- This topic has 65 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
An interesting discussion. However, I think the very fact that we’re having this discussion about whether a particular horse should be allowed to compete in this particular race and, whether he is at risk of death because of the dangers associated with it speaks volumes about the race itself.
I think your theory would make sense IF it weren’t for the fact that a horse is in the absolute prime of his competitive life from age 8 to age 16. The reason some older racehorses "slow down" is that most of them were started early, ran hard, and the wear and tear on their legs, even without any obvious injuries, takes its toll. With but 42 starts under rules Hello Bud is far from a "warhorse", so I would not expect him to instantly become slower with every change of the calendar year.
I think your theory would make sense IF it weren’t for the fact that a horse is in the absolute prime of his competitive life from age 8 to age 16. The reason some older racehorses "slow down" is that most of them were started early, ran hard, and the wear and tear on their legs, even without any obvious injuries, takes its toll. With but 42 starts under rules Hello Bud is far from a "warhorse", so I would not expect him to instantly become slower with every change of the calendar year.
We are talking about Thoroughbreds though, as this passage from Wikipedia about Thoroughbreds will show the problem with racehorses training on.
Thoroughbreds also tend to have smaller hooves relative to their body mass than other breeds, with thin soles and walls and a lack of cartilage mass.
This maybe why not may race at 15 & 16.
Hello Bud is not the average thoroughbred racehorse. Most thoroughbreds have reached their peak by 9 and on the decline by 11. Hello Bud was still improving at 11 and hadn’t had much racing earlier in life. Therefore, it’s quite reasonable to think he can continue to run with distinction for at least the end of this season.
Value Is Everythinghe wont win because he dosnt stay
Ohhhhhhhhh yes he does!
It’s just he doesn’t find anything off the bridle at any distance, which is why it sometimes looks as if he doesn’t stay.ginger dont get me wrong if the national wsa run at anything up to 4 miles i would back him and you would probably be certain he would be in the money i just think the last half a mile he dosnt quite see it out he has been up there before with 2 jumps to go going aswell as any and then just gets outstayed imo
Not sure you see my point TJ,
Take a look at Hello Bud’s runs in any race, tends to run as if "doesn’t quite see out the trip" at any distance. Even when winning the Scottish National I seem to remember thinking he’s going to win easily, only for the second to make up a deal of ground in the closing stages. Again on Saturday, travelling far better than any around him (bar the poorest of finishers Big fella Thanks) at the last; but didn’t have a great deal in hand at the line… And that was only 3m2f. I don’t think it’s a matter of not staying the Grand National distance. Noise of the crowd may have something to do with it.Value Is EverythingJust for the record, the oldest runner ever in the national was 16 and it was Manifesto in 1904, he carried 12 stone and 1 pound.
He been running in the national since 1895 and had 2 wins, 3 thirds, 1 fourth, 1 fall and on this run was unplaced. He has the highest winning weight 12 stone 7 pounds too.
An interesting discussion. However, I think the very fact that we’re having this discussion about whether a particular horse should be allowed to compete in this particular race and, whether he is at risk of death because of the dangers associated with it speaks volumes about the race itself.
Spot on
If Hello Bud were entered for any other staying chase it seems very unlikely there would be a call for him not to be because there’s a chance he could die or be seriously imjured
Risk and danger: words dedicated almost by default to the National but no other races; not only by those ‘who don’t understand’ on the outside but by racing’s insiders too, some of whom seem to relish the fact
In my opinion if you feel the need to question the wisdom of allowing a horse to participate in the Grand National on the sole – and rather dubious – premise of (middle) age then you should question the wisdom of allowing any horse to run in this rather strange, atypical and ‘dirty shop-window’ of a race
If members of the racing fraternity ‘who understand the Grand National’ feel the coldening of feet when "one of my favourite horses" is entered then surely it’s time to abolish the race as all the other horses are, as individuals, someone else’s favourite horse…regardless of age
If the National were just another race the participation of Hello Bud, or any other which meets qualification levels wouldn’t trouble me.
