- This topic has 384 replies, 85 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Predictably, another deeply flawed review.
They seem to have an obsession with concern over poor quality horses running in the race. Raising the rating from 110 to 120 achieves very little, not least because if you thought Ornais was unsuitable this year, he was given a rating for the race of 140 on the 15th February after one Hunter Chase run in nearly two and half years.
I’ll leave it at that.
- Total Posts 17716
It’s official. No more
Crisps
or
Gay Trips
(the horses not the social events).
It’s official. No more
Crisps
or
Gay Trips
(the horses not the social events).
I haven’t before you ask
But if anyone did have a nibble at 33/1 Mon Parrain for The National I presume they will get their money back?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
.
Totally useless rule. You can qualify for this by being beaten 150 lengths in the worst novices’ chase of the season given the right circumstances. A similar rule was included years ago but it did little to keep out the duffers.
Regarding the lowest rating, the lowest rating in this year’s renewal was 138. The minimum rating rule achieves nothing.
There’s a lot of words in the document…
Rob
It’s official. No more
Crisps
or
Gay Trips
(the horses not the social events).
Nonsense Pinza.
Horses who fail to stay 3 miles on park courses don’t win the National.
I don’t know how many times either ran at 3 miles before the National, but they could have easily qualified by doing so.
In my opinion the new rules don’t go far enough.
Should be finished in first two (not 4) of a 3 mile+ race.
Experience counts, not age. There should be a minimum number of chase starts.
Horses rated with a X for poor jumper in Timeform should not be allowed to run.
First fence should be moved closer to the start (or the other way around). Reduced speed means fewer fallers at the first.
Reduce the number of runners. 40 is too many. It’s true the course is wide, but how many use the outer of the Canal Turn?
Water the ground to produce good-soft conditions. Reduces the speed and firmness of impact for fallers.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
It’s official. No more
Crisps
or
Gay Trips
(the horses not the social events).
Nonsense Pinza.
Horses who fail to stay 3 miles on park courses don’t win the National.
I don’t know how many times either ran at 3 miles before the National, but they could have easily qualified by doing so.
Ginger, what’s nonsense?
Gay Trip
was tackling a distance above 3m for the first time when he won the race in 1970 (as far as I can establish).
Crisp
was a Champion 2m chaser who had run only once over 3m or more, when a patently non-staying 5th in the previous year’s Cheltenham Gold Cup.
If he didn’t win the National, he’s probably the second most famous horse
not
too (behind only
Devon Loch
).
Neither would have qualified under the new rules, so where’s the "nonsense"??
As it happens, I don’t think it’s that big a deal either: the last non-staying two miler to be placed was
Simply Gifted
(2003) who had managed a non-staying 4th over 3m at Haydock previous to his fine National run. So he would still just qualify.
The rest of your concerns are (rather well) addressed in the Report.
It’s official. No more
Crisps
or
Gay Trips
(the horses not the social events).
Nonsense Pinza.
Horses who fail to stay 3 miles on park courses don’t win the National.
I don’t know how many times either ran at 3 miles before the National, but they could have easily qualified by doing so.
Ginger, what’s nonsense?
Gay Trip
was tackling a distance above 3m for the first time when he won the race in 1970 (as far as I can establish).
Crisp
was a Champion 2m chaser who had run only once over 3m or more, when a patently non-staying 5th in the previous year’s Cheltenham Gold Cup.
If he didn’t win the National, he’s probably the second most famous horse
not
too (behind only
Devon Loch
).
Neither would have qualified under the new rules, so where’s the "nonsense"??
As it happens, I don’t think it’s that big a deal either: the last non-staying two miler to be placed was
Simply Gifted
(2003) who had managed a non-staying 4th over 3m at Haydock previous to his fine National run. So he would still just qualify.
The rest of your concerns are (rather well) addressed in the Report.
It is nonsense Pinza, because if Gay Trip had not qualified, connections could easily have qualified by running in 3 mile chases prior to the National. To think Gay Trip wasn’t capable of finishing 4th in a 3 mile chase over conventional fences is nonsense.
