- This topic has 143 replies, 67 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Not strictly true but you can certainly say that the chance of an horse losing its life or being finished as a racehorse after the race is much greater than the chance of winning.
i trust that all those that want the national stopped also will support the end to the dubai world cup meeting as 3 horses died there this year?
flat people deteste jump racing and the fact jumping is far more popular than the flat and never miss the chance to stick the knife in like now!
by suggesting the race is cruel is to say that all national hunt people are cruel for participating in it,how daft is that?
its time for the bha and aintree to find some backbone and stand up against all you liberals and defend the race by making the fences bigger and not smaller as pre 1990 we didnt have this problem and if you dont like it clear off to your beloved all weather tripe instead.
grand national day was a sell out again this year and i bet so will next year,and i will proudly be one of them.I have said in the past if the race was scrapped I wouldn’t miss it but it would seem not even the RSPCA want to see it end, just sort out the things that are causing these accidents.
According To Pete was desperately unlucky to be brought down. The leading group had to squeeze round the previous fence which caused them to bunch.
As a result they were jockeying to get into a good position to jump the next. Hatty Haynes actually spotted the danger and took his mount back a stride to get a clear look at the fence but the leaders were all going left as they approached the fence and he ended up directly behind On His Own.
On His Own seemed to be put off by the lose horse and he came down and According To Pete ran straight into him.
That was unfortunate as the chance of Harry being in a position to be brought down had they not had to go round the previous fence would have been about zero.
There’s not a lot can be done to prevent that sort of thing but it’s those who are brought down when there are 30 odd horses in front of them that can perhaps be presented by reducing numbers.
So maybe reducing the number of runners could go along way to helping.
Should we allow amateurs to ride in the worlds most dangerous race?
I’m happy to allow amateurs to ride but like the horses they should have to qualify. If they lack the experience no way should they be allowed to enter.
Not much else I can think of. I certainly wouldn’t modify the fences at this trip. The easier the fences the quicker they will go and the quicker they will become tired and a danger to others.
I would go for modify because I can’t see them scrapping the race so a vote to ban it is a wasted vote IMO
One concern that immediately sprung to my mind when last year’s renewal prompted calls for a reduction in the number of runners, and is therefore no less relevant in light of yesterday’s events, is the potential effect that could have on the way horses are campaigned prior to the race hereafter.
Or perhaps more accurately, how they are not campaigned hereafter.
If a place in the line-up come raceday subsequently becomes dependent on your horse holding one of, for argument’s sake, the 25 or 30 highest Official Ratings of those who’ve stood their ground, then the imperative to maintain and defend a high rating, once obtained, by whatever means necessary becomes all the stronger.
A preparatory campaign over hurdles or in Points beforehand didn’t do a number of recent entries (and at least one winner, if memory serves) too much of a disservice, but it cannot help but provide fodder for the cannon if an animal so campaigned meets with fatal mishap.
Remember that the thrust of Animal Aid et al’s murdering of connections over the 2008 demise of McKelvey (already a very high-profile entry that year due to his endorsement by TV’s
The One Show
) was predicated on the belief that a prep season of two runs over hurdles was lethally inadequate, whatever the actual truth of the matter.
What would worry me far more than an increase in the number of horses prepped this way, however, would be an upturn in the number of horses making their season debuts in the National, all in the sake of holding on to a sufficiently high OR.
Granted, the achievements of Mely Moss in 2000 and State Of Play last year may lend some credibility to such a method of keeping a horse’s proverbial powder dry, and I imagine there would be little evidence to suggest historically that seasonal debutants are at any greater risk of meeting with a tragic end than their more industriously campaigned contemporaries. At no point in the race’s modern history, however, has that model of campaigning been accepted as, if not the norm, then as something actively pursued in great volume.
Arbor Supreme was horse number 25 in the line-up yesterday, and raced off 144, Becauseicouldntsee number 30 off 140. Would the Grand National’s interests really be any better served as effectively a 140-plus limited handicap containing increasing numbers of seasonal debutants possessing ostensibly high-enough but potentially superannuated marks?
gc
PS Runandskip – I am a Liberal and a Grand National fan. One doesn’t necessary preclude the other.
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
Reduce the field. All other modifications are ineffective – both horses fatally injured yesterday were experienced horses.
Most fatalities come as a result of horses falling or being hampered on the first circuit when the field is larger and more compact.
