- This topic has 78 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Old Applejack; I feel exactly the same. A race that I have grown up with and loved; have looked forward to each year. Read the history of, the stories behind so many of the winners. Almost feel that my love of the race makes me a bad person; unclean in some way, questioning whether I do actually love horses [even though I drove past our local horse market yesterday and, speaking to a friend afterwards said I wouldn’t dare go there these days as I know I would end up buying a horse to save it from going to the meat man and spend another decade of my life looking after it]. Perhaps a reason why I’m slowly moving away from racing and finding other things to interest me in my old age, even though it makes me feel as if part of me has died.
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?
The rate of 1.88% is apparently 2.65 times the 0.7% of other steeplechases in UK. A figure which does need reducing.
Value Is EverythingSome interesting points. I like the National though cannot deny some ambivalence when watching. From a selfish viewpoint I find it a very profitable betting race. From a historic perspective, I think its loss would be mourned by many Brits – racing and non-racing fans: the older we get the more we want to see the old reliable events click round again in our life ‘calendar’.
It’s worth stressing again the key point in my initial post – whatever anyone else thinks, it looks like Aintree have unwittingly steered the race onto a path which will result in its natural demise.
The factors which have played a substantial part in reducing the field size this year are irreversible. The only significant aspect which can be reversed (and almost certainly will be imo) is the special treatment, by the handicapper, of quality horses.
From 2013 the race will be worth £1m plus. That will be hugely tempting for owners of Gold Cup class horses, especially when they’re safe in the knowledge that they will be better off in the National than in a level weights Grade 1.
If you had a horse 5lbs to 7lbs below Gold Cup class, wouldn’t you be tempted to miss Cheltenham for Aintree and go there with a fresh well-treated horse for twice the winner’s prize money?
I would.
Would you pay £5k to run your 140/150 rated horse in the National knowing that the class horses will get big favours from the handicapper?
I wouldn’t.
Aintree has unwittingly charted a course that will probably reduce the Gold Cup field to single figures and its own turnout for the National to sub-20. I’m convinced that from a spectacle viewpoint alone, fewer than 20 runners would seriously affect the public’s interest in the race.
By an unhappy accident for Aintree (a happy one for GN opponents), the race looks set for a lingering death by misadventure.
Can’t really argue with any of that, but the question remains, if you know it, and I know it, not that it’s up for debate anyway, then why don’t they. Unless of course, they’re willingly pressing the self-destruct button.
The reason the executive cannot just scrap the race is due to bookmaker pressure. I imagine that if the race were scrapped while appearing to be in good health, ie generating huge turnover for the bookmakers, then the levy payment would be withheld.
The reason the executive cannot just scrap the race is due to bookmaker pressure. I imagine that if the race were scrapped while appearing to be in good health, ie generating huge turnover for the bookmakers, then the levy payment would be withheld.
It won’t be scrapped – the conditions will ensure it simply fades away (and it’s seldom a profitable race for bookies anyway)
It may not be hugely profitable, but it is the introduction to gambling for many and therefore an essential shop window to encourage new bettors.
At Cheltenham, The National Hunt Chase is an enjoyable and rather strange anachronism that’s been tolerated as being a taboo-keep-yer-hands-off ‘tradition’ for years. And entertaining and fun it is…
…as is The Grand National – but it’s hardly what those three days are about, is it?
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.
Although these are sensible criteria Zark they would actually have prevented only one faller last year (Becauseicouldntsee had only run 7 times over fences) and unfortunately it wouldn’t have prevented the deaths. The other fallers were mostly seasoned chasers within the handicap. Perhaps it would have been different in other years but I am too tired to check!
For me the ground was partly to blame last year and should have been watered more (if it was indeed at all). Surely the National shouldn’t be run on anything firmer than Good to soft. With our climate changing and warmer springs I would even think about bringing the meeting forward to February – god knows there is little else this month with all the focus being on Cheltenham. I have always felt that the National Hunt season is top heavy anyway with the three festivals so close together at the end of the season.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
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?
