- This topic has 100 replies, 44 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What really annoys me is so-called animal welfare hypocrites who only come out once a year to have a go at NH racing and the Grand National without taking the time or effort to familiarise themselves with the facts and statistics of the sport. I swear some of them think this is the only race in which horses die. They are the same people who take offence at eating horses. But if they are not to be raced, and not to be eaten, what are we supposed to do with all those horses? Ridiculous and poorly though out arguments are de rigeur in the field of the animal rights bunch.
Apologies for mini rant, just been reading comments on articles about the race in national newspapers. Probably a bad idea!
I concur, it happens every year for 362 days of the year they couldn’t care less about NH horse racing, but once Aintree comes around everyone has an opinion on the GN course. I heard one of the animal aid reps claiming horses are ‘whipped to death’ and that horses are ‘forced to race when they don’t want to’. I’ve ridden horses, and trust me if a horse doesn’t want to run he will not move, it’s very simple. It’s funny, this time next week all the people who are outraged about this won’t even care.
Limp-wristed? Lily livered? Come on, you’ve got to have insults more clever than that.
Why are the BHA & Aintree so weak? The whole issue has been allowed to get totally out of hand by them.
They should tell the critics, many who don’t know what they’re talking about to come back when they’ve done some proper research.
How much concern did anyone show about the horses that ended up in beefburgers here?
What really annoys me is that anybody who dares question the race is branded as being anti-racing or some sort of tree hugger or animal rights activist.
There is a significant number of people involved in the sport who do have genuine concerns about the National and the National course.
Those with genuine concerns have produced evidence to highlight the increased risks but they tend to be summarily dismissed by those who blindly support the race.
Having concerns about the National and the National course does nor correlate with calling for an abolition of NH racing or racing in general.
To bracket all with concerns as with the extremists does little to promote healthy debate.
What really annoys me is that anybody who dares question the race is branded as being anti-racing or some sort of tree hugger or animal rights activist.
There is a significant number of people involved in the sport who do have genuine concerns about the National and the National course.
Those with genuine concerns have produced evidence to highlight the increased risks but they tend to be summarily dismissed by those who blindly support the race.
Having concerns about the National and the National course does nor correlate with calling for an abolition of NH racing or racing in general.
To bracket all with concerns as with the extremists does little to promote healthy debate.
Very well said.
Those who make accusations of lily-livered and all the other tripe against EVERYONE who has any negative opinion on the race are just as wrong as those who campaign that all racing is cruel.
My own opinion is that the national and its fences are unnecessarily difficult and I really don’t like the spectacle of so many horses falling and being injured. So I would prefer the fences completely changed and just cosmetic dressing applied. I believe the vast majority of once-a-year race watchers really don’t know or care much about the exact nature of the fences or the race. They are far more likely to care about animal cruelty stores is the press. I also fear this one race will encourage mounting criticism of all NH racing.
Cars are dangerous but it’s not reasonable to ban driving them. Instead we wear seatbelts and have speed limits. It’s all about balance.
What really annoys me is that anybody who dares question the race is branded as being anti-racing or some sort of tree hugger or animal rights activist.
There is a significant number of people involved in the sport who do have genuine concerns about the National and the National course.
Those with genuine concerns have produced evidence to highlight the increased risks but they tend to be summarily dismissed by those who blindly support the race.
Having concerns about the National and the National course does nor correlate with calling for an abolition of NH racing or racing in general.
To bracket all with concerns as with the extremists does little to promote healthy debate.
Agree with every single word.
Given any subject regardless of points of view and whatever angle people come from, there is always a process of emotional attachment that comes with the opinion formed (in this case the National) a perspective once formed is incredibly hard to let go of, much easier to form a pseudo-debate selecting words that in reality serve only to re-enforce ones point of view.
Brian Clough was once asked how he dealt with a player he had an issue with, he replied something along these lines-
I’ll sit down with the player and we’ll have a chat and then we both decide that I’m right.
– Clough was being extremely honest regardless of any rights or wrongs of a particular situation.
