Grand national aftermath

[Astralcharmer]

In my view the amount of runners has no bearing on the fatalities over the National fences. If it did then please explain why 2 horses were killed at Valentines in the 2010 Topham? The 1996 National had a fatality with 27 runners and 4 were killed in 1954 National with only 29 runners. Let’s not forget 2 horses died in the Scottish National a week after the National but were there any complaints directed at Ayr racecourse?
The BHA run-off’s in the National are a danger by making the field congest and we nearly had an incident of a loose horse jumping onto those treating Dooneys Gate. Loose horses can’t read and I dread the day a loose horse impales itself on a dolling off board.
The first fence is fine (no horse killed at this fence this millennium). Doing away with the fence will make the run to the second quicker and moving the fence forward will not allow the field a decent sight of the fence. The BHA are going to level the fence which is asking for trouble as the present first fence warns or scares horses of possible hazards.
As for banning the race on heavy ground, this is National Hunt racing and you will find there are far less fatalities on heavy ground and horses will pull up long before they are exhausted in such conditions.
The course was fine before the race this year (the BHA and RSPCA obviously thought it was and the chances of a horse being killed at a fence in the National is less than 0.05% which is hardly an unacceptable risk in such a competitive race) but running in such unseasonal weather was a bad move. So when are they running next year? Even later on the 14 April!!
I have watched the race for over 40 years and was hoping this magnificent spectacle of these beautiful animals taking on the ultimate challenge in sport would not be diluted any further, but sadly the health & safety obsessed BHA couldn’t resist ruining the race further.

[ivanjica]

Pinza…

STOP TYPING THE [expletive] NAME ANIMAL AID!!!!

Don’t you get it?

By bringing them up EVERY TIME anyone discusses making jumps racing fairer or safer is true appeasement.

It is YOU who is appeasing them & not us. Racing will talk itself into an early grave when they give credence & attention to an organisation that has neither. If you’re totally & comprehensively resistant to change, you are as big a problem as any other special interest group.

I have some sympathy with this line.

However I think if it had been taken completely we would have allowed people to believe the media line that they are an animal welfare group: they are not. We need to inform people what they actually are and what animal rights ideology is; and start asking serious questions of the RSPCA on which line they stand. A massive organisation like the RSPCA with £100 milion turnover and many seriously tragic animal abuse cases; animals needing rehoming and wild animlas needing care etc etc should not be spending so much time and money discussing a padded whip and if they do they are going to find that people are going to be asking questions about the amount of animals they destroy annually who people think they are rehoming with their huge budget.

So firstly we need to show what Animal Aid are; before we can dismiss them the public have to; and they will if we show for example what they actually spend their money on. I am not an accountant but wouldn’t mind a few of you are good with this sort of thing:
http://gallery.myff.org/gallery/1105567 … 445744.pdf

Now I imagine when people buy stuff from them of give money to their collections they imagine they are supoorting a shelter for abused animals rather than a company which appears to spend little if anything on animal welfare and lots on wages and campaigns.

I’ve got the this point in the thread, and thought I would post this and ask you to be very clear. I googled "is the fur trade cruel" and the first result was this:

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used … ustry.aspx

Are you saying all of this is a pack of lies? That there is no basis in fact for any of the reports of cruelty and associated images. Are they all doctored, or out of context in order to deceive the reader? The internet is, as we all know, a great thing, and I am sure if anyone had the inclination here of anywhere else a counter volley of weblinks could be posted to disprove your claims.

You seem to be making some very radical claims, which I for one am not qualified to challenge. However given you are very open about the relatively short time you have followed racing, you also seem to be making claims about that sport which belie the short time you have followed the sport.

How can you be so sure the whip does not cause the animal any pain, mental or physical? Are you a horse? Yes, racehorses do seem to have pampered lives, however boy do some of them pay for that – there are some graphic images of Go For Wand in the BC Distaff on Youtube and presumably as a newbie you are not familiar with Ron McAnally’s post race comments?

