- This topic has 384 replies, 85 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
Oh my f’cking god almighty some people really just do my head in. Carnage, animal cruelty and whatever else you do gooder twats want to say is just all sheer and utter bull.
The grand national is what it is, horses will always be killed and jockies will always be injured. Its just the way it is. Jockies and horses are also hurt every day of the week at other meetings both on the flat and over the jumps. Would you like to stop the whole sport completely.
If you dont like it then dont watch racing. Watch show jumping or polo to get your horsey fix because to be honest there is nothing wrong with the race. If anything the fences should be made bigger, that would slow the race down.
The grand national is the true test of a NH horse and thats why so few get around. Nobody likes to see a stricken horse but its part of the game. The only ones who should be crying are the owners and the connections.
The only concern I have form the weekend is the welfare of poor peter toole, my taughts and prayers are with him, however injuries like that can happen anytime, even at home riding out. So the grand national is not to blame. Jockies know the risks they are taking as do owners and trainners. If they dont like it dont get involved, if you do gooder morans dont like it, dont watch.
But leave the race alone and give all of us true NH fans a break from your whinning.
Why don’t we have 1m4f hurdle races anymore?
How come they stopped having jump races on the AW?
I wonder why they stopped having those? Can’t be because of injuries, as I mean jockeys and horses get injured every day of the week. It is interesting however that they were able to do away with those without stopping the sport completely. I wonder how they were able to pull that off?The two main concerns I have from Saturday are
1. The welfare of Peter Toole
2. Having put so much effort in for our entertainment I hope all the horses who completed the course or the majority of it are not asked to run again in the big races at Ayr, Sandown or Fairyhouse in the next couple of weeks.
In the long term I’m not sure anything should be done to change the race. I imagine next year we are more likely to run on heavy ground than to have the sweltering conditions we experienced on Saturday. As for changing the date of the race I don’t think that is feasible.
It’s incredibly frustrating that some are still blaming quick conditions for the deaths on Saturday.
RP Online have submitted views from Kim Bailey and Lucinda Russell in their top story. They have both suggested that the pace of the race was a contributing factor.
"The race was run in the second fastest time in history.
"Speed always causes more horses to fall as they are racing one stride faster than normal and those fences are big.
~ KIM BAILEYWhat Kim fails to mention is that when Mr Frisk won the Grand National in record time on firm ground, twenty horses finished the contest, only seven fell, resulting in one death. So, let us compare that to yesterday:
1990: 38 runners, 20 finishers, 07 fallers, one death
2011: 40 runners, 19 finishers, 11 fallers, two deathsI will once again submit my statistical analysis regarding the average number of finishers and fallers since the turn of the century in relation to the ground:
Good-Finishers 14.1 Fallers 10.6
G/Sft–Finishers 15.6 Fallers 9There is clearly no correlation between the ground and the number of finishers / fallers. Let’s move on…
——————————————————————
If people took the time to analyse the statistics, there are clearly three fences that cause most of the trouble:
Fence 1. Fence 4 (and 20). Fence 6 (and 22).
In the previous twelve renewals, these three fences have contributed to 55.8% of the casualties, resulting in four out of the five fall related deaths.
So, I have analysed this data and will suggest a solution:
FENCE 1
Has claimed 23/120 fallers since the turn of the century, but the same obstacle on the second circuit has not claimed any casualties.
There is clearly nothing wrong with this obstacle. The pace they travel to it on the first circuit and obvious conjestion are possible reasons. Reducing the size of the field and distance from the start to the first fence could result in less fallers.
FENCE 4 (AND 20)
A fairly innocuous obstacle, but it has contributed to the deaths of Manx Magic and Ornais. Is third highest on the list, boasting 17/120 victims. Corbiere fell at this obstacle after previously winning a Grand National and finishing third twice. Calgary Bay, arguably the soundest jumper in the field, fell at this fence on Saturday. The Racing Post on Sunday said that he jumped it fine, but landed too steeply.
Hard what to make of this. Perhaps this is one obstacle that should be increased in size. Some horses clearly don’t respect it enough and it may be almost too inviting.
FENCE 6 (AND 22)
The most fearsome on the course, Becher’s has claimed 27/120 casulaties. More horses fall at this fence on the second circuit. The landing side is nearly two feet lower than the take-off side. Mick Fiztgerald, in his ATR preview, stated that ‘every horse pecks a little on landing’.
After already completing more than half the course, jumping twenty-one obstacles in the process, it’s perhaps asking too much for some horses to negotiate Becher’s for a second time. With it’s steep landing side, it must be harder to pick themselves up at this stage of the contest. The field bypassed it on Saturday, they can do it again.
Again, I will reiterate what I submitted in my previous post and expand on it a little:
1) Reduce the size of the field to 32
2) Reduce the distance from the start to the first fence
3) Jump Becher’s first circuit only
4) Increase the size of Fence 4 (and 20)Taking into consideration the proximity of the crowd at the start, perhaps all horses should be fitted with ear plugs. It may not be a solution to their obvious excitement, but it should help.
——————————————————————
Equine safety is paramount. This has nothing to do with jumping on the bandwagon. The race should be reviewed every five years and the necessary changes made to improve safety, without compromising the race as a spectacle.
