- This topic has 384 replies, 85 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I watch the BEEB coverage only because it is comprehensive and includes lots of trivia on the day. If it were not for that, I would rather slit my own throat with a machete than endure 4hrs in the company of Parrott and Wiltshire. They are to entertaining presentation what Raoul Moat is to model citizenship.
Gary Wiltshire has to be the most utterly annoying person on terrestrial TV. He even has Harry Hill well beat on that count. The only reason he got the job was because Dettori took him to the cleaners at Ascot.- Total Posts 17716
A couple of years ago it only *just* held on to its place on the "crown jewels" list of sporting events which *must* be given a terrestrial slot, a list which was reduced by the removal of Test Matches and the Derby, amongst other things.
Ah yes, test cricket. Do you remember the Ashes in 2005? The country went beserk, 25,000 locked out of Old Trafford, some of the best test cricket ever played. Queen’s honours followed, drunken Freddie on the front page of all the papers. Live on Channel 4.
Now, do you remember the Ashes in 2009? No & neither does anyone else. Live on Sky.
Things move on. Now people have the choice to pay to see what they want to see. The cricket fans will remember 2009. Not the group around the water cooler. That is rather my point. The profile of every sport is changing, and racing reflects that too. It’s time for the National to go the same way.
You and I may not like it, but that (as our American cousins and rulers would say) is how the cookie crumbles.
And it would get Animal Aid off Racing’s back.
Hi Aron….. man dictates what happens to many things.He dictates the death of cows ,pigs, sheep and goats. He dictates the death of fish and fowl.But only up to a point. However he does not dictate the death of racehorses in the national,nor do mountain climbers not high speed rcing car drivers choose the moment of their death.These decisions are made by factors outside his control.The makeup fo the car, the cold of the mountain,his ability to steer the car at speed,to judge the stride to a fence by the horse, which may kill the jockey, many factors coincide in error judgement which can lead to death.We can all stay at home and wait for death or go out and defy it.We can let the horse run free and his death will be determined by how hungry and swift the predator who stalks and kills him is.Not the horses choice of course but who then can choose their own death? Certainly not man nor beast.
Pinza, you’re not going to convince me with an argument that suggests we make racing a closed shop.
And I can’t believe that any supporter of any sport would recommend surrendering themselves to Sky. It’s doing cricket (in every sense) & football (in a financial one) no favours whatsoever.
By the by, if you do take the National off the television (as I stated earlier), you might as well get rid of it. Make it a sacrificial lamb. That would get Animal Aid off our backs & there wouldn’t be any ‘Racing sweeps National carnage under the rug’ headlines.
I cannot bear Parrot & Wiltshire either. At least John McKruick is knowledgeable. there were parts where I just had to switch the TV over. Dreadful!
I see even Richard Hoiles was jumping on the bandwagon last night on RUK, he stated he would like the field reduced to 36 "to see if makes any difference" – any difference to what?
As an e mailer correctly pointed out there was that number of runners or less when both fatalities occurred.He also criticised a letter in the RP which stated that the bypassing of the fences was a massive own goal and did nothing for animal welfare. Richard said that it is infinitely safer to bypass the fences than jump them in the National, what evidence is there to support that view? How many incidents have occurred at fences not bypassed in the past? I cannot recall any.
As the letter in the paper added "Leaving a dead and dying horse on the racecourse in full view of millions of casual once-a-year viewers has damaged the public perception of the race irretrievably".
- Total Posts 17716
Until the powers that be disqualify a horse for misuse of the whip then you will continue to see jockeys breaking the rules as often as they do. Its a no brainer from my side of the fence.
For the sake of those that keep making such poorly thought out but somewhat finite statements on this thread I shall repeat my earlier observation. If a jockey knows that they will be disqualified from a race for over use of the whip then what’s to stop someone from deliberately using the whip too many times on a short priced favourite?
I await your well thought out response ………….
Until the powers that be disqualify a horse for misuse of the whip then you will continue to see jockeys breaking the rules as often as they do. Its a no brainer from my side of the fence.
Anyone who thinks that is showing extreme naivety, the levy would fall through the floor as punters stopped betting on the sport in their droves.
- Total Posts 17716
The fact is that the National has more in common with the ‘dance marathons’ of the 1920s (coincidentally portrayed in a film called They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?) than with racing. I used to enjoy the National more when I knew less about racing. The more I took an interest in the Turf the more the National seemed a sort of fairground show for ‘civilians’ to gawp at.
It is a very bad advert for the sport, especially in an increasingly PC and state-meddling culture.Until the powers that be disqualify a horse for misuse of the whip then you will continue to see jockeys breaking the rules as often as they do. Its a no brainer from my side of the fence.