I am no expert, nor a horseman. However I watched a very interesting programme with either Monty Roberts or a similarly giften horseman on Sky Ch.280 a few weeks ago in which he demonstrated how a horse who had been hit would shy away from what he thought was the whip. And yet it would only happen on one flank. When repeated on the other flank the horse did not flinch, suggesting the whipping had only been used on one side. It seemed to prove that a horse remembers whippings and will behave differently when he/she thinks it is about to happen again.

I think it is a commonly held view that shouting aggressively at a horse in the starting gates to make him jump quicker, and then using the whip to make him go faster, trigger the instinct in the animal to run away from a threat. In the wild horses do not jump obstacles unless they are in danger (I think I am right in saying I first learnt this from an atricle in the RP many years ago penned by Tony Morris). They only gallop to avoid danger, and we as humans utilise those instincts to make the animals run as fast as they are able.

If you say you really think the horses have such a pampered life, why is it such a difficult job to retrain ex-racehorses at places like the Moorcroft Boy centre? Is it something to do with the way in which the "fear" factor is used on the racecourse? There was something on C4 or or was it ATR the other day where a lady at one of these centres said she prefers to allow the horse to "do it on his terms" rather than use the "bullying tactic".

To view one industry (the one we on here all love) as completely free of wrong practices is as extreme and eventually pointless as the tactics you accuse organisations such as Animal Aid of. Do you for instance condone the way certain high profile trainers run 2yo’s into the ground in the pursuit of champion trainer titles, or are you more comfortable with the approach of Sir Henry Cecil who will only run a filly when "she tells hims". Or maybe you don’t have a view on that as all racing is beyond criticism?

Many people’s idea of a hero in the sport is Sir Peter O’Sullevan, he is certainly one of mine. He was a lifelong campaigner against the whip, and supports banning it.

The recent episode concerning Howard Johnson’s demise shows that even at the top of the sport, there are people prepared to abuse animals (presumably you woudl agree de-nerving a racehorse and racing him is abuse?). Racing is not all fine and dandy. It has its fair share of wronguns – some would say more than its fair share. It is wrong to try and gloss over those facts, even if you are charged by the BHA with trying to get young people into the sport.

I have followed the sport as a passionate fan since I was a young boy – 1972 to be exact. There is nothing I like less than seeing horses beaten in a driving finish. I am sure there are any number of long standing racefans who feel the same. Take a look at the French jockeys riding today at Longchamp and compare their use of the whip copmpared with Maguire’s brutality on a tired horse at the end of the national.

The only way to guarantee all jockeys use the whip in the same fashion is to ban them from using it for anything other than corrective purposes. Then you have a level playing field, and the need to consider disqualifying horses that have been hit repeatedly who happened to have won, becomes academic.

It is also worth considering if the higher levels of prize money have led to increased whip abuse, and/or the higher fitness levels of jockeys. I once compared on another thread on here, the ride given by Maguire in this year’s National to those of Richard Pitman (Crisp) and Brian Fletcher (Red Rum) in the 1973 renewal. I deliberatly choose this not only becaause of its legendary status in the great race’s history but also as it was the first National I can clearly remember as a young boy.

It is available on Youtube and perhaps having watched it you can tell me if their rides appeared to a young "newbie" race fan in anyway abusive? Can you really, honestly defend Maguire’s ride which was not only difficult to watch for a hardened fan, but also clearly in breach of current whip rules.

I have to say all of your selective quotations, and widening of the arguement beyond racing seem to betray a highly politicised agenda – whether this is personal or something you are being put up to given your role in the BHA site is open to question.

p.s. Mon Mome won the National off 148 carrying 11st. 4 months earlier he had started favourite for the Welsh Grand National and had been raised 4 lbs in between. So he was perfectly entitled to line up at Aintree. I think you are confusing his SP (100/1) with his handicap mark, in terms of concluding his race credentials.

[ElizaVoiceoftheRaces]

http://ww w.peta.org/issues/ animals-used-for-clothing/chinese-fur-industry.aspx

Are you saying all of this is a pack of lies? That there is no basis in fact for any of the reports of cruelty and associated images. Are they all doctored, or out of context in order to deceive the reader? The internet is, as we all know, a great thing, and I am sure if anyone had the inclination here of anywhere else a counter volley of weblinks could be posted to disprove your claims.

