing in the UK will survive for many years to come should take a look at the experience in Australia where now only one State allows the sport, South Australia being the last to ban it in 2022. Lower obstacles meant faster racing meant more fatalities.
I lay much of the blame for setting in motion the destruction of the Grand National including changing the historic distance of the longest race at the door of Jamie Stier formerly of the BHA. How ironic he now works for Racing Victoria the only State that still has jump racing. Not for much longer I’ll hazard a guess.
It does strike you looking at the flimsy walk through nature of the Aintree fences that Auteuil would be far more of a challenge for 34 runners. I don’t see I Am Maximus jumping their big open ditch & hedge and enormous water jump with the contempt he showed for Aintree’s poor excuses for a fence.
In fact as mentioned by others in the past how is it that in France they don’t by-pass fences for low sun, etc and you can’t by-pass fences? Do they take a more pragmatic view when it comes to horse & jockey safety?
I think it would be dangerous to take crowds as some sort of great backing for horse racing. It’s different midweek with the relatively small crowds for anything other than a Festival. I would say for many of the weekenders it’s first and foremost about the day out (which for some means drinking as much as possible) with a bit of betting tagged on. If it wasn’t horse racing they would quickly find something else. I doubt there is much loyalty to the horse itself. Of course racecourses don’t care too much who comes through the gates. I suspect those who actually love the sport will end up going less and less until they are no longer around. So outside of ‘racing families’ the future is a bleak one.
Was it after 2013 there was vague acknowledgement that the changes had gone a bit too far ? Can’t see there’s any hope for such acknowledgement now.
We are left with a handicap that could be interesting but not compelling. As plenty, Peter in particular have said, the early release of the weights runs counter to this. An anachronism that should end forthwith. A failure to consider Cheltenham and The Bobbyjo is a dead loss.
Given the very likely subterfuge in cross country and hurdles preparation the handicapper should err on the harsh side for such participants and be loathe to drop the mark of those who never appear in proper handicap chases. Indeed he seems harsh on those running well in what have been good quality handicaps that turn out to have little substance. Mahler Mission and the ridiculous mark for Nassalam spring to mind from this renewal.
I know it’s not a proper steeplechase now but it purports to be.
If the racing industry is lauding the success of the modern Grand National; why doesn’t Cheltenham have plastic ‘birch’ fences?
Racing appears to have achieved its NEBOSH NG1 and is enjoying the term “eliminate avoidable risk” when defending the new changes (although they’ve technically replaced the hazard as opposed to eliminate it when referring to the hierarchy of controls, but I’m being twee), so why are they not applying the same principle to all other racecourses?
What happens in the National reflects disproportionately heavily on the rest of the sport. So I believe Aintree has been right to act.
That’s not to say that safety issues should be ignored elsewhere, but it is important to the future of racing that its main event is seen to take a lead on such matters.
Of course the National is still in no way safe, and horses will die in it in future. I think the wider public will tolerate this as long as the sport is showing it cares about this and is being proactive at improving things. That doesn’t necessarily mean further changes are on the way in the event of isolated incidents, but I suspect the Canal Turn will get some tweaks sooner or later.
Another good piece by Richard Forristal in the RP – can’t say I disagree with any of it. As it is behind the member’s wall here it is for those to have a read of:
Why is racing congratulating itself over the National? The truth is we’ve put the sport on a slippery slope. Richard Forristal
Racing takes more than its share of stick so maybe it is to be expected that a propensity for overzealous self-congratulation is evident when the opportunity presents itself.
It’s a condition that has become increasingly rampant on ITV’s watch. Whereas the bygone terrestrial coverage on BBC and Channel 4 was defined by the discerning analysis of a Julian Wilson, Sir Peter O’Sullevan, Jim McGrath or Tanya Stevenson, Ed Chamberlin sets a more effusive tone.
These days we are bombarded with how wonderful and amazing everything is, which it may well be, but the urge to keep telling viewers as much smacks of insecurity. Pictures of horses in peak condition or a sumptuous racecourse really ought to speak for themselves. Maybe it is the sort of output that racing requires on terrestrial TV nowadays, but ITV lays it on pretty thick.
The stewards’ inquiry that followed Thursday’s Aintree Hurdle was a good example of the excessive fawning.