For the sake of those that keep making such poorly thought out but somewhat finite statements on this thread I shall repeat my earlier observation. If a jockey knows that they will be disqualified from a race for over use of the whip then what’s to stop someone from deliberately using the whip too many times on a short priced favourite?
I await your well thought out response ………….
I have obviously failed to put my point across clearly with regard to the above in that I have gone for the most radical solution to the over use of the whip. The point I was trying to put across was that until the punishment has a sufficient downside then jockeys will continue to break the rules. However in answer to the second half of your statement, it seems to be implying it’s OK to break the rules to win, but not to lose ? Well there is one way to solve misuse of the whip of course and that’s not to use it at all.
Radical or what ?
It is a very bad advert for the sport, especially in an increasingly PC and state-meddling culture.
How long do you consider it’s been a bad advert for the sport?
As far as the whip is concerned:
No whips would change racing out of all recognition. Front runners will have a bigger advantage. Leading to jockeys neeing to keep closer to the pace, as horses won’t find as much when pushed.
A smaller group of genuine horses win a greater share of races. Less genuine horses (even the good quality ones) struggle to win anything.
Far fewer close finishes.
Jockeys might try to come up with ingenious ways (infinitely worse ways) to scare horse to run faster.
There’d be problems with horses coliding. At Epsom with the camber, horses naturally drift left to the rail. Without a whip it will be more difficult to stop inteference and possible contact. Of course sometimes the whip causes the problem, but in this case the whip can also be used to stop the incident from getting any worse.But as it stands, jockeys are taking no notice of the rules, especially in valuable races.
If all whip "abuse" is met with disqualification, it would put off many punters. However…
A better solution might be to grade abuse of the whip.
Anything that breaks the skin – immediate disqualification.
Anything where the jockey breaks the rules by a considerable degree – disqualification. ie A good deal more than the allowed "slaps", or bringing the hand way above the shoulder / force, or hitting it a lot in the wrong position.
In all cases above, jockey gets a ban.
Anything more minor gets a lesser ban, without the horse being disqualified.
In all cases the jockey’s share of winnings is witheld. May be then they’d think twice.Value Is EverythingCards on the table, and so any opinion given by me is obviously from a (very) biased perspective. I’ve been a Grand National ‘nut’ since I was very young. I don’t want to see the Fences altered, distance reduced, or numbers reduced. The thought of the race being scrapped, or it getting sanitised any further, is not good. The closest I can compare it to, is someone who’s biggest passion is their football club, and being faced with the prospect of their club going out of existence. As an animal lover, it’s a very strange situation to be in to be honest. I love my NH racing, and as much as I hate to see any horse lose their life, the only consolation I give myself is that the horses are well looked after, and there are many, many things going on in the world which require our concern a lot more. Not that this lessens or cheapens the loss of any horse.
There’s been some (mostly) excellent, reasoned posts from a variety of people on this thread, from both sides of the camp.
I’ll try to give my thoughts on a few of the key matters for what it’s worth.The Fences
– I don’t know what else they can do to make them any safer. They’ve made them as safe as they possibly can, and are not the big brick walls of old. I can see the logic of making them stiffer to slow the field down, but in the end, regardless of construction, it’s NH racing, and very regrettably, some horses are going to be lost. I agree with the point made by
bedfont
, that "there is no solution to this". However, not for a minute should the safety of horses, ever, be anything other than of paramount importance, and continuous improvement should always be sought.
The Distance
– The majority of finishes in my lifetime, have not produced the sights that we witnessed on Saturday. These have been on a variety of ground, and on many occasions, the horses appear to still be full of running. Other than the heavy ground slogs of 98 & 01, I’ve never seen horses finishing so visibly exhausted as they did this year, and even those in the shake up in the heavy ground nationals of 89 & 94 had a lot more left in the tank. To the naked eye anyway. Why is that? I personally think the heat
was
the major factor. Looking at the finish of the 1990 race, which was in record time, there’s a stark contrast. There’s been a bit of talk recently that the old NH horses of yesteryear are on the wane, and we’re getting more horses bred for speed. If that really turn out to be the case, then even I would admit that 4m+ races may become outdated. I hope I’m way off the mark here for obvious reasons. Possibly an issue to keep an eye on, but certainly doesn’t require any immediate reaction.
Safe?
– Even as a fan, I wouldn’t be so stupid as to suggest it’s safe . Of course it’s not, it’s dangerous with inherent risks, as witnessed on Saturday, but then so many things (NH racing included) in life are. For anyone to suggest it was cruel though, I would strongly disagree with them. I’m willing to tolerate these risks, time will tell if others do as well.
