- This topic has 78 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’d welcome a reduction in numbers. Too big a risk of horses being brought down or falling on top of each other. It is often said Aintree is a wide racecourse so can cope with 40 runners. But who goes around the outside of Foinavon and the Canal Turn? Potentially most problematical at the latter; where it is essential for all runners to use a small amount of fence (just two or three horse widths wide) on the inside. Otherwise they lose too much ground and have no chance of winning.
Value Is EverythingJust 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.
Ginger, that’s a bit like a bookies saying ‘we’re not going to install a bandit screen until the shop gets robbed’.
And that’s exactly what they do. A bookies will not put in a bandit screen until the shop has been robbed.
Just because there have been so few fatalities doesn’t mean there isn’t the potential to have several in 1 year. You must constantly strive to make everything as safe as possible whilst maintaining the competitiveness of the race.
I thought (well I would do) that my possible safety features were sensible policies that could quite easily be implemented without taking an edge off the race and possibly saving some injuries to both horses & riders and possibly even some equine deaths.
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.
To add to that I also wouldn’t allow any horses to run who haven’t won at least 3 times over fences, of course with the possibility of the owner/trainer applying to the BHA for special dispensation if they feel their horse is being harshly treated by that rule.
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.
They reckon the Grand National is 5 times more likely to result in the death of a horse/horses than any other meeting.
It would seem no matter how hard Aintree try to reduce risk they fail.
Some people say they should up the anti and only let horses who have won a certain amount of races or have never fallen take part.
These people have got it very wrong as it simply won’t solve the problem unless we and up with a 12 runner race and it’s no longer a world famous spectacle and just a long race. There is no evidence whatsover to indicate bad horses as such cause deaths
You would think with all modifications fatalities would reduce but in reality they have been much the same decade by decade since the 70’s the 60’s there were 4 then it’s gone 7,7,7, and 9 the last decade being the worst.
How is that possible when the fences have been made safer?
Maybe we see the answer advertised every day "Speed Kills" The overall time of the races clocked by the winners may not be faster but many of the horses who run in the are, due to changes in breeding
They may not have the stamina to win the race but they are much faster and reach higher speeds over a distance of ground than your old chasing types of the 60’s and 70’s did.
Like driving a car if you go 60mph all the way or go 60mph 80mph 40mph it takes the same time to get there but you are in more danger of having an accident at when you are doing 80mph
If Aintree hadn’t modified the course God knows how many more deaths there would have been.
There simply isn’t an answer to this without changing the face of the race completely.
The facts and figures are there for all to see and the question is are we willing to accept that in the next decade it will claim 9 more lives or do we say enough is enough it’s time for the race to go.
To be honest if they never ran another Grand national I couldn’t give a rats a$$ because compared to the Champion Hurdle and the Gold Cup it’s a complete bollox of a race.
It gets compared to Bullfighting and that is not good for racing but let’s not kid ourselves those at the top with the power to ban the race have their hands tied because of revenue etc. and that comes before the life of a few horse. Harsh I know, but fact.
So this year we can expect more in-fighting and self criticism within racing followed by horse fatalaties and whip bans interspersed by big mac screaming to everyone how barbaric it all is – this sport is ruining itself, the bunny lovers don’t need to try a thing.
Can’t get so animated as Eclipse First and Paulostermeyer but The Grand National has long been ‘my least favourite big race’ and I too wouldn’t care much if it was lost, though I’m content to put up with it as I enjoy the sometimes self-flagellatory experience of watching horses give their all in the name of sport
It’s an entertainingly atavistic diversion but isn’t and has never been representative of horse racing in Britain, just as I imagine the Velka Pardubicka isn’t in Bohemia. So to labour its importance as ‘racing’s shop window’ line is untrue, bizarre and counter-productive
The BBC will forever show the National because it’s ‘The Grand National’ not because it’s a horse race; as they do Wimbledon because it’s Wimbledon, not tennis; and The Boat Race because it’s The Boat Race, not rowing
Lots to think about here and I have conflicting opinions.
I’ve always followed the National probably more than general racing itself. Got the books, the videos etc. I’ve proudly defended against accusations of cruelty from family members…and yet I did feel uneasy about it all last year.
I do think Aintree lucked out with the warm weather. We never usually see National finishers look that bad, and we never normally see the National run in weather that warm. Whether we had been told about the planned water sloshing or not, we would still have seen the same pictures. Didn’t only one of the first four make into the unsaddling enclosure? It did not look good.
The bypassing of the fences. Presumably the 20th could have been jumped easily enough as Ornais fell on the wide outside I think. Again, only going on sketchy memory, but I think at Becher’s, Dooneys Gate was pretty much in the middle. Obviously in the old days, they’d have carted the corpse away quickly – don’t know if there was prolonged treatment on the horse which made that impossible. If there was the option to bypass the fence, I can understand why it was taken, but again, it just served to highlight the reason.
VtC nails it when he says you cannot prevent the risk, whatever you do. Wherever horses run and jump, there will be risk, and the modifications, though well-intentioned, cannot stop accidents happening. However, while it can happen at Ludlow as well as Liverpool, the GBP isn’t watching Ludlow. I imagine that any repeat of last year will see public opinion turning quite forcefully against the National, hypocritical though it might be. It will be even more galling if it is led by a tabloid press that has spent the week before the event bigging it up.
