Home › Forums › Horse Racing › Newbury- two horse fatalities, electrical problem in paddock
- This topic has 325 replies, 65 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
Ten Plus.
- AuthorPosts
- February 13, 2011 at 15:17 #340463
Both aluminium and steel are good conductors. Probably more to do with where the horses stood (on grass, etc) rather than the shoes.
I was wondering what would have happened had teh jockeys been aboard at the time the incidents occured?
February 13, 2011 at 15:25 #340469
AnonymousInactive- Total Posts 17716
February 13, 2011 at 15:36 #340470Aluminium is more conductive than copper, but ‘anodised’ [whatever that means] aluminium isn’t conductive. All very confusing with my non existent knowledge of physics.
Chemistry, rather than physics. Anodisation is a process of coating metals with oxide through electrolysis. It creates a protective film, and/or allows the metal to be painted. Racing plates wouldn’t be made of anodised aluminium to the best of my knowledge, so I don’t think it’s a matter of some horses being protected by their plates.
On another point, the quotes attributed to Gearoid Costello are either misleading or he’s chosen his words poorly. He was surely not prevented from withdrawing The Merry Giant from the opening race. My reading of it is he was concerned, hoped that the vets would force the horse’s withdrawal and didn’t have the resolve to withdraw him when the vet said he was ok.
February 13, 2011 at 15:42 #340472Aluminium’s corrosion resistance is due to the formation of a very thin (nanometre) oxide layer on its surface when exposed to air. Anodising is the process of increasing the thickness of this protective oxide layer
The electrical conductivity of aluminium is less than copper but more than iron, but anodising will insulate it somewhat, though given racing plates are subject to wear I very much doubt they’re made from anodised metal
The conductivity of alloys is probably the subject for a large dense textbook, but I believe the conductivity does not necessarily behave in the way you would expect by simply referring to the constituent metals e.g bronze may show distinctly different conductive characteristics compared to its base metals copper and tin.
So how steel conducts compared to iron or aluminium alloys to aluminium itself I don’t know, and it probably varies anyway, depending on the ‘mix’
edit:
apologies, cross posted with Rory’s
February 13, 2011 at 15:46 #340473Sorry, I should have said aluminium
alloy
. It does make a difference
But I won’t pretend that I know an awful lot about the electrical conductivity of racing plates v e-cigarettes, because I don’t. Nor how that pertains to safety from electric shock.As a Chartered Engineer I can assure everyone that the conductivity of the shoes was not a factor in the incident.
February 13, 2011 at 16:13 #340478Although there is a difference in their relative levels of conductivity both are ‘good’ conductors, as are almost all metals. Steel varies dependent on the type of steel in question so there is no fixed figure for ‘steel’.
February 13, 2011 at 17:20 #340488I’ve worked out the answer to my question so no need to keep the post here.
February 13, 2011 at 17:25 #340491What is the penalty for withdrawing a horse at the start when the vet has just cleared him fit to run? Would the stewards accept your excuse that the vet didn’t know what he was talking about since he(the vet) looked stunned himsef?
February 13, 2011 at 17:29 #340493Imagine if a this had happened a horse like Sea The Stars…it would be simply catstrophic for the sport.
The owners surely must get compensated for this lack of comptence by Newbury for losing their animals in a non race related issue.
Erm, it didn’t happen to Sea The Stars, did it?
Not to just single out Ruby, but why do we (not sure if it’s just us Brits or the whole human race) always think of an even worse case scenario to something that has happened?
If you think about it, it’s a ludicrous thing to do. We start going on about "what if.." da de da.
In some respects the word "IF" should be banned. It makes us look for things that never happened and probably never will happen.
Is it a form of quantifying a bad situation by thinking of something worse that could happen?
February 13, 2011 at 17:54 #340507The internet is a wonderful place.
It allows us to air thoughts publicly that we would otherwise consider and keep to ourself or debate in a private circle.
Newbury’s competence has been questioned and individuals have had their characters/motivations etc. questioned without any of us being in possession of the facts as known at the time decisions were taken.
This was a unique set of circumstances and I would defy anyone to be 100% assured that they would have made in the heat of the moment what in hindsight appear to be the correct calls in all cases.
February 13, 2011 at 17:56 #340508Imagine if a this had happened a horse like Sea The Stars…it would be simply catstrophic for the sport.
The owners surely must get compensated for this lack of comptence by Newbury for losing their animals in a non race related issue.
I’m still amazed and disappointed that there are well regarded people in the industry claiming Newbury did everything professionally
They did not
They knew about the theory of an electrocution before the start of the first race. Lads / handlers said it. Vets said it.
To continue racing and allow people to stand in that area after the deaths of the horses and evidence from those nearby – even if it was still uncertain as to what caused it – then they should have abandoned the meeting and moved people away from that area as soon as possible.
Did someone at the course realise the problem ? Simply closing down the paddock and think of going ahead with the meeting. Incredible.
Why must we need disasters to implement cautionary measures ? Yesterdays could have been much worse. Because it wasn’t isn’t an excuse to commend those involved and simply move on.