You seem to be making some very radical claims, which I for one am not qualified to challenge. However given you are very open about the relatively short time you have followed racing, you also seem to be making claims about that sport which belie the short time you have followed the sport.

Hello Ivanjica. I will attempt to answer your points thoroughly.
Your PETA link.
Yes of course it is a ‘pack of lies’. As you appear to be having trouble identifying a reliable citation from a propaganda organisation whose videos and dogma have been repeatedly exposed on many issues and who stand for the complete eradication of all domesticated animals I will try to assist.

But as I always tell my degree students; if you google ‘faked moon landings’ you would gather from google that the Apollo missions never happened. Sometimes the conspiracists are able to outweigh rational reliable sources on the net – the net is NOT a great thing if you cannot differentiate between reliable and unreliable citations. Reliable academic research is available on the web but it takes a bit of finding. My own for example will be on about page 10 000 on climate research but there will be plenty of populist views at the top of search engines and the reliable academic work not easily digestable and generally found in academic repositories. Just for you to see mine:
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/2095/

The reason I say this is because I have a relaible independent scientific research report coming up on the fur farm welfare.

Here are some of the cases such organisations regularly use in their propaganda. Read it carefully. All can be independently corroborated but as they are all here in one place it is easy to check. But google the court cases by all means.
http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsC7.htm

Here Penn and Teller do an expose on PETA. Not academic but they are pretty astute at exposing illusions 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kXUPy-d … re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzQgfWYw … re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsUSDMcl … re=related

In addition the leaders of PETA have frequently supported acts of arson violence and terrorism openly and I am sure that most people would find the prospect of a world without pets pretty ‘radical’. So I am bemused that you could possibly level such a charge at me.

By contrast my views have come from a lifetime study of Geography. That is concerned with the impact of natural and man on the planet. I have studied land use and economic activities and how they impact the planet. I have worked in a professional capacity alongside Conservationists. So I know for example about how opossum have to be culled anyway; how beaver nutria reindeer and seal are not endangered and are eaten as well as used for fur; and are not farmed but managed sustainably as a resource frequently by indigenous people who rely on the pelts solely for their economy and whose ideology animal rights has had a devastating impact on. I have also worked alongside people like Survival International who protect the rights of indigenous people.

The IUCN does not consider not using animals as a resource as an option for future Conservation and the fur trade works closely with them in abiding by CITES rules. Animal rights ideology by contrast is polarised to this and they do not care about species extinction at an ideological level. Indeed ; many of their propsals any geographer will tell you will actually bring them about rather rapidly. The planet cannot sustain vast intensive arable monoculture which would be required if we did not use animals which – and the reindeer is a classic example – can exist on natural lichens etc). But the problem is hypocritical speciesism and more than a bit of cultural prejudice. We can use cows; but they can’t use reindeer because they are cute. That is not rational.

By far the best information on fur farm welfare was the EEC study done by independent welfare experts; leaders in this field:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out74_en.pdf

This online report has many amendments to the original which the scientists say was doctored so insist on putting the record straight. Check the crdentials of the scientists if in doubt: they are impeccable. Read from pages 5 and 6 on. You will find they concur that fur farm welfare generally good and in some cases practices exemplary. In the case of weaning of mink for example. Common sense should tell you that the images we see in the you tube and animal rights videos are false because for example it would be ludicrous to position one animal above another in a wire cage because one would urinate on the other thereby ruining the fur. A fur bearing animal suffering stress would also lose its fur as any animal that undergoes stress even pets. So husbandry has to be extremely good. There are lots of other academic papers on this issue that support this and none back up PETA’s claims. because they know this they have shifted the deabte to China where we have no way of knowing welfare standards. However the Chinese governement have consistently asked for evidence of the perpetrators without any coming forward. If one is in doubt then avoid Chinese fur. I personally haven’t ever come across any and I have a fair bit. Most of which is from indigenous peoples; including reindeer fur from when I stayed with the Sami and ate the meat too. the reindeer are 8 million in total and are shot and killed instantly. The Sami would not tolerate cruelty to their animals and the deaths are sometimes accompanied by the reverance of shamanic ritual. A far cry from one’s sunday lunch.

