- This topic has 78 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Aintree’s MD, Julian Thick had little choice but to put some Mandelson-class spin on the 20% drop in entries for the 2012 John Smith’s Grand National. It’s rare for fewer than the maximum of 40 to line up at the tape for “The World’s Greatest Race” and the interest generated by that cavalry charge towards the first should not be underestimated. You needn’t be an experienced punter to know that 20 tons of thoroughbred galloping at 30+ MPH on 160 legs makes for a dramatic and potentially profitable spectacle when challenged by 30 unique fences and four and a half miles.
The last time there was such a small initial entry – 1996- only 27 horses faced the starter – there were 17 finishers led by Rough Quest.
Rough Quest’s owner Andrew Wates won £142,000 from total prize money of £230,000. The 2012 prize money fund for the race is £975,000. This year’s winning owner is likely to be richer by £550,000 or more. So prize money fuels the case for as many owners as possible wishing to run – it could be that the max of 40 is reached again. (Long Run, 2011 winner of the most prestigious prize in steeplechasing, the Cheltenham Gold Cup, earned his owner £285,000).
Natural fallout through the general setbacks affecting National horses between entry and raceday will play their part; it remains to be seen how significant that wastage will be and on that figure the Aintree exec will try and build future plans. One significant obstacle they face is their tendency to try and tweak the safety aspect after each running of the race – a laudable policy but one which tends to ‘raise the bar’ each time for potential future entries.
The quality of entrants is increasing. The cost of running on the day (£900 to enter then opting to remain in through various entry stages) is now £4,600.
The handicapper for the Grand National has a policy of trying to attract quality horses, an approach he justifies by arguing that it is such a special test. That means that the better horses are favourably treated and carry less weight than they would in a normal steeplechase run under the same conditions on a different track. The fruit of this preferential seed-sowing seems to be blooming: no winner in the past three years has carried under 11 stones – the last time that three-in-a-row weight stat happened was in the mid 1950s.
No minimum OR has been taken into consideration in well over 90% of past GNs. But now the minimum rating to qualify for entry is 120 – up from 110 last year. For the first time in the history of the race (first run in 1839) horses below the age of 7 do not qualify to run and, horses must have been placed 4th or better in a ‘chase over 3 miles of further.
These criteria automatically rule out many potential entrants. The cost of running is a further drawback, especially as the risk-reward ratio diminishes with each highly rated horse that wins.
Aintree’s exec will now need to sweat it out. If significantly fewer than 40 go to post and, critically, if the winner carries 11 stones or more, the powers that be will know that some back-pedalling on race conditions is essential. Given safety concerns and the changes made in pursuit of these, there might be no way back.
For many years Aintree has wanted a high-class race, a contest for the elite. The message from 2012 could easily spin out as . . . “Be careful what you wish for”
Probably the first tangible evidence of what happens when eight housewives, the phonehackers and a few animal loons are allowed to dictate.
Or you could argue, that as much of a spectacle that the Grand National has provided, it is archaic and totally unsuitable for the horses that run in the race based on the what their breeders had hoped for when arranging their parent’s mating.
Or you could argue, that as much of a spectacle that the Grand National has provided, it is archaic and totally unsuitable for the horses that run in the race based on the what their breeders had hoped for when arranging their parent’s mating.
Yep, we need to ban all flat bred animals running over jumps. Cruel to make them do something they were never bred to do. Disgraceful what that nasty Doumen has made that Kasbah Bliss do over the years.
The prize money on offer will ensure a large field lines up! Maybe it will be a few horses under 40 but I think you can expect a near on maximum field at worst. I’d expect many of the horses who are entered actually turn up. Given that the National is the one race above all else that horses are geared specifically towards, I’d expect most of the 80 odd entrants to want to run – providing they were fit and not injured. Time will tell though.
Sending a horse over extreme distances when it is patently not able to do so is cruel. Horses like Crisp and Durham Edition never quite got the trip and to see the former rolling around punch-drunk as he gets collared within sight of the winning post is a far more unedifying sight than the scenes at the end of last year’s race. Though if you think that the National reflects positively on the sport of Horse Racing in this country as a whole, that is an opinion to which you are entitled.
The National finishes the career of a large proportion of its runners, so if I find such wastage of horse flesh unacceptable then that is an opinion that I am unlikely to alter.Joe, it’s been on the horizon for years, they keep tinkering and changing things in the name of safety……..yet don’t do one thing to actually improve the safety of the race. Not one thing! They introduced all these new criteria, yet not one of them had any relevance to the safety of the horses during the race. It’s bizarre. Were those who brought in the alterations after 1989 & 1998, brought to task, as the death toll actually worsened in the following years, or are the same people still having their say? (ps hope you weren’t involved at some point
) The safety of horses should never, ever, be anything less than the number one priority, yet they’ve came out with these new half-baked ideas and accomplished nothing. Whether 23, or 40 horses face the starter this year, the same inherent risks will be there. Neither the quality of the field, or the number of runners will have any bearing on this. Anyway, the answer to your question is really quite simple though. Whoever wants to enter, can enter. The top rated 40 get in. By all means have a panel who can eliminate a dodgy jumper, or a horse who is evidently not suitable, but that’s it. Problem solved. All it takes is a big man to step forward and admit they got it wrong. I won’t hold my breath.