Yesterday i was appalled at someone comparing Newbury to Hillsborough, but there is a lesson to be learned there.
Imagine if those in charge had not been so lackadaisical, so disinterested, so completely inept and had thought for a moment. Four years after Bradford and still the belief was " it’ll never happen ". Leppings Lane begins to become overcrowded and right there someone makes the decision to filter people into the side pens. Prior to this, if someone had decided not to allow such build up outside the gate.
Football learned from a grave, terrible mistake. Stadiums were modernised. Over 20 years on and it’s worth billions.
Seems like racing wants to change but doesn’t know how. The people in charge are regressive, out-of-touch and influenced by those taking money out of the sport – the bookmakers.
Bumpers worth £1,300. Novice Hurdles £2,000. Graded races like the Classic at Warwick being worth several thousand less then they were a few years ago, yet costs on the rise.
Need to stop believing that " Racing must go on " and instead thinking and acting like " Racing must improve "
February 13, 2011 at 18:13 #340512I think you may continue to be amazed and disappointed by people thinking Newbury did the right thing.
At the time the race went off, it was complete hearsay that the horses had been electrocuted (and until it’s confirmed by fact, it remains a theory that they were).
The vet checked all the runners down at the start & there was nothing wrong with any of the horses (Henderson stated on RUK that he withdrew Kid Cassiday because he had got too worked up).
So 7 HEALTHY horses ran a race. I’m not amazed or disappointed by that happening.
After the race, the electrocution theory had gathered pace and the Newbury executive thought it prudent to abandon racing.
It’s also been released today that SEB confirm that at no point were any humans in danger of being electrocuted yesterday.
They are the facts, but I’m sure someone will come up with "but what IF…."
February 13, 2011 at 18:47 #340522MarkTT,
I was at Newbury yesterday and at one point stood only a few metres away from the spot where the (probable) electricutions took place. I never felt in any danger what so ever. And (as far as I could see) after the inciddent, Newbury made certain the public were kept away from the area.Newbury made the correct decision to abandon racing.
If the vets said horses were fit to race, then (without hindsight) surely Newbury exec did the right thing to allow the first race to take place.
Am dismayed at some people’s posts on here that suggest connections of horses and Newbury had no care for the horses. Everyone concerned were heart-broken.
We don’t know if there was any negligence by anyone. Yet it seems some want to act as judge, jury and hangman as far as Newbury Exec. is concerned. No doubt people want someone to blame and they are seen as Toffs, so why not? Yet whenever any job is done, the customer relies on workmen. How (provided the appropriate checks were made / supposedly made) should Newbury Racecourse have known of the danger lurking underground?
If Newbury Racecourse is found to be negligent, fair enough.
If the vets are found to be negligent, fair enough.
If the workmen / firm that carried out the work were negligent, fair enough.
But the investigation has barely started.Value Is EverythingFebruary 13, 2011 at 18:49 #340524
AnonymousInactive- Total Posts 17716
Is it a form of quantifying a bad situation by thinking of something worse that could happen?
Not really,
I think Ruby is well within his rights as a member of this forum to suggest what if this happend to a horse of similar stature to Sea The Stars, for all we know this fault could of been an accident waiting to happen for months – imagine the Henessy field being affected by this?
If you’re an advocate of trying to restrict the broadness of talking points on this forum then there is no hope for anyone, you ever tried writing an disseration? imagine if you just looked at the facts and didn’t analyse anything else.
You sir are very narrow minded.
Have a nice day.
February 13, 2011 at 18:56 #340525Here’s one for the "what if" brigade.
WHAT IF….
it turns out that the electrocution theory is wrong? That the cable they found under the paddock was not a live wire & could not be responsible for what happened?
WHAT IF the two horses actually suffered heart attacks almost at the same time?
Now I know that the electrocution theory is top of the list & is the most likely outcome, but for chatting inanely on a forum’s sake, open your minds to the heart attack theory.
What do you think of Newbury’s decision to abandon the whole meeting because 2 horses suffered heart attacks at the same time in the parade ring?
February 13, 2011 at 18:58 #340528Is it a form of quantifying a bad situation by thinking of something worse that could happen?
Not really,
I think Ruby is well within his rights as a member of this forum to suggest what if this happend to a horse of similar stature to Sea The Stars, for all we know this fault could of been an accident waiting to happen for months – imagine the Henessy field being affected by this?
If you’re an advocate of trying to restrict the broadness of talking points on this forum then there is no hope for anyone, you ever tried writing an disseration? imagine if you just looked at the facts and didn’t analyse anything else.
You sir are very narrow minded.
Have a nice day.
You sir have decided to take one point out of my whole quote & chose to ignore that I said I wasn’t having a go at ruby.
Imagine writing a dissertation on why humans (or just Brits) always look for the worse case scenario when saying "What if…"
February 13, 2011 at 19:09 #340529and why are any of the horses in the Hennessey field more important than the 2 horses that died yesterday? Because they were 50-1 no hopers we are to feel less about them?
I think it’s you Mr Wilson who has the narrow mind!
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.