You may not be familiar with the fact that whips are padded nowadays in the UK at least. It is impossible to cause damage. Try it. You can feel it but it doesn’t hurt. I gave Carl Llewellyn the National winning jockey some pretty damn good slaps with an old style whip and he didn’t flinch. McAnally was the trainer of Go for Wand and clearly attached and emotional. He stated that they give their lives for our entertainment; but this kind of event is thankfully rare. But with tens of thousands of horse racing daily around the globe it is bound to happen. Jockeys also give their lives in some cases. All we can do is ensure maximum effort is made to ensure safety; but in the wild horses have a far bleaker outlook; their daily life is a constant struggle; they are riddled with parasites and suffer predation and their life expectancy far lower. A horse with the smallest injury in the wild will not survive and die a protracted death. So it is fair to say racehorses are pampered; and while sometimes yes sadly they do die; the PETA option is to eradicate all of them. Permanently.

Which is why it should not be overused and if it is there is the rules are enforced by stewards. For the majority of a race a horse will be held up by the jockey; not whipped from the word go. If a horse suffered long term psychological effects from the whip it is not in the interest of the owner trainer or jockey.

Horses do gallop from danger – they are flee animals so will do so from a rustle in the grass. It is part of their psyche. It does not mean they are perpetually frightened. They run for many reasons and have been engineered by nature over millions of years to do so. I am not a horsewoman but one only has to sit alongside another horse to realise that one will always speed up if it is dominant. It is this which is utilised. We did not teach horse to race they taught us. May I introduce you to the rather beautiful Muallaqat poems that predate Islam to illustrate this behaviour in the Arabian horse; which is of course the ancestor of the modern thoroughbred which has been bred from the stock in which this tendency was most pronounced:

"And the horse, like a roebuck that has grazed on the Rabl plant began shaking its head with annoyance from the pouring sweat
And It began racing with our young she camel As we led it beside her. It is hard for us to handle Like a snake let loose. It overtook them
And galloped off Passing quickly like a pouring cloud."

Alqamah al-Fahl

It is a difficult job sometimes. Others adapt to a new job or being a pet readily. The ones that do not are the ones that the great work of equine rehabilitation can help with. However there are many many horses who go on in the hunting field, as polo ponies or eventers or hacks without much trouble. But some become as humans do when they have been doing something a long time and find it difficult to adapt to change. We have retraining and rehabilitation for humans too. And of course I would say that such scaremongering about retired racehorses in itself can present a problem. Riders are often wary of them when they need not be. They are trained from a young age to behave in a string for example; while I have seen some dreadful behaviour from children’s ponies by contrast! If in doubt about how horses are treated try going to a stable open day as many thousands of us do or even just turning up. Here; no warning I just turned up and asked and no BHA involvement:

http://www.lovetheraces.com/voices-of-t … e_tab=blog

You are correct – all industry must have constant scrutiny from within and from independent but unbiased expert obsevers and at the momemnt that is precisely what is happening. However Animal Aid as political profit making organisation with no practical involvement as far as it appears in animal welfare do not have a role. That is why this is being discussed here and by the BHA; why a great deal of money is spent on equine welfare research and rehab; why rules are enforced with frequent punishments nobody is above (as recently with Howard Johnson) etc. But all change modification and improvement must result from rational consideration. NOT the activities of a group that have turnover of just under a £million and spend nothing on animal welfare or research and as an animal rights group align themselves with not just elimination of the sport but elimination of the thoroughbred. By contrast groups like rehabilitation centres, the ILPH and World Horse Welfare, and even the RSPCA work with racing not against it. Most two year old races I see the jockeys are easy on the horse to the extent where people in the bookies will scream at the screen! But if they have hard seasons early on in their career you have to acknowledge that unlike NH where horses are brought on much more slowly in general; many horse are retired at 3 or 4 anyway to enjoy a life at stud or another activity. Those that go on like the sprinters (such as The Tatling at age 14) clearly did not suffer any problems resulting from a tough two year old career where he raced nine times and was seldom out of the frame.

