- This topic has 384 replies, 85 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
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.
Good point about finishing position Jose. If it were possible to go by "running to form", it might be better. Although doubt if that can be done successfully. Finishing position may not be ideal, but is better than nothing. In these days of all runners in the handicap, it is frustrating when those stayers with a good chance of winning are prevented from doing so by obvious 2 milers.
I think your suggestion Jose would prevent some stayers from coming back to form to win.
Value Is EverythingAlways thought Don’t Push It was a poor jumper..which is why I didn’t back him. What do I know?
Whilst their may be arguments against some of the proposals, I don’t think saying that a horse who won it and another who came second around 40 years ago wouldn’t now be allowed in is a logical one.
or the determination to stop so much media intrusion at the site of equine or human injuries?
Which should not have been an issue in the first place as there are already clear guidelines and rules already in place, which the BBC completely disregarded in their coverage of this years race.
I think your suggestion Jose would prevent some stayers from coming back to form to win.
I was definitely speaking from a perspective of their – BHA – ultra sensitive angle, rather than my own personal ideals.
I’d leave the race a standard handicap with a clause for the head of handicapping to ballot/eliminate those not deemed suitable according to what would be a widely available check-list.
On a side-note, will 5yo and 6yo chasers be receiving weight-for-age soon?
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
I have glanced at the report’s main findings and find no fault in them except the ratings change. In years gone by , when the National was unchanged , the race was not unlike fox hunting in terms of endurance and obstacle type ( perhaps not so big in the hunting field ). The horses used were much more " common" than today’s runners. They were big( usually ) coarse , "up and down" jumpers. Very few fences were "pinged" in those days . These are the type of animals IMO that the race was most suited to and , probably, designed for in the first place.
Now , I wouldn’t claim for a moment that there weren’t fatalities then, however, I haven’t researched how many etc.. It does though seem to me that the modern National with approachable fences and better quality horses running has done nothing toward making it a better , safer , race. Quite the opposite in fact.Many have been saying about the speed the race is run at and the way the fences are jumped contributing to the danger level increasing. I think that has been vindicated in recent years. Surely raising the quality of animal running exacerbates these factors .
The old type of horse used in the National is probably not bred in great numbers for racing now but , if they could be , then perhaps the race would become a little safer. That is not going to happen for one race though however grand.To be fair, I don’t think the recommendations are as controversial, or as absurd as I’d expected. That’ll probably follow in the next couple of years, when the head scratching really starts. You’ve got to sympathize with people who’re asked to solve a problem which is completely impossible to solve. Was an unenviable position for them to be in: doing nothing wasn’t an option…..yet there’s no real solution to it either.
Just a few obvious points though.
1. Why raise the minimum rating? When you look at the list of fatalities, it actually shows a rather depressing list, of horses who clearly
were
suitable for the challenge. This is from a previous post;
"
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
." *ps I’m aware that Hungary Hur, and Rust Never Sleeps pulled up with injuries and weren’t related to falls.
They seem to have listened to the, rather naive views, of those who believe that the quality of entries was an issue. Clearly it wasn’t. There’s no suggestion whatsoever, that raising the minimum rating will make any difference.
2. No six year olds. Well, of the ten 6yo’s who ran in it recently, 2 went on to win at the Cheltenham Festival, and another was running in top staying chases for a further 5 years, and managed to win Welsh National. As far as I can see only one of them disappeared without trace. Seems a rather minor issue, considering the small number involved. However if they seem to be showing some concern for the future welfare of horses (however an irrelevance it is to the safety of the race) then I wouldn’t slate them for it.
3. They’re going to continuing bypassing fences. Words fail me, they really do.
As I said though, not quite as bad as I expected. Time will tell how the race fares in the future. I’d be happy if this was the end of it…………sadly I doubt it.
- Total Posts 17716
They seem to have listened to the, rather naive views, of those who believe that the quality of entries was an issue. Clearly it wasn’t. There’s no suggestion whatsoever, that raising the minimum rating will make any difference.
To be fair to BHA, they state clearly that the quality of horses making the cut is not a significant issue. This particular recommendation has been adopted more as an "insurance policy" than anything else, in case (for whatever reason) quality should regress.
I agree with your disappointment about bypassing the fences, which policy has been strengthened, not dropped. Was there ever a chance it would be, with the RSPCA involved as strongly as they are (again)? This despite the fact that BHA admit that little more can be done to stop loose horses jumping the dolled-off fences anyway, at least not without a huge administrative outlay.
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.
I think VTC answered your question
2. No six year olds. Well, of the ten 6yo’s who ran in it recently, 2 went on to win at the Cheltenham Festival, and another was running in top staying chases for a further 5 years, and managed to win Welsh National. As far as I can see only one of them disappeared without trace. Seems a rather minor issue, considering the small number involved. However if they seem to be showing some concern for the future welfare of horses (however an irrelevance it is to the safety of the race) then I wouldn’t slate them for it.
Sounds like some where decent animals, just not right for the national at six.