The Cheltenham Gold Cup is not a 3 mile chase Pinza and Crisp could easily have qualified in a lesser grade 3 mile chase.
Therefore, to think neither would have run in the National is plain bonkers.
It may even help get runners in to those "Cheltenham" trials that no trainer seems to want to use these days.
Value Is EverythingRaising the age to seven. First only 1 six year and 1 5 year old have won in the past century, the last seven year old was in world war two (1940) so I’d don’t think this will make much difference.
Raising the minimum Official Ratings by 10 pounds won’t make much difference either as for ages the minimum to get in is 136.
Coming 4th or better in a 3 mile chase. No more Gay Trip, Crisp, or probably Foinavon whom was so far back as to avoid the pile up at the 23rd fence.
What this means for a horse running in a 3 mile chase with only 4 runners. Will they qualify on this rule if completing.
I don’t see in the rules are they reducing the field to say 30 from 40?
- Total Posts 17716
What this means for a horse running in a 3 mile chase with only 4 runners. Will they qualify on this rule if completing.
I don’t see in the rules are they reducing the field to say 30 from 40?
(1) Yes – and (2) No – the case for reducing the field wasn’t strongly made,
RR77
The Cheltenham Gold Cup is not a 3 mile chase Pinza and Crisp could easily have qualified in a lesser grade 3 mile chase.
I thought it was, or to be more precise it exceeds 3 miles and would qualify a horse if they were beaten into 4th place.
Should be finished in first two (not 4) of a 3 mile+ race.
Horses rated with a X for poor jumper in Timeform should not be allowed to run.
Ginger, you should know from your many years of using the knowledge of those from Halifax that finishing position is irrelevant. You can run 2nd and perform to 100 in any race and run 5th and perform to 160.
Not only that, if jumping ability is what should be emphasised, allowing (almost encouraging trainers) horses to qualify from small field novice chases is fundamentally flawed.
Re Timeform’s X for poor jumping. The BHA don’t use their "bad jumper" criteria often enough.
IF they were going to put strict performance criteria in place, a requirement for any horse to perform to a rating of 130 over fences from May 1st to April 1st each year over 3 miles+ would have achieved what they were after.
Raising the age to seven. First only 1 six year and 1 5 year old have won in the past century, the last seven year old was in world war two (1940) so I’d don’t think this will make much difference.
six year olds don’t generally run often because of the typical training cycle of a British thoroughbred but why should a French bred horse be expelled that could have a vast amount more experience jumping fences at six than a seven year old British horse? It doesn’t make sense and is ill thought out.
I use Mon Parrain as an example because he is now excluded from the race and would be the first six year old in a while who genuinely could have stood a chance of winning it had they wanted to go that route. They they may have been considering it as he has already been over the national fences as a five year old and finished second but now can’t as a six year old one year on.
Though I agree in the long term it probably won’t make much difference.
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.
Its a strange kind of logic. French breds havent really made a significant contribution either. Had they conducted this review before Mon Mome’s win ?
In general I am not that bothered about the report but then I am not really that bothered about the race.
This made me smile …
PhilipDaviesMP Philip Davies
I see the BHA is leading with its chin again with its Grand National review. More solutions looking for problems. Will they ever learn?The Cheltenham Gold Cup is not a 3 mile chase Pinza and Crisp could easily have qualified in a lesser grade 3 mile chase.
I thought it was, or to be more precise it exceeds 3 miles and would qualify a horse if they were beaten into 4th place.
It is RR.
Pinza said Crisp did not stay in the Cheltenham Gold Cup.
Just pointing out Crisp would have faced an easier task at only 3 miles and in a lesser race.Value Is EverythingPleasantly surprised by what I’ve just read [an outbreak of common sense somewhere] and at least they’ve admitted they made a huge faux pas by not informing everyone of their intention to cool the horses down after this years race.
So course form counts for nothing. Grand Sefton & Topham winners excluded from now on. Does that mean Churchtown Boy would not have chased home Red Rum in 1977?
But if anyone did have a nibble at 33/1 Mon Parrain for The National I presume they will get their money back?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.