Many people’s idea of a hero in the sport is Sir Peter O’Sullevan, he is certainly one of mine. He was a lifelong campaigner against the whip, and supports banning it.

One opinion among many. I certainly do not consider it rational in the whip’s current form. And from what I have seen of whipless races abroad it can look rather more bullying with lots of ugly heel work. If there comes a time when this becomes the dominant view in racing the whip will go. But I think personally that would be rather sad and done purely for a perceived public view. If we keep it and educate people as to its use and have stricter penalties for misuse this would be far more balanced an approach. There may be whip design improvements too in the future.

Howard Johnson received a hefty ban. Which shows that abuse will not be tolerated.

Maguire got a ban for misuse of the whip. In such situations on big occasions jockeys have to make a decision and sometimes they breach the rules. Perhaps a longer ban would have been appropriate.

Rather akin to saying that perhaps we should ban the offside rule in football so we don’t need to consider breach of it.

The horses are probably also fitter; and for the most part a fit jockey is an aid to a horse rather than a hindrance.

Yes I thought he hit the horse too much and was penalised as a result. As far as I know the horse appeared to be well next day:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/horser … e-win.html

So much for emotive terms like ‘brutality’ which carry little credence in the cold light of the morning.

Far from it. The views I express are my own not those of the BHA and the topic is being widened by people such as yourself so I have again had to return to it. I have no interest in politics and am not alligned by membership of any party or group; I am a scientist. I have a great interest and a fair degree of knowledge of issues in which animal rights ideology, which is highly politicised and radical, has become involved. Groups like the IUCN and Conservationists and Geographers have to tackle the untruths they present constantly. That is of course if you are interested in an informed opinion on such matters. The main issue being that to sustain the population of the planet on arable agriculture would involve destoying massive animal habitat and wiping out species. Even on a small scale in the EEC it has been devastating for birds and insects.
http://www.ecifm.rdg.ac.uk/monoculture.htm

So Animal Rights is not only irresponsible it is positively dangerous (especially to animals) and it is not ‘radical’ for me or any academic or Conservationist to point that out. Animal Rights groups are also opposed to animal welfare groups. Furthermore they continually obstruct Science of other kinds. For example you will have seen in the news yesterday that a future ‘smart bomb’ for the treatment of cancer that is the best chance of a cure we have ever come up with based on Autumn Crocus was done through experimentation on mice.

In a free society to allow such groups to express opinion and foster hate and violence toward science is one thing; but to take any notice of them seriously is another. It is in that context that the debate against horse racing is taking place. Stakeholders and expert opinion such as that of veterinarians are what we should be considering and Animal Aid and animal rights ideology do not have an opinion that should be respected or have input at all. It is akin to allowing fundamental christians who belive the Earth is only 6000 years old to dictate or have input on the teaching of evolution.

p.s. Mon Mome won the National off 148 carrying 11st. 4 months earlier he had started favourite for the Welsh Grand National and had been raised 4 lbs in between. So he was perfectly entitled to line up at Aintree. I think you are confusing his SP (100/1) with his handicap mark, in terms of concluding his race credentials.[/

Indeed. Your knowledge on horse racing and form etc probably far exceeds mine; so no doubt you backed it. On a serious note; it is why I spend most of my time reading here not posting. So I learn from those who do have knowledge. But where I can offer an opinion that is qualified; please respect that I am not here to cherry pick and my evidence is mostly sound citation not selective. I could expand at considerable length but have shortened it for sake of forum convention. That may still be too long for some!