Here we had three professional jockeys saying whatever needed to be said. Paul Townend told the stewards what he wanted them to hear and Harry Skelton and Rachael Blackmore did the same. You couldn’t be sure any of the three really believed what they were saying and they said their pieces with varying degrees of conviction, but jockeys in that situation are obliged to fight their corner. That’s the gig.
The whole thing is a hopelessly superficial charade and anyone who thought the outcome was ever actually in doubt clearly doesn’t watch much British racing, yet ITV branded this circus as “fascinating”. Oli Bell even described it as “high drama” at one stage. Maybe I’m just getting increasingly cynical in my old age, and maybe that’s informed by the precedents that dictated there would be no change in the outcome, but dramatic it wasn’t.
Televised inquiries can make for good TV, but Thursday’s didn’t and the day of jockeys being central to these deliberations should be long gone.
Now, ITV aren’t the only ones guilty of overegging the pudding and Ruby Walsh’s forensic insight lends real authority to its coverage. Much of what it does is very good, and both Chamberlin and Bell are superb pros, but the contrived back-slapping is just too much.
By the time the Grand National was done on Saturday, the machine was in overdrive, and racing’s chorus of self-approval didn’t end with the ITV broadcast as the rush to celebrate a Grand National without a faller led to some rather naive takes.
Anyone would think the race had somehow been cured of all its perceived ills, but we’ve been here before. It’s desperately short-sighted to be jumping up and down about one year’s worth of evidence.
Remember, after the extensive changes in 2013 when the solid cores were removed and the drops eradicated, six years passed without a fatality. Then, unfortunately, Aintree’s luck ran out and there was a spate of deaths.
This year the tweaks were relatively minor by comparison. Yes, the smaller field had a significant bearing, and the earlier start time, combined with the slower ground conditions, will have helped. Nonetheless, the suggestion that all of a sudden the National is now magically ‘fixed’ is absolutely bogus.
Clearly there are people out there who felt more comfortable watching Saturday’s sanitised iteration of the race, but there are also a great many who felt they were being sold a pup.
It’s not about bemoaning an absence of fallers, and certainly not fatalities; it’s about authenticity. This is supposed to be a thoroughbred’s greatest test and has always traded as the people’s race, but it’s neither of those things anymore.
Chris Cook put it best in Monday’s Front Runner
by describing it as a glorified cross-country race in terms of a spectacle, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest it didn’t capture the public imagination. ITV’s viewing figures plummeted by nearly 1.5 million, and both large and small bookmakers reported betting turnover on the race to be down. Of course, various excuses have been trotted out for that, but the reality might well be that viewers and punters aren’t buying the hyperbole. People aren’t stupid.
“It just doesn’t resonate as a wider sporting event like it once did and the amount bet on the race is very different to, say, ten years ago, which is a shame,” rued Greg Knight, managing director of independent firm Jenningsbet.
One of the main reasons all of the asinine positivity gets my goat is that it is conveniently blind to the position racing has put itself in. For the most part, the fences that claimed five lives in five years up to 2023 are still the same. As sure as night follows day, there will be casualties in the future, and what happens then? What more can they do to be seen to be making the race completely safe when it simply isn’t possible to do that?
That is what concerns me, because Aintree and the authorities have backed the sport into a corner, allowing a narrative to be peddled that racing can be suitably modified. This is the slippery slope we are on. And don’t forget, the changes that were made this year came about almost as a direct result of the changes across the previous 20 years. Proactively luring a better quality of horse, lowering fence heights, levelling drops and transforming the fences into obstacles that can be brushed through equated to more speed and less of an incentive to spread across the track. It’s unravelling before our very eyes, but too many choose to ignore it.
One indisputable upshot is the Grand National is now, as was spectacularly demonstrated by Saturday’s result, increasingly at the behest of the superpowers. A smaller field will ensure that much, and the reduced element of peril will redouble it.
Moreover, many of those who have been vociferously condemning the stranglehold that Willie Mullins has on Cheltenham were the same cheerleaders celebrating Saturday’s Grand National as some kind of promised land for the sport. You wonder which hymnsheet they will be singing from when the Closutton maestro is responsible for the first five home in the race next year.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.