I’ve said all I wanted to say on this matter before, can’t be bothered repeating all of it again (as I ramble on). What I will say though is these new recommendations they brought in, and other more high profile and controversial issues which have dogged racing for the past few months (I won’t go there) can all be traced back to 2 things: the bypassing of the fences in this years National, and the rather sinister/suspicious/irresponsible/moronic (take your pick) decision not to highlight the new procedures for dehydrated horses after the race. It was all downhill after that. I’d be dismayed if the person who came up with the idea to bypass fences was still in employment in Racing……….but at least I can console myself with the fact that they’ll have got rid of such an ill-advised practice this year. Oh wait……
Why should they prevent a sub-20 runner National? A 40-runner race may be a spectacle, but it gets horses killed or severely injured every single year.
20 runners this year, then hopefully ten the following year then it can be consigned to the history books.
What was once National Hunt racings greatest race has now, frankly, become a liability and it does the sport more harm than good.
It is run over a freakish distance, over freakish fences, more often than not winning horses are never the same afterwards – yes there are exceptions but they are just that, exceptions.
The race is, for good or bad, the sports show-piece event but it is becoming a liability and the damage it does to the perception of the sport far outweighs any benefits it brings.
How many renewals have not seen a fatality or serious injury to a horse – yet we offer this race as our showcase event?
I used to love the Grand National – now I hate it and for me last years contest was enough.
I would happily scrap the National, tinker with Cheltenham so the Gold Cup is run on a Saturday and use all the marketing resources of racing to make that race the one that is in the forefront of the public’s perception of National Hunt racing – how many unexciting Gold Cups have we had in recent years? How many controversial Gold Cups have we had?
There surely cannot be many people who would argue the Grand National is a better advert for National Hunt racing than the Gold Cup.
Why should they prevent a sub-20 runner National? A 40-runner race may be a spectacle, but it gets horses killed or severely injured every single year.
Yes, I had the exact same thought. What’s the problem? Every year we have 10 rags that everybody knows can’t win. If we had a 40-runner Champion Hurdle/Chase or Gold Cup, everybody would moan.
If you want to improve safety, I wouldn’t allow any horse to be entered who’s fallen more than twice over fences. I also wouldn’t allow novices nor horses with fewer than 9 chase starts under his/her belt. I’d also want to see a personal best OR of within 1 1/2 stone of the top weight’s rating, or something along those lines.
Anything we can do to improve the quality of the race and the safety of the horses and the sport.
I also agree with Paul, quite why we have a handicap at the forefront of our sport is amazing. It doesn’t prove who the best horse in training is. It proves sod all. At least with the Melbourne Cup you have a handicap that does attract the best horses in training. But probably this year’s top weight will be last year’s National winner, and previously he’d won the Kim Muir. The Kim Muir wouldn’t make it into a list of the 20 top chase handicaps of the season. If it weren’t run at Cheltenham, nobody would care about it.
I’ll be surprised if 40 don’t line up as usual. The fact is that that the 110 rated no-hopers now get nowhere near the race. Everyone knows you need to be on about 140 to get a run so anything rated lower isn’t bothering to enter. You will find a very high proportion of entries line up.
There surely cannot be many people who would argue the Grand National is a better advert for National Hunt racing than the Gold Cup.
Well I will for a start.
I imagine there are almost as high a proportion of injuries in the Gold Cup, horse for horse, as the National. Cyborgo, Ten Plus and Gloria Victis for starters? Horses that never ran a decent race again? There are many – Bregawn for a kick off.
As a Conditions race in which only a dozen or so line up and a mere 4-5 have a realistic chance the Gold Cup can never fill the boots of the National for the general public.
There surely cannot be many people who would argue the Grand National is a better advert for National Hunt racing than the Gold Cup.
Well I will for a start.
I imagine there are almost as high a proportion of injuries in the Gold Cup, horse for horse, as the National. Cyborgo, Ten Plus and Gloria Victis for starters? Horses that never ran a decent race again? There are many – Bregawn for a kick off.
As a Conditions race in which only a dozen or so line up and a mere 4-5 have a realistic chance the Gold Cup can never fill the boots of the National for the general public.
Compare this list:
Imperial Commander
Kauto Star
Denman
War of Attrition
Kicking King
Best MateTo this list:
Ballabriggs
Don’t Push It
Mon Mome
Comply or Die
Silver Birch
Numbersixvalverde
Hedgehunter
Amberleigh House
Monty’s Pass
BindareeWhich has the names that are more recognizable to the general public? The two biggest horses in all of National Hunt racing aren’t running in the "biggest National Hunt race of the year" (in part because of safety concerns). There’s a real disconnect between the Grand National and the rest of the NH world.
I could quote you chapter and verse on Red Rum’s flat career courtesy of Ivor Herbert’s book and have mentioned it in a previous thread.
The fact is he was born 47 years ago, that is 2 generations past, he was a freak, he won 2 1/2 races on the flat and was more precocious than might have been expected. It is fair to say that without Red Rum, the National would have been consigned to history in the 1970s. I respectfully suggest you will be waiting rather longer than 47 years for another horse bred along similar lines to make a winning juvenile debut, then run in the National 5 times, winning 3 and finishing 2nd in the other 2.
The race has been so altered since he was carving his name into the nation’s consciousness that it barely deserves to bear the same name.Just so that everyone knows the statistics:
479 horses ran in the Grand National in the last 12 years.
9 fatalities out of 479 means 9 ‘/, 479 = 0.0188.1.88% of runners were fatalities
.
I’d be interested to know what the Cheltenham Festival percentage of fatalities is.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.