As far as bringing new people into the sport I have not encountered any serious objection to whip etc other than those involved in the animal rights lobby. We are a society who slaughter millions of ungulates annually and few people consider that when they eat sunday dinner or cooked breakfast. So the whip and Grand National safety is something that concerns the fans of the sport more strongly than the public. The Grand National will again be watched by millions around the glove next year. If we could only feed that public enthusiasm into normal racing. However; for the record I am not ‘charged’ by the BHA to do anything else than report on my days at the races and am not paid – and my view is my own. If you have evidence to the contrary you should cite it because demonstrably unfounded ad hominem attack is the last resort of a bankrupt argument. Note I have at no time questioned your agenda; and certainly would not without proof to support it. There is no call for it and we call it as I said unecessary ad hominem. It simply undermines your argument by clutching at non existent straws. Nevertheless I have had the courtesy to answer in depth the points you have raised; and perhaps as it is drifting from the point somehwat we resort now to pm if you wish to discuss any topic other than the thread op. As I said before I went into some detail because I was asked to provide evidence of how the campaign by animal rights groups and the RSPCA has not impacted fur sales which are at their highest ever despite the recession. You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but eventually truth and evidence wins the day; at least to those who are interested in hearing it.

[Ugly Mare]

in advance of knowing what these changes are, I think a very good move. I look forward to reading more. Thank you for letting us know.

[Racing Daily]

The GN is being sanitized to the point that it will be unrecognisable to all bar the newest of viewers. A very sad end to a ‘national institution’

[Kenh]

The GN is being sanitized to the point that it will be unrecognisable to all bar the newest of viewers. A very sad end to a ‘national institution’

In fairness I think we should wait and see what they have to say.

[Steeplechasing]

I hope one of them is a structured cooling off procedure for horses.

If not, expect a resurrected Eddie Waring and his old mate Stuart Hall to preside once the buckets start flying

[Kenh]

The main recommendations of the Review are:

Several changes relating to the structure of and groundwork around fences in the race (which have already been communicated as part of an announcement by Aintree on 15th August 2011, and in some cases are already in progress).

Minimum age of horses eligible to be entered in the race to be increased to seven from six years, and all horses to have previously finished 4th or better in a Steeplechase under Rules of three miles or further

Various elements of pre and post-race procedures to be reviewed and enhanced, including arrangements at the pull-up area

Bypassing of fences to continue, with customised equipment

Improved processes for identifying and responding to weather related risks

More targeted suitability criteria for all the race’s participants, and increased membership for the existing Authority Panel which reviews the suitability of those horses entered in all races over the Grand National fences

Existing raceday veterinary inspections (carried out by Authority Veterinarians) of all horses running in the Grand National to be extended to all races run over the Grand National fences

They have also said that the minimum rating for entrants will be raisefrom 110 to 120.

Full details: http://www.britishhorseracing.com/grand … al-review/

[Cav]

There ya go, the slippery slope, didn’t take long.

cotton wool on the landing side please

http://www.auburnfootball.com/GIFS/deal.gif

[Kenh]

There ya go, the slippery slope, didn’t take long.

cotton wool on the landing side please

http://www.auburnfootball.com/GIFS/deal.gif

Have you actually read through the report ? If so what are the recommendations you don’t like and why ?

[Anonymous]

I

have

read the report this morning. I think BHA have done a better job here in avoiding headless-chicken compliance with RSPCA demands than they did in … that other celebrated current issue.

There is much more comment recorded in the report from the jockeys, the trainers and the Aintree management themselves on many of the questions raised; and in many cases the Authority has trusted the professional insiders, and resisted some of the more damaging options that were being suggested.

The 30 (yes,

thirty

!) Recommendations in themselves are comparatively minor, and not controversial. Who will object to levelling out a couple of hollows on the landing side of the 1st fence, for example? or the determination to stop so much media intrusion at the site of equine or human injuries?

Yet the underlying sense, once again, is that this is NOT the "Grand National Review to End All Reviews". It’s fine and proper to talk about "ongoing monitoring", but not fine to invite critics to come back for further bites at the cherry ("those two inches off the 4th fence haven’t worked, let’s have another two") should the equine fatalities continue, which of course alas they will.

It is this crushing sense that we’ll be here again in another twelve, or twenty-four months, with yet another little round of bibs and tucks which is so depressing.