And here’s what I don’t like. The National has been so important to me, and I don’t want to be part of something that the public decrees is morally wrong. It feels a bit like I’m aligning myself with child labour or something. I know that sounds silly, but I like to feel I’m generally on the side of ‘right’ (hey, don’t we all?)
I’ve wibbled on enough, and I know I am not contributing anything constructive – more just a stream of consciousness. I want the National to stay as it is, but if that is to be the case, I think it will be down to luck more than anything.
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.
Ginger, that’s a bit like a bookies saying ‘we’re not going to install a bandit screen until the shop gets robbed’.
And that’s exactly what they do. A bookies will not put in a bandit screen until the shop has been robbed.
Just because there have been so few fatalities doesn’t mean there isn’t the potential to have several in 1 year. You must constantly strive to make everything as safe as possible whilst maintaining the competitiveness of the race.
I thought (well I would do) that my possible safety features were sensible policies that could quite easily be implemented without taking an edge off the race and possibly saving some injuries to both horses & riders and possibly even some equine deaths.
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.
To add to that I also wouldn’t allow any horses to run who haven’t won at least 3 times over fences, of course with the possibility of the owner/trainer applying to the BHA for special dispensation if they feel their horse is being harshly treated by that rule.
I deliberately did not put my opinion in to that post Zark. Just wanted trfers to know the facts. In fact, we are very close in our thoughts. "Racing" should always look in to how races can be made safer without destroying the spectacle.
You’re on the right lines, am in favour of the sentiment if not your actual suggestions.
Some horses were poorer jumpers earlier in their career than they are at time of running in the Grand National. By stopping those with more than 2 falls, you could prevent (at time of race) a horse recognised as one of the "best jumpers" in the field taking part. Also, just because a horse has not won 3 times over fences, does not make it a poor jumper.
However, I’ve been criticised previous years for suggesting poor jumpers like Knowhere and Ballyfitz should not be allowed to take part. In my opinion any horse rated with an "x" (for poor jumper) in Timeform should be excluded. A panel could also take out any other horse they believe is a poor jumper. By looking at its more recent form (say 18 months, with more relevence made to most recent starts).
Not allowing novices to take part is a sensible idea Zark and I’d say fewer than 6 (with the novice proviso) rather than your "9" starts should be the cut off point. This would allow in second season chases who’ve had one slightly truncated campaign.
Value Is Everything479 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.What point you making with that stat, Ginge?
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.What point you making with that stat, Ginge?
Point I am trying to make Cav is: I think some people (not necessarily trfers) listen to the hype and tend to believe the number of fatalities is considerably more than it actually is.
I don’t mind having a discussion about whether the Grand National is "cruel" or "should be abolished", if they’re basing their opinion on facts. ie If they’re basing it on a fatality rate of 1.88% (or an average 3 fatalities in every 4 Nationals).
I’ve spoken to many people (racing fans and non-racing fans) who’ve been for the abolition of the National. When I’ve asked them what percentage of Grand National runners die? They usually say around 5%, one even said 10%. So they’re basing their opinion on something that
is not true
.
Value Is Everything479 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.What point you making with that stat, Ginge?
Point I am trying to make Cav is: I think some people (not necessarily trfers) listen to the hype and tend to believe the number of fatalities is considerably more than it actually is.
I don’t mind having a discussion about whether the Grand National is "cruel" or "should be abolished", if they’re basing their opinion on facts. ie If they’re basing it on a fatality rate of 1.88% (or an average 3 fatalities in every 4 Nationals).
I’ve spoken to many people (racing fans and non-racing fans) who’ve been for the abolition of the National. When I’ve asked them what percentage of Grand National runners die? They usually say around 5%, one even said 10%. So they’re basing their opinion on something that
is not true
.
1.88% fatalities is still
far too high
.
Yes in comparison to the Kentucky Derby, Breeders’ Cup, Epsom Derby and Melbourne Cup put together, I’d say it still has more fatalities.
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.
Per his pedigree lines on the
Post
‘s database;
Old Vic (13.0f) — She´s No Laugh Ben (USA) (Alleged (USA) (11.6f))
"Sixth foal; half-brother to Irish 1m-1m2f winner Larifaari; dam showed little on Flat in Ireland"
Don’t Push It
wouldn’t have been the most suitably bred candidate for National honours just on that evidence; and that all bar one of his siblings has been campaigned over jumps rather than the level does insufficient to persuade me they’re any more to the manner born.
There may well have been one or two other predominately Flat-breds to have prevailed in the race in my lifetime, but he sprang readily to mind.
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.
OK – I’ll throw this one in – as much from the devil’s advocate perpective as anything.
Could the increase in overall quality of the race actually be part of the problem? By making the race far more competitive with a higher proportion of very capable horses, they are racing each other harder and from further out than in the past. Thus making the race a harder race for those left at the sharp end.
1.88% fatalities is still
far too high
.
Efforts should be made to bring the rate down. But in my opinion it is not high enough to ban the race imo.
How does 1.88% compare to jump racing / the big jump races in the USA Miss Woodford?
Value Is EverythingI wouldn’t class having a stallion with a stamina index of 13.0f to indicate that a horse is flat bred. My concern is that there are far too many horses entered and running in the race, with little chance of getting the trip, either on paper or in actuality. Admittedly it is down to guesswork in many cases, but the extreme distance of the race means that it has little or no relevance to the mainstay of National Hunt racing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.