It’s hard to find concrete statistics. This is an old study that covers VSA races from 1996-2000. 0.3% for hurdles and 0.6% for timber. Small sample size, but it’s something.
http://www.middleburgequine.com/Publica … M_Pub2.pdf
I can’t recall a single horse death this past season, actually. I know that Coal Dust died before the 2010 Maryland Hunt Cup, he flipped over in the paddock and broke his withers. There’s probably been a few in the past few years, but they are very rare.There has been just one jockey fatality in American jumps racing in the past 35 years.
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”
Steeplechasing,
I think you are exaggerating the effect of the handicapper encouraging good horses to run by dropping their weight (rating) especially for the National. It is true that "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". But is that really due to the top weights carrying less weight than their Official rating? Ballabriggs carried 11-0 dead and so did Mon Mome. Am sure the handicapper’s dropping of marks did not go down as far as 11-0. Doubt if Don’t Push It (11-5) was affected either, if he was it wasn’t by much. It is just 3 races in a row! Big deal! Looking at who they beat and distances, the handicappers actions did not stop any light-weighted horse from winning.Only three years ago that we were getting trends guys saying "11-0+ horses never win, ignore them". They didn’t seem to realise those 11-0+ runners used to be outnumbered to a massive degree. In 1997 only 1 of 36 (Master Oats) carried more than 11-0. In 1985, 89 and 90 only 2; and in 88, 94, 98, 99 only 3 carried 11-0+.
Now the 11-0+ group have near enough same numbers of runners, of course they’re going to do better.
Improvement in quality of the race has led to more horses carrying 11-0+, which in turn has led to more 11-0+ winners/placed horses. Doesn’t mean that any individual carrying less than 11-0 has any less chance of winning. So there’s no way it is going to discourage lesser weighted horses; provided they’re not "out of the handicap". Another 11-0+ winner won’t matter a jot.
How many horses with OR of between 110 and 119 have run in recent Nationals? How many 6 year olds ran in recent years? Now that trainers know a horse needs to place at 3m+ they’ll make sure of qualification in future years. So I can’t imagine "These criteria automatically rule out many potential entrants" in future renewals.
I think reduction in entrants this season is very little to do with the "changes". it’s probably due to the nonsense of last year, and (with the aftermath) owners believing the Grand National more dangerous than it actually is.
Value Is EverythingFor me the ground was partly to blame last year and should have been watered more (if it was indeed at all). Surely the National shouldn’t be run on anything firmer than Good to soft. With our climate changing and warmer springs I would even think about bringing the meeting forward to February – god knows there is little else this month with all the focus being on Cheltenham. I have always felt that the National Hunt season is top heavy anyway with the three festivals so close together at the end of the season.
Eh, the US jumps season begins in March and ends in November, and the first and last meets of the season are in South Carolina. Better firm than frozen.
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?
It’s hard to find concrete statistics. This is an old study that covers VSA races from 1996-2000. 0.3% for hurdles and 0.6% for timber. Small sample size, but it’s something.
http://www.middleburgequine.com/Publica … M_Pub2.pdf
I can’t recall a single horse death this past season, actually. I know that Coal Dust died before the 2010 Maryland Hunt Cup, he flipped over in the paddock and broke his withers. There’s probably been a few in the past few years, but they are very rare.There has been just one jockey fatality in American jumps racing in the past 35 years.
Interesting statistics Miss Woodford. Judged by that there is a bigger percentage of deaths in dirt flat racing in North America (2004-2009 stat of 0.309%) than over hurdles (0.3%).
The 0.6% of "timber" compares with UK steeplechasing 0.7%. (UK fatality rates on flat racing are considerably lower than in North America).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
.
You actually went round the streets did you? stopping people and asking them what they thought? Or maybe you just got up one day and thought today’s subject is the Grand National. Was it 10 people 100, a 1000. Exactly how man people is many?
You talk about fact but the fact is you are masking the real truth.