Where would we be without the self-appointed guardians? The superior beings! So superior they can’t even be honest with themselves that a point of view is fixed like concrete (that stands for every side of the debate) only they dress up like Wolves in sheep’s clothing under the cheap pretence of “a debate”
And as for extremism, if one honestly believes extremism comes solely packaged in overt direct action that can be nicely stamped by political leaders and the media, well how to put it politely, a simplistic view.
People could choose to vote with their feet and not attend or watch a sport but there again how could they? Holding as they do (in their mind) the high moral ground.
Given any subject regardless of points of view and whatever angle people come from, there is always a process of emotional attachment that comes with the opinion formed (in this case the National) a perspective once formed is incredibly hard to let go of, much easier to form a pseudo-debate selecting words that in reality serve only to re-enforce ones point of view.
Brian Clough was once asked how he dealt with a player he had an issue with, he replied something along these lines-
I’ll sit down with the player and we’ll have a chat and then we both decide that I’m right.
– Clough was being extremely honest regardless of any rights or wrongs of a particular situation.
Where would we be without the self-appointed guardians? The superior beings! So superior they can’t even be honest with themselves that a point of view is fixed like concrete (that stands for every side of the debate) only they dress up like Wolves in sheep’s clothing under the cheap pretence of “a debate”
And as for extremism, if one honestly believes extremism comes solely packaged in overt direct action that can be nicely stamped by political leaders and the media, well how to put it politely, a simplistic view.
People could choose to vote with their feet and not attend or watch a sport but there again how could they? Holding as they do (in their mind) the high moral ground.
Eh?
Mike
Great post Paul.
Racing is an ultra-conservative sport and you only have to listen to ATR’s Matt Chapman and Sean Boyce to understand that there is a real resistance, even among the knowledgable and bright, to any changes that somehow alter people’s perception of what, to their mind, racing
should
be about.
People talk about ‘the challenge’ as a sort of Corinthian ideal that should somehow be striven for and whose absence somehow diminishes racing. As if an element of mortal danger is required to somehow make it an exciting spectacle for the observer.
Sorry for bringing the ‘W’ subject up again but remember the outcry when a reduction in allowable whip strokes was introduced? Racing was going to be altered beyond recognition if you listened to the nay-sayers. Never going to be the same again, people would switch off from teh sport in droves. Remember that argument? What happened? Racing is at least as exciting as ever and the unattractive sight of horses coming back marked with whip weals has, thankfully, almost been eradicated from the sport.
I bring this old chestnut up to illustrate that it IS possible to make the sport safer, for horses and jockeys, by altering some of what might be perceived as fundamental aspects of the game.
The Grand National is a great spectacle. And yesterday showed that it can still be a great spectacle while at the same time offering a level of fairness to the equine particpants, who we ask to venture out there boldly and blindly on our behalf (and who usually respond by so-doing).
So long as they are jumping obstacles there will always be risk with the race, as with any race, but it appears that the modifications to the course and, particularly, the fences offer a much fairer test for the horse. Far fewer unseen and unanticipated (on the horse’s part) traps for them to contend with. There should be NO traps. Tests, yes, but not traps.
However, this was only one running of the race and I’d suggest that it’s too early to draw any firm conclusions, let’s see a few renewals before make a final judgement.
(It was also good to see them get off to a fair start first time – after the shennanigans on Thursday and Friday I’d say that this aspect is definitely one where more work is required, regardless of the successful National start which, I think, reflected more positively on the jockeys than it did on the procedures in use at the start).
I am really glad they did significant work on Bechers. I used to wince every time the horses went over and most of them would go right down on their noses and for some their front end would completely crumple on landing.
Decreasing the adverse (uphill) gradient on landing was very important. For Three day eventing I am fairly sure the course designing rules stipulate that all drop fences must have a gentle downhill slope on landing because landing off drop fences on to uphill or even flat ground is more harmful to the horses and more likely to result in front leg injuries.
I agree with those who wanted something done to reduce the number of fallers. It is such a shame that Little Josh had to pay the price on Friday, he was a real favourite of mine.
I agree with all Paul & Corm have said.