32 runners and handicap the race properly.
Should we allow amateurs to ride in the worlds most dangerous race?
I’m happy to allow amateurs to ride but like the horses they should have to qualify. If they lack the experience no way should they be allowed to enter.
Amateur rider eligibility is already much tighter than ever it was – never will the likes of the genuinely dangerous David Pitcher ever sully the race again – and there is nothing to suggest that what amateurs have contested the race in the most recent past have compromised the safety of themselves, their charges or others.
Far from it – for the second season running an amateur has hit the frame, and Nina Carberry’s elimination from the race at the Canal Turn (her first ever failure to complete) was not of her own making. Were "K" for "knocked off" actually included in formlines (it is actually as entitled to appear as "F" for "fall", "P" for "pulled up", etc., but for whatever reason virtually never gets used), Organisedconfusion might well have been accorded it.
A number of the RSPCA’s press releases following last year’s review failed to discern between "amateur" and "inexperienced" riders, the organisation glibly stating in the list of successful changes is has been able to broker in the race’s recent hstory that "amateur riders are no longer allowed to permit". It’s important we make the distinction, even if Mr Muir et al cannot or will not.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
sharkenergy; they are really valid points that you have made. And what Hurdygurdyman wrote about the possibility of the bunching effect contributing to the loss of According to Pete compounded a thought I had myself when watching the race. I’m very angry with The Racing Post today for showing a [albeit small] photo of Pete being brought down. Out of respect for the horse and his connections that shouldn’t have been printed. I’m going to change my vote to ‘continue but amend’, although I fear that every change brings new unforseen dangers. It’s sad that this has detracted from what has been one of the great weight carrying performances of recent years, and that the cathartic effect of Neptune Collonge’s win will have been overshadowed by the pain felt by other people, as the Hales’ more than anyone will know the pain they are feeling. I must point out that another forum I frequent has likened the race to being on a parr with bullfighting, and nothing I say can convince them that racing folk care about the horses. It’s with a heavy heart that I write this, the saddest I have felt since One Man lost his life.
A horse could injure itself badly running in a field and have to be put down.
Does that mean we should keep them locked up and not let them free?
Many people are killed in car crashes.
Does that mean I should never get in a car again?
Millions of people love playing football, yesterday a italian footballer sadly died on the pitch. Should we not play football anymore?
People have their heads buried in the sand over this, racehorses are bred to race theirs risk of a chance of a horse getting injured in any race does that mean we shouldnt race them? Is it only at Aintree where horses die? No they die on the flat, over hurdles, over jumps on other courses aswell so if the national was to go due to these sad deaths that no one wants to see then surely all racing should be put a stop to shouldnt it? The risk will always be there.
I don’t see why it’s getting highlighted so much this year. There were the same ammount of fatalities last year, but good old AP won the national so no big deal was made about it. One of the fatalities was a gold cup winner who was acting up before the race, maybe they could have pulled him out. I didn’t cast a vote, as i haven’t seen a horse in that state before. If i did i’d probably want the race modified at least.
Um. You seem have missed a year. AP won it two years ago. Last year Ballabriggs won, two horses were killed and there was dehydration problem at the end of the race and a misuse of the whip issue. There was a huge outcry about the whole thing.
It seems to me that the ones burying their heads in the sand are those who don’t/won’t recognise that the National has a greater attrition rate than jump racing in general and that it is the most visible race on the calendar. To put it baldly, this year and last year 5% of the runners died in the course of the race. This year 50% of the runners have F, BD or UR against their names. If you want to carry on watching carnage, that’s up to you. I don’t.
My mistake tete. It just seems as if the massive build up is about who will win the race, to then be matched by stories about any fatality. I don’t have a strong opinion, but if enough people want changes then perhaps a compromise could be made with regards to the fences. Some of the more legendary fences seem to be quite dangerous. They have a sort of Jessie James glorificationn about them..
And what Hurdygurdyman wrote about the possibility of the bunching effect contributing to the loss of According to Pete compounded a thought I had myself when watching the race.
…Although here, too, we need to be careful. Another watch of the race a few minutes ago suggests According To Pete’s demise arguably had less to do with what was either side of him (and he was flanked by another runner on only one side), and instead more with what lay in front, i.e. a prone On His Own who must have been around three lengths ahead when hitting the deck.