40 Runners
– Probably my biggest worry of all, is that they reduce the number of runners. In my opinion, it’s not a proper National without the 40 runners. 30 runners would reduce the spectacle, without improving safety. Having read other posts, I know this goes against the views of some posters, whose opinions are always worthy of note, particularly
Gingertipster
,
Bosranic
, and
Miss Woodford
, and their points are respected. The small field nationals of 96, and 99, still had their falls, and as well as fatalities on both occasions, the small fields seriously detracted the race as a spectacle. I know that the Topham is run at a faster pace, but still, always 30 or less runners, and like The National, has an unfortunate fatality rate. I make it 14 horses lost in the last 16 years. Unfortunately, for me anyway, I fear they may have a knee-jerk reaction, and reduce the limit, even though it won’t make much of a difference, and would be a huge mistake. What will they do when there is the inevitable fatality in a 30 runner race? Hmmmm…
Suitable Horses
– I’ve read elsewhere that the suitability of entered horses should be looked at, but this is already the case anyway. At a push, I wouldn’t argue the case for horses who are clearly 2,2 and half milers being excluded, but this should only be a concern if they intend to go off like a "scalded cat" and set a blistering pace. I don’t know how you would govern this. Unfortunately, looking at the grim toll of horses we’ve lost, these include "National" winners in Roll-A-Joint & Hear The Echo, and others such as Alverton, Earthstopper, Dark Ivy, Hungary Hur, Ballyhane, and, The Last Fling, who were hardly "plodders". Also worth bearing in mind that McKelvey and Dooneys Gate had jumped very well over the fences before, and Seeandem and Rust Never Sleeps had got most of the way round in previous Nationals, having jumped perfectly acceptably.
Public Opinion/Media
– I’ve always been of the opinion that the General Public are well aware of the fatalities in the Grand National, but they don’t need their noses rubbed in it like Saturday. I said on the Topham thread last year, that the ridiculous camera angles, heightened the shock value of the 2 fatalities then, and the same applied to Saturday. It was a major blunder, and surely more staff to clear the track makes a lot more sense than bypassing fences. It’s worth bearing in mind that BBC’s The One Show, followed McKelveys prep for his ill fated National comeback, I don’t recall any significant fallout from this, and I’m pretty sure The One Show does not have a high percentage of racing fans in it’s viewers. As a "GN nut", I hear from loads of people every year, who I don’t otherwise hear from on a regular basis, both before and after the race. Of those who contacted me after the race this year, one person mentioned Ballabriggs’ exhaustion, but that was it. Not one person mentioned the fatalities. I always have a houseful on National day, and although the fatalities were discussed at the time, it was hard not to with the bypassed fences, they weren’t dwelt on for long, and didn’t disturb anyone. Back to work on Monday, and I get the usual National discussions from my colleagues, young and old, male and female, not one mention of the fatalities, depsite the press coverage. Ironically, I’ve thought about nothing else all week. I know this will fly in the face of the experiences some of you will have had this week, but thought it worth mentioning.
If we’re going to have a Grand National, and also NH racing, then deaths are inevitable. Sadly, there are risks involved and although these risks can be reduced, ultimately, they can’t be removed. As long as horses aren’t sent out with disregard for their safety then I am happy with it. I hope the National will be ok for the time being, and really doesn’t need altered. I’m also a realist, however, and after Saturday, doing nothing doesn’t appear to be an option. As stated, any tinkering with Fences, Distance, number of runners would be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction, which will solve nothing. Nothing at all. It really requires some proper thinking from the relevant bodies. I think the suggestion of moving the race back to the end of March has some merit. Basically, running the race on a hot day, at a furious pace is a recipe for disaster, and the speed of the race in general
may
be a significant factor, as seen with The Topham. Again, I don’t know how you govern this! Possibly, new rules surrounding the start of the race, but this requires thought from someone smarter than myself. As an aside, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I genuinely think it may be time to do away The Topham. Aintree really don’t need any more negative publicity, and the risk of fatalities in this race, 24 hours before the big one, seems somewhat unnecessary these days.
I can understand people feeling disgusted after Saturday, I’d be more worried if people on here didn’t give a toss. Thankfully they appear to be in the minority on here. Despite my fears that the race, either as a whole, or in it’s current guise may have had it’s day, I hope I’m wrong. I hope the issue of safety is given some proper thought, and not simply given "lip service", and I hope they’re given time to give it proper consideration.