Eventually the Aintree management (who resisted such goofy options as an extra Aintree-style fence before the 1st, to make that obstacle "easier"!) are likely to reach the point where the labyrinthine organisational complexities demanded make running the race administratively and fiscally impossible. That is the worry underlying this (in detail not unreasonable) "interim report".

[Kenh]

Jamie Stier on ATR shortly to talk about the report.

[Anonymous]

Two

Recommendations

which I’m interested to hear opinions about:

23.

On the basis of the data reviewed, the Review Group did not believe that six year olds have made any meaningful contribution to the race in recent years. Therefore, it is recommended that the minimum age for a horse to be eligible to run in the Grand National be increased to seven years old.

24.

All runners in the Grand National from 2012 must have won or been placed second, third or fourth in a Steeplechase under the Rules of a Recognised Turf Authority of at least three miles during their career.

The last time a 6yo won the race was Ally Sloper in 1915, so that doesn’t look a very significant change – although the "evidence" that the few 6yo’s who do run suffer more injuries than older horses was far from robust.

24.

is more controversial. It would, according to the Review, have ruled out winners such as

Gay Trip

.

[And what about

Crisp

, am I correct about him not having fulfilled that condition before the 1973 race? He was only 5th in the 1972 Cheltenham Gold Cup.] Once again, the evidence that 2-milers suffer higher attrition rates in the race than the stamina horses didn’t seem to me convincing.

[Kenh]

Two

Recommendations

which I’m interested to hear opinions about:

23.

On the basis of the data reviewed, the Review Group did not believe that six year olds have made any meaningful contribution to the race in recent years. Therefore, it is recommended that the minimum age for a horse to be eligible to run in the Grand National be increased to seven years old.

24.

All runners in the Grand National from 2012 must have won or been placed second, third or fourth in a Steeplechase under the Rules of a Recognised Turf Authority of at least three miles during their career.

The last time a 6yo won the race was Ally Sloper in 1915, so that doesn’t look a very significant change – although the "evidence" that the few 6yo’s who do run suffer more injuries than older horses was far from robust.

24.

is more controversial. It would, according to the Review, have ruled out winners such as

Gay Trip

.

[And what about

Crisp

, am I correct about him not having fulfilled that condition before the 1973 race? He was only 5th in the 1972 Cheltenham Gold Cup.] Once again, the evidence that 2-milers suffer higher attrition rates in the race than the stamina horses didn’t seem to me convincing.

I’m not worried about 6yo’s not being in. The second point could be more contentious. If a horse finshed 4th in a four horse race would it qualify ? while a horse finishing 5th in a 15 runner wouldn’t. I think the principal is good though.

[Irish Stamp]

The age was only reduced to 6yo’s from 7yo for the 1999 after Cyfor Malta bolted up in the John Hughes and was found to be ineligible for the following years big race.

So an Irish-bred 7yo that didn’t jump a hurdle till it was 5 is deemed to be more suitable than a French-bred 6yo that’s been schooled since it was 2?

[tbracing]

The 6yo point I’m not sure, you don’t get many 6yo British horses running because of the programme 4/5 novice hurdle, 5/6 second season hurdle, 6/7 novice chasing etc, bring it back a year for juvenile starters.

Since 1999, 10 six year olds have competed in the national and they were all French bred I believe and 7 of them fell, though its not a conclusive sample and can’t judge the 6yo French chasing population on 10 runners.

Mon Parrain would be a horse that falls into this category and would have the ability to win a national and is handicapped just about ok to stand a chance at the moment.

[MaoriVenture]

surely one of the biggest problems to address is how they are going faster and faster in the race, encouraged by lowering of the fences?

In turn, maybe it also encourages trainers who are not so sure about the jumping technique of their horses to take a chance, so a double whammy.

Maybe perversely, it would be better to increase the height of fences to that of 20 or 30 years ago, to encourage the riders to go slower, and also in a perverse way, have less finishers who are then subject to need for oxygen for completing the 4 1/2 mile journey at breakneck pace?

Also producing slower ground could help too? More pulled up when out of contention, would mean less finishers requiring treatment at the end of the race.

[Author]

Posts