1999 Winner Bobbyjo
Six year old was Tamarino(FR) and was trained by MC Pipe and he was in rear until fell 6th [first Bechers]
2000 Winner Papillon
Six year old was Royal Predica(FR), trained by MC Pipe and he fell 1st.
2001 Winner Red Marauder
Two six year olds in this race.
Exit Swinger(FR) is one trained by MC Pipe he was in rear when fell 6th (first Bechers).The other six year old was Kaki Crazy(FR) and was also trained by MC Pipe, he was prominent until he fell at the 3rd fence.
2002 winner Bindaree
The was two six year olds running this year too.
Majed(FR) trained by MC Pipe was one, he was in touch, lost place 17th, behind when fell 22nd (2nd Bechers).
While Iris Bleu(FR) was the other one, he was hampered 1st, fell 5th.2004 Winner Amberleigh House
The was a two year gap for the next six year old which was Kemali(FR) trained by F Douman and he was in rear when brought down 1st.
2005 winner Hedgehunter
The six year old was trained by Paul Nicholls and actually finished a distant 15 of 21 runners some 77 lengths. He was L’Aventure(FR) and this was his racing comments “Mistakes in rear, never on terms.”
2008 winner Comply Or Die
The was two six year olds in this race one trained by David Pipe and was Milan Deux Mille(FR) who finished 15th and last to Comply Or Die some 133 plus lengths adrift.With leaders, led 2nd until after 16th (water), soon lost place and behind, tailed off 21st, eventually completed.
The other one was trained by Paul Nicholls and was called Turko(FR) he was in rear division, mistake 16th (water), fell 25th (2nd Valentines)Comes as no surprise to me a certain name come’s up. The man went through hundreds of horse who after one season broke down and were never seen again in his quest for fame.
Worst trainer in the history of NH racing and if that stops people like him then I’m all for it.
Horses are mature at 6 the Champion Hurdle tells you that but very few chasers have adequate experience of jumping fences to be tackling the National.
Against that if Paul Nichols discovered he had the 4 1/2 mile version of Master Minded in his yard you are taking away his right to run the horse. Not fair? probably not but in a case like this you have no choice but draw a line that no one can cross.
How else can you stop some greedy trainer from running horses with little or no concern for their future well being.
I give this ruling a thumbs up.
As for altering fences. Grrrrrrrrrrr it’ll be a flat race soon
Comes as no surprise to me a certain name come’s up. The man went through hundreds of horse who after one season broke down and were never seen again in his quest for fame.
Worst trainer in the history of NH racing and if that stops people like him then I’m all for it.
Horses are mature at 6 the Champion Hurdle tells you that but very few chasers have adequate experience of jumping fences to be tackling the National.
Against that if Paul Nichols discovered he had the 4 1/2 mile version of Master Minded in his yard you are taking away his right to run the horse. Not fair? probably not but in a case like this you have no choice but draw a line that no one can cross.
How else can you stop some greedy trainer from running horses with little or no concern for their future well being.
I give this ruling a thumbs up.
As for altering fences. Grrrrrrrrrrr it’ll be a flat race soon
In other words, it’s ok for Paul Nicholls to try his luck with a young horse in a big race; but for any other trainer it’s greed.
How many runs did 5 year old Gwanako have over fences before winning over the National fences for Nicholls?
How many runs did 5 year old Cyfor Malta have before winning over the National Fences for Martin Pipe?Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/no … s-welcomed
Chris Cook
on what the Animal Welfarers think, what some trainers think (old and new), and what some jockeys think (pro and am).
All the usual suspects, such as
David Muir
who says he’ll be back for more fence mods once an academic study on same is finished at Glasgow Uni. ("
lines in the sand
", anyone?); and some interesting stuff on some of the issues discussed here – such as the 3m qualification.
I note that the
Animal Aid
man stuck his nose in with this gem:
"…He added that issues of equine welfare should be handled by a body independent of the sport, rather than the BHA."
This is what we’re up against.
I think Martin Pipe’s name cropped up several times because he was probably the first trainer to realise how good French horses were, just as
he was the first trainer to do blood tests on a regular basis. I know we’ve always has French breds in NH racing, but not in the numbers that we do now.
Is there any real evidence that firm ground contributes to more equine injuries and deaths? The general consensus seems to be "Water more! Water more!" Sure, many horses
prefer
soft turf, but it doesn’t seem to affect horse safety.
Is there any real evidence that firm ground contributes to more equine injuries and deaths? The general consensus seems to be "Water more! Water more!" Sure, many horses
prefer
soft turf, but it doesn’t seem to affect horse safety.
Horses will be travelling faster on firm ground, and any fall will be worse on firm ground than soft, even at the same speed.
So I’d say yes to your question. As I expect everyone else on here would.
Removed the drop at the 1st, lowered the 4th and reduced the drop at the 6th. So what is going to happen on April 14th next year? Horses will be travelling even quicker.
You think an Australian would have worked out that one by now looking at what has happened in his native land.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.