I take all the points about his fitness, experience etc, the point I haven’t managed to get across is that it’s not the risk to the horse that we should be worried about, it’s the risk to the race.
Perception is all when an inexperienced/uneducated public observe a big event. Their impressions are formed by headlines and pictures. They won’t take the time to read the pleas of experienced racing folk should anything serious happen to Hello Bud.
On the run-up to the race the Animal Rights people will make HB the focus, portraying him as a victim being forced into a race that has seen x number of deaths etc etc: "His greedy trainer with the double-barrel name isn’t happy with winning two Nationals, he is subjecting this pension-age horse to a gruelling ordeal which has claimed the lives of blah blah blah"
With that sort of build-up, I will leave you to imagine the headlines should Hello Bud be badly injured or killed.
I’m not trying to protect Hello Bud, or any other horse – I’m concerned about the future of the Grand National. And, yes, the fact that an increasing number of the race’s fans get more worried each year is a bad sign in itself. But it also reinforces the need to minimise as many risks as possible to try and ensure the public and the media do not finally euthanise the race itself.
SC
I would re-iterate my original post, the past 15 year history shows a greater risk to younger horses than it does to older horses.
Would animal aid listen to those stats? No of course not they will just use it to try and stop under 10s running.
If it wasn’t Hello Bud it would be something different, these groups will use anything they can get their momentum behind.
Animal Aid just want racing banned out right, pandering to them and giving them attention will do no good. If Hello Bud was banned, next year it would be something else they will put pressure on, something else the year after that.
Racing should stand firm on this.
An interesting discussion. However, I think the very fact that we’re having this discussion about whether a particular horse should be allowed to compete in this particular race and, whether he is at risk of death because of the dangers associated with it speaks volumes about the race itself.
Spot on
If Hello Bud were entered for any other staying chase it seems very unlikely there would be a call for him not to be because there’s a chance he could die or be seriously imjured
Risk and danger: words dedicated almost by default to the National but no other races; not only by those ‘who don’t understand’ on the outside but by racing’s insiders too, some of whom seem to relish the fact
In my opinion if you feel the need to question the wisdom of allowing a horse to participate in the Grand National on the sole – and rather dubious – premise of (middle) age then you should question the wisdom of allowing any horse to run in this rather strange, atypical and ‘dirty shop-window’ of a race
If members of the racing fraternity ‘who understand the Grand National’ feel the coldening of feet when "one of my favourite horses" is entered then surely it’s time to abolish the race as all the other horses are, as individuals, someone else’s favourite horse…regardless of age
Absolute cobblers, just who are all these members of racing’s fraternity who have been discussing this "issue"? I must have missed it.
You’re not seriously suggesting it comprises of steeplechasing and one or two others on here are you?
All recent evidence points to steeplechasing having completely lost the plot with regards both the Grand National and the whip and that he would be far more at home as a member of the RSPCA or even Animal Aid.I don’t think that’s fair EC, Joe is a racing enthusiast who just wants what he sees as the best for "racing". ie If the 15 year old Hello Bud dies from a fall in the Grand National, it’ll add to the calls for the National to be banned; with connections seemingly forcing an old nag to his death. Joe and some other racing enthusiasts think racing would be better off by stopping that possibility from happening. You and I might not see it that way, but some people do. Paul Ostermeyer is a racing journalist, loves his racing, but (if I’ve got his views right) he believes the National has had its day. So there are some with racing’s interests at heart, who would like to take it even further than Joe, and stop the National completely. All valid opinions.