Perhaps those mysterious people you say you spoke to were a bit brighter than you realised and knew for example that the National fences aren’t just used in the National
The sad truth is the National carries the buck for all deaths at the meeting no matter what type of race they occur in and that’s a lot higher than 1.88% Not really interested in you coming back with a new set of figures saying it still not 5% so please don’t bother on my behalf because you simply don’t have all the facts.
There are other things to consider like when Baby Run won the Foxhunters 10 horses failed to finish…most haven’t been seen on a racecourse since. I don’t know where they are do you? could be p2p could be dead because they were injured and can’t race again who Knows?
Prudent Honour and Plasir D’Estraval both broke their necks in the Topham, Plus Schindlers Hunt broke leg destroyed,Pagan Star Princess destroyed in non N fence races that was in 2010 I believe and the year before 5 or 6 died at the meeting. Names might not be spot on as I can’t find the article I read it in but will try later and post the url
The article was written by somone with a more gravy upstairs than you or I, not so much I as you
. He was some Lecturer at Ruskin University, he related the percentages of deaths that occurred for the entire meeting to us driving cars and reckons if we had the same chance of survival as the horses that run at Aintree it would be totally unacceptable. He quoted some figure like 0.0005 deaths per 1000 car trips as the average replaced that with Aintree figures and reckoned we’d all be dead in 6 months.The National The Topham The Foxunter makes no differnece where they die because to the man on the street it was The National to blame which to some extent is true. No National no Foxhunters No Topham
I said earlier we can expect 9 national deaths in the next decade. At the meeting we can expect anything up to 30 deaths over the next 10 years.
That’s pretty shocking and hardly hype.
There are other things to consider like when Baby Run won the Foxhunters 10 horses failed to finish…most haven’t been seen on a racecourse since. I don’t know where they are do you? could be p2p could be dead because they were injured and can’t race again who Knows?
I can confirm that since last year’s Fox Hunters (to give the Aintree version its correct rendering, as distinct from the Foxhunter at Cheltenham), nine of the 10 horses that failed to finish have seen action again.
The one exception is Moncadou from Jonjo’s yard, but that doesn’t necessarily imply anything has befallen the gelding. Rather, whilst Jonjo and JP will have their usual phalanx of hunter chasers in operation during the course of the winter and spring, they’ve been comparatively slow in securing their eligibility for such races this term. As of the last Qualified Horses list I received last Friday, there was not a single Jackdaws Castle inmate showing up as having yet gained its hunt certificate.
They’ll appear in due course, I’m sure; and as Moncadou’s big season target is likeliest to comprise the trip to Aintree for which he’s already qualified, there’s little onus on Jonjo to jolly things along especially quite yet.
The remaining nine horses have run a combined total of 20 times since the Fox Hunters, viz:
2 x handicap chases
9 x hunter chases (one win)
9 x ptps (two wins)Of those 20 runs, 10 (including one win) have taken place in the last three months alone.
I’m not sure what figure you had in mind as an indication that the legacy of running in the Fox Hunters is to keep its non-finishers mostly or totally off the track subsequently, but I’m not convinced by the above that this last renewal has done that to any great extent.
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 wouldn’t class having a stallion with a stamina index of 13.0f to indicate that a horse is flat bred.
But would you class the stallion as
necessarily
conferring the greater stamina influence upon the progeny compared to the dam / damside?
We could be straying into the murky waters of the dosage method if so; but whatever Old Vic’s stamina index, I think I’d struggle to dub his offspring as anything other than Flat-bred if the dam had been a Flat performer herself.
Maybe if Don’t Push It had been the product of some theoretical Old Vic – Look Busy type of union, for example, the distinction would be less open to interpretation than it is; and whilst I did mention the propensity towards 1m-1m4f on the damside’s exploits last time, closer inspection of the dam She’s No Laugh Ben herself revealed her to be too slow even for 2m on the level.
Even then, Don’t Push It’s make-up still falls short stamina-wise on paper at least compared to, say, any pairing of Old Vic with a La Landiere-type 2m4f-3m chaser.
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.
Don’t want to seem morbid Jeremy but do you know how many horses have been badly injured or died in the race over the decades.
I found the article I quoted and his figures are based on the meeting as I said earlier.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.