Sincere apologies for the long post, but just wanted to add my "tuppence worth". I realise that after this long post I haven’t really added anything new, and these are the biased opinions of a fan, but I thought I’d make my feelings known anyway. Finally, if you disagree with me strongly, go easy on me….I’ve had a sh1t week
Venture to cognac, you have put everything so well. I agree with it all. I too am a Grand National nut. Its that race that grew my interest in all areas of National Hunt. The first national I remember was 1989 with Beech Road vs Celtic Shot in the Hurdle curtain raiser followed by the National. The race was watched round someone else’s house. At 8 years old I still remember a family member stating "this is the worst fence!" as they jumped the Water and even at that age thinking "no its not!" and I remember Julian Wilson telling the audience "they are going round a dead horse" or similar as they approached Becher’s the second time.
It was after that race that the last MAJOR changes to the race occurred (1960 or 62 before that?)
Often people say Dark Ivy was the death that led to the changes. I think not. Whatever uproar it caused in 87 the changes only took place after the total openness of Julian Wilson followed by the newspapers showing photos of Brown Trix being pulled out of the ditch the next day. The headlines "National disgrace".
The photos from this race would have shocked a few, but I think the race is safe until this happens again in the next year or two – a bit like Dark Ivy and a 2 year gap to 89.
But the crazy thing is (topham deaths aside) these were the first National deaths caused directly by in race falling since Goguenard in 2003 (3 of the 4 since were running loose and Hear the Echo’s collapse). So why the big uproar? The bipassing clearly caused it. It was unprecedented. Yet the bipassing was made available by safety steps Aintree brought in to help the loose horses after the fatalities of the last 5 years. Being good was a big own goal.
Luckily the big hoo haa seems to have died down a bit now. Its totally out of the news with not even a week gone since the race.
But I’m with you and the only change I could ever envisage is moving the race to a point in time when it could be safer heat. Or making sure the start of the race doesn’t involve such a build up. In 2009 Hear The Echo collpased and died but not after running 4m 4f. He died after a long parade, 2 or 3 false starts and then 4m 4f in sweltering heat.
My only changes then – shorten the pre race build up – investigate moving the date of the race.
As you say – anything else would be jumping the gun
Less runners? Deaths with small field Nationals in late 90s.
Quality of horses? Already improved after 1998 fatalities (and no one has run from outside the handicap for years)
Fences? Lowering them already made horses jump safer didn’t it……NOT.Crikey they should show a tape of a 1920s Grand National with a poor horse nose diving into the Becher’s ditch to an Animal Aid representative.
I cannot bear Parrot & Wiltshire either. At least John McKruick is knowledgeable. there were parts where I just had to switch the TV over. Dreadful!
Yeah, I did too. On the segment where Parrott showed him the sites of Liverpool I had to turn the sound to muted to avoid major acid reflux. It takes ‘tabloid tv’ to a whole new level.
But I liked the seg about Angus Lochran and his 1911 film find. Genuinely interesting. I can even still endure the segments on Aldaniti and Champion. O’Sullivan is always worth a listen and even Pitman doesn’t make me too nauseous. But the banter between Parrott and the broke bookie isn’t even worthy for n00bs and mugs.I am still struggling with this view that leaving the dead/dying horses in view of the viewers somehow tarnished the reputation of the race and the sport.
As I have mentioned before, the Red Rum Nationals which are often repeated across a range of channels do include some pretty sad sights. ESPN classic had a montage on Monday night and I had forgotten that in the 1975 National not only was Land Lark dead under canvas very visibly during the closing stages, but poor old Beau Bob took a sickeningly horrendous fall at Becher’s 2nd time – the time that year incidentally was 9 mins 31 secs, so half a minute slower than 1973.
The repeated broadcasting of this footage has not stirred up any sort of outcry that I can recall, so it is clear that the modern mass media are stirring it up here.
I am not for a minute saying just because deaths occurred in the past and nothing was said that people are not entitled to change their perception. But for me the fatalities are almost a red herring as strange as it may seem. This year is was the clear exhaustion of the horses post race, coupled with immediate replay of the winning jockeys severity with the whip that has fuelled the debate. The problem is it has quickly become unclear what points are being made and personally I think this will blow over and we will arrive at next year’s meeting and go through the same thing in 12 months time.
I know he gets totally slated, but I have to say I am in complete agreement with McCririck as regards the whip – ban it apart from being used to correct a horse veering sharply. If you had no whipping on Saturday I do not believe the public (or media orchestrated should I say) outcry would have been anywhere near as bad. Indeed returning to the Red Rum Nationals, the deaths probably did not cause much outcry because the placed jockeys did not cut their horses in two up the straight. Indeed, look no further than the Aldaniti National to see neither of the front two jocks (Champion and John Thorne) rssort to the whip.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.