Joe,
Surely if Hello Bud were to be banned – it reinforces animal rights groups (wrong) belief that running a 15 year old is cruel? And more importantly confirms it (wrongly) to the general public. A horse who is THE BEST jumper taking part and The LEAST likely to come to harm is banned.We should certainly try to make the race safer without losing the spectacle. I am in favour of replacing the wooden cores of the fences with plastic, getting rid of drop fences, more watering, moving the start and reducing numbers of runners… All of which WOULD make the race SAFER (imo)…
However, your suggestion of banning Hello Bud is just pandering to animal rights groups. It in FACT, makes the race MORE dangerous, because the horse may well be replaced by one who doesnt JUMP, doesn’t STAY and doesnt have EXPERIENCE of the track! Surely you are NOT IN FAVOUR of making the race MORE DANGEROUS in the guise of making it "SAFER"?
It should be what
actually
makes the race
less dangerous
that counts, not what might
LOOK
less dangerous.
Value Is EverythingGingertipster,
Paul Ostermeyer’s opinion and anyone who agrees with him regards the Grand National has a perfectly valid one although of course I don’t agree with it, steeeplechasing’s regards Hello Bud is not a valid one.
I’m amazed you should question me saying that steeplechasing has completely lost the plot regards the National seeing you more or less say the same in your second last paragraph
You’ve only got to read steeplechasings piece about Red Rum to realise how much he cares about the National and it’s future, and for that reason I think anything he says about the race should be given careful consideration, and comments such as ‘losing the plot’ are unfair.
Why any possible injury, fatal or otherwise, to Hello Bud could threaten the future of the Grand National itself is beyond me.
Accidents, injuries and fatalities happen in all sorts of races and in freak accidents on gallops and elsewhere.
Why we need to keep acting as though the whole future of the National is at risk, despite burgeoning attendances at Aintree and continuing high levels of interest among the public, I do not know.
Who’s to say there will be any fatalities at the National next year or the year after?
I do wish people would stop pandering to the bleeding hearts, the lily-livered do-gooders, those who don’t like the race in the first place and the animal rights brigade.
There’s been virtually nothing in the public domain about huge outpourings of worry from the public about fatalities.
Once the initial knee-jerk reactions ebb away in the days and weeks after the big race, nobody spends all their time worrying about animal welfare issues in the National.
If Hello Bud comes to grief, tragic though that would be, it won’t have one iota of an effect on the future of the National itself.
There’s absolutely no reason to elevate the possibility of disaster striking Hello Bud to it having a fatal blow for the future of the race itself.
I get your point of view, and after watching channel 4 last week after the Becher’s they too mentioned he [Hello Bud] might be too old. Just for argument sake, what upper age limit would you place on the national?Ginger and Moehat, thanks for speaking in my defence regarding some posts about me being an Animal Aid supporter or wanting to join the RSPCA and get the race banned.
I find such accusations offensive at best and abusive at worst so I don’t respond direct to them.
Ginger, I don’t think the race will be safer without Hello Bud and you could be right, it might be more dangerous if a lesser jumper replaces him. I’d love to see him run again in the National – it’s a great sight watching him lead the pack.
But I’m not making a case for what I want, I’m making a case for what I think is best for the image, and thus long-term survival, of the race. It doesn’t matter what I want.
And no it’s not pandering to Animal Rights groups, it’s the opposite, it’s denying them ‘the oxygen of publicity’. If you are at war with someone, you don’t send them free weapons in advance.
Animal Aid and their ilk have nothing whatsoever to lose in building a campaign around Hello Bud from the day he is entered. If he runs and survives, few will remember their campaign. If he’s injured or killed, it will give Animal Aid massive credence, exposure and legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
"We tried from the start to save the poor old horse but racing is too arrogant/cruel and uncaring to listen. How long will the man in the street support this dreadful ordeal where animals who should be enjoying well-earned retirement are whipped around a deadly course for so-called enjoyment? Which company even considering sponsorship of the Grand National could look at its customers and shareholders without shame? Etc Etc"
Racing has everything to lose and zero to gain. Animal Aid the opposite. However unlikely the worst outcome is, they should simply not be given the chance to exploit it.
Joe
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.