I really, really liked the ‘look’ of the race yesterday. It felt safe, improved and modern. It is highly likely that there will be a fatality again at some point in the future – hopefully not for many years to come but who knows? – and Aintree and racing will have to respond again. The application of sensible safety regulations must continue to be an ongoing process.
However, the RSPCA’s glowing response to yesterday will count. Jump racing is in a battle for the hearts and minds of the general public (the ‘antis’ don’t really count as they will always be against racing whatever happens) and yesterday’s race will have helped.
Mike
I agree with all Paul & Corm have said.
I really, really liked the ‘look’ of the race yesterday. It felt safe, improved and modern. It is highly likely that there will be a fatality again at some point in the future – hopefully not for many years to come but who knows? – and Aintree and racing will have to respond again. The application of sensible safety regulations must continue to be an ongoing process.
However, the RSPCA’s glowing response to yesterday will count. Jump racing is in a battle for the hearts and minds of the general public (the ‘antis’ don’t really count as they will always be against racing whatever happens) and yesterday’s race will have helped.
Mike
At the risk of turning this into a mutual admiration society, I wholeheartedly agree with you Mike.
Although I only saw replays, it is the first time in ages I actually enjoyed watching the race
In case anyone is bored this Sunday and looking for something to do, here is a recording of last year’s Velka Pardubicka which makes an interesting comparison to the National.
I did not count a single horse fall in that running of the Pardubicka, though perhaps this has something to do with the slower pace of the race, the cross country style fences which require a more accurate jumper and the forgiving nature of the completely natural hedges.
I breathed a huge sigh of relief after yesterday’s Grand National, like most on here I reckon. But, as has been said earlier, it’s too soon to say "job done" and next year might not be so injury free.
I don’t know if Charles Moore ( political columnist not a racing authority) has cast-iron statistics to back up his comment, but he stated that, in the last 10years of the race(excluding yesterday’s ) there were as many horse fatalities as there were in the first 50 years of the last century. The author was suggesting that, rather than making jumping fences safer by lowering them, you actually increase the risk of injury as it encourages riders to take them at a higher speed. There is some sort of logic behind that, but I repeat, I can’t vouch for the verity of his statistics.
Re,. Paul’s earlier excellent comment that not all who have concerns over the safety of the National are tree-hugging, animal-rights activists etc. I agree with him; however the "media" – especially the BBC – seem to delight in seeking and airing the opinions of those nearer the animal-rights end of the debate. (Is it true that the current top-dog of the RSPCA has an agenda to get steeplechasing banned if he possibly can?) It is time that the Horse Racing Industry stopped being over-apologetic milquetoasts to those who hold such views and went on the offensive and vigoursly defended the sport and the inherent kindness of those who participate in it. Oh for the sound of a racing spokeseperson telling its fiercest critics to come back to racing after they’ve sorted out methods of slaughter in abattoirs etc. Making such a point does not mean one condones abuse of horses (by excessive use of the whip for instance) or deliberately making fences hazardous, but it might just concentrate the minds of those who might join the anti-racing bandwagon that there are greater animal welfare issues to be addressed if that’s the hobby-horse they wish to ride.
Those who wanted changes are certainly not tree-huggers.
It’s only one National, but is very encouraging.
Even more so with itstill
being a jumping test despite only two "fallers". Second and third, Cappa Bleu and Teaforthree two exceptional jumpers. You still need to jump well to win the National, even Auroras Encore jumped well other than a couple of minor errors. Didn’t see many errors from 4th and 5th Oscar Time and Rare Bob either. Horses making mistakes taking energy out of themselves and eventually pulled up/further back in the field – instead of an immediate fall.
A provisional well done to the BHA, Aintree, jockeys and Mr Muir of RSPCA (not chief exec Mr Grant).
I had no idea they’d go so far (particularly in levelling off the drop at Beechers) but if this becomes typical… I now have changed my mind and feel a reduction in number of runners may (emphasise "may")not be neccessary.
I do wonder if the noises about jockeys taking it easy to the first will be listened to another year. Three of the first four up there throughout. Cappa Bleu doing well in the circumstances.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.