According To Pete had relatively little place to go, but it’s stretching matters to say he’d been sandwiched, blindsided, broadsided or anything comparable. The absence of "hampered" from his
Post
comments in running is quite deliberate.
The bunching effect of the diversion round fence 21 (about which, incidentally, I don’t know if commentators on either the BBC and RUK suitably assuaged equine welfare concerns – did either say that screens were up around a stricken jockey?) has been overplayed a touch, I feel, as there’s a goodly run down to Bechers from that point and the remaining animals did fan across the course in time up to a reasonable point.
It’s the winner Neptune Collonges who is both furthest over to the inner rail approaching the fence (maybe seven or eight horse widths from it) and also, ironically, the horse that hemmed in According To Pete.
Note also how many horses were left in the race jumping second Bechers – just 18 (the 15 to finish, plus According To Pete, On His Own and fence 27 faller Weird Al – this was a race utterly bereft of the frequent litter of "tailed off when pulled up 4 out" sort of DNFs). Only three loose horses were still keeping up with the main body of the field at that particular moment, too, of which two were behind the casualties at this fence.
On that evidence, it’s simply not true to suggest that the National field were piled up on top of each other when According To Pete was eliminated, and that his demise was especially inevitable. Funnelling 25 Topham runners (excluding the already-departed Matuhi) and all 26 Fox Hunters’ starters safely over the Chair constituted more of a watch-through-cracks-in-fingers sort of test, which mercifully all concerned passed with aplomb.
Any further modifications to Bechers arising from yesterday’s renewal will have been predicated on the most tenuous of evidence. Synchronised’s white face makes him easy to spot as a loose horse after his exit at first Bechers, and he can be seen mostly jumping alright until he approaches fence 10, which he takes sideways, and worst still The Booth (the big ditch which is fence 11), which he absolutely smashes his way through before staggering to the other side.
Although he does reappear in shot about 20-30 seconds later crossing the Anchor Bridge Road, he is even further remote by that stage and the stride is shorter than it was. Whether the effects of his blunders catch up with him shortly after that, or he breaks down independently, I’ve no idea, and the RUK cameras are understandibly trained on other action way ahead thereafter. Either way, there’s nothing I’ve seen yet that would suggest the fall at Bechers directly caused his demise in and of itself.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
I sometimes feel that the race is becoming a sort of gruesome self fulfilling prophecy fuelled by the news media’s constant desire for ‘bad’ news. And it anthropomorphises horses more than any other equine event. I dread the pre race tour round the saddling boxes, because every time a trainer or owner says how much they want their horse to come home safe the opposite seems to happen. It started with the The Hungry Hur [sp] years ago. Always the voice of reason, gc.
I dread the pre race tour round the saddling boxes, because every time a trainer or owner says how much they want their horse to come home safe the opposite seems to happen.
And isn’t that the biggest kick in the guts regarding According To Pete, Moe. The interview Peter Nelson gave on Five Live Sport as I was driving down to Ystradowen yesterday, barely three hours before racetime, was unequivocal in confirming that all this quiet, humble septuagenarian newsagent wanted was for his pride and joy to come home in one piece, and all else would rate a bonus. He didn’t even get that.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
Check out the photos of Becher’s here –
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/horse-rac … sic-794274
Has anyone got the email address for Mirror sports desk? They are reporting incorrectly on their articles. Photo of According to Pete with his leg at a horrible angle and something like "Ill fated According to Pete brings down On His Own after falling at Becher’s"
Photo of the screens up for Noel Fehily annotated with "Synchronised receives treatment as runners avoid fence"
Now I have had more time to reflect, I think we need to SLOWLY think carefully about the changes to make. Less runners seems the only one with some merit to be honest (despite Synchronised and According to Pete’s falls not related to big crowds of runners). The starting procedure needs a massive overhaul. The collection of loose horses needs investigation. The drop fences can remain as far as I’m concerned as they were responsible for a grand total of 0 deaths this year.
In amongst all the poor reporting on the Mirror site I have found a better article
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/horse-rac … isk-796073
Also Claire Balding is tweeting that she wants to see the number of runners reduce, listing the number of runners in the year 94-99 and 75-80 as being between 28-35. Well off the top of my head I can remember 3 dying in 98, 1 in 99, 2 in 97, 1 in 95. 2 in 77, 1 in 80, 2 in 79. What’s her point there? Strange.
Becher’s as it is now –
http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz321/cormack15a/Aintree13thApril261.jpg
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.