Talk of it being run over shorter, moved to an earlier date etc etc is not the answer. The race is fine where it is and should not be moved under any circumstance.
The data is there for all to see – let’s react to the facts.
Although I enjoy National Hunt racing far more than the Flat I wouldn’t be overly upset if the National was laid to rest. Certainly, for me it would not be comparable to losing the Cheltenham Festival. It is the people’s race in that it attracts an audience who wouldn’t normally watch racing – many of whom will watch because it is more dangerous than your average race.
As regards making it safer I am unsure what more can be done. You can’t realistically keep chipping away at the fences until it becomes just another handicap chase with 40 runners. Perhaps reducing it to 30 runners might help a little. The heat was an issue this year and probably will be again as it seems that the most prestigious events of a ‘winter sport’ are increasingly being run in summer-like conditions. I think in an ideal world the Festivals should begin earlier but the prospect of abandonments almost certainly means that isn’t likely to happen.
Lets face it; they eat horses in some countries.We eat cows sheep and goats, pigs fish and fowl. People die riding in the horse racing business,car racing, and three day events.We breed many more poor racers than good ones and we cannot afford to feed the slow horses or the slow grayhounds so what is the solution? People are starving in many countries so maybe we should export the slow horses to feed the hungry people of the world instead of crying about the one in a hundred horses that die at the track.Incidentally the same applies to the too many overfed dogs that are running around.Two isles in every supermarket of pet food!We feed our pets while our brothers and sisters starve.We need to get real,put people first and stop the whining.
I visited Plumpton on the Monday before Cheltenham. Three horses died, two of whom appeared to break legs on the flat. The going was good/soft, good in places.
These occurences did not make the front page of the Daily Mail, and as I recall the Cheltenham Festival saw only one fatality in the four days (I may be wrong but the point is however many equine deaths there were at Cheltenham this year, it was evidently not considered newsworthy).
The sight of a horse under canvas at fence 24 was not pretty, but anyone watching some of Red Rum’s nationals will see some rather unpleasant sights – at the end of the 1973 renewal (probably one of the most watched) you can clearly see the soon to be destroyed Grey Sombrero being attended to in front of The Chair; in 1975 Land Lark lays dead under canvas at The Chair as L’Escargot defeats Red Rum; and in the 1977 race Winter Rain is killed instantly at Becher’s first time (though his body had been removed when the field jumped it on the second circuit).
The two casualties this year cam at fences 4 and 6 so the endurance factor was not to blame. Maybe they were going too fast but I tend to agree that the stiffness of the aintree fences was the main contributory factor.
I think a lot has been done to increase equine safety across racing, but going back to the 1973 Grand National, compare Richard Pitman on Crisp to the aggressive flailing whip style of Jason Maguire this year. The jockeys are now supremely fit sportsmen whereas in Pitman’s day they would drink several glasses of champagne the morning of the race, and no doubt top up with a brandy or two.
I think it would be a good idea for the jockeys to be prevented from using their whips to hit horses in races that present extreme challenges to their equine partners. From a PR point of view the sight of Maguire punishing his horse was not pretty.
Just imagine if Ballabriggs had collapsed and died? What would the outcry have been like then?Back in 2001 Red Marauder wabbled and was dismounted in a similar way Ballabrigs did, this time because of completely opposite weather conditions that had made the ground very testing. Surely logic dictates that when weather conditions are extreme (wet or warm) the BHA should consider either reducing the distance of the race (2m 5f like the Topham) or miss out say half the fences.
I know that purists like Ginger McCain would argue against tampering in any way, however the vast majority of people who have their once a year bets would not really be too bothered. They bet on the race because the myth still persists that the race is a complete lottery. So the huge financial boost the race gives to the bookmaking world and, by way of the levy, racing itself, would be maintained. The positive would be that UK racing would show to the world that it can act in the interest of equine welfare.
Personally I love jump racing, but I would have no problem at all with the National course being dismantled, park fences put in their place, and the distance being reduced to 4m or less. People would moan, but in a relatively small amount of time it would be accepted as having been a good thing.
As is the same with every National we get overblown nonesense on how us National Hunt boys have no feelings for the horses and care only about money and the spectacle. It really does get tiring.
The National is a perfectly safe race and has always put safety first. Yesterday was very unfortunate, but these things happen. The fences had nothing to do with it. This could have happened anywhere and news flash it will happen again everywhere.
It’s not like you flatsies are totally innocent either. I’d rather watch the National every day than watch horses forced into stalls and watching them panicking like scared children while they’re inside what can only be described as anti-spacious cells.
Jump racing is fine the way it is. It does not need ANY rethinking or remodeling. These things happen and that’s just the way it is. Don’t like it? Turn the channel and watch some curling.
‘The National is a perfectly safe race and always puts safety first’ YOU IDIOT!
Haha uh oh newbie alert! Let me guess.. 12 years old? HA! You kids crack me up…
I agree changes should be made…
1. The space used for loose horses to run round the fences should be filled with more fence. These fences are far too narrow. 40 horses is perfect and there is nothing wrong with it, as has been shown for the last 30 odd years, but with this new bypassing bollocks; they have made the fences too narrow and thus bring downs etc are more inevitable.
2. Make the fences bigger. That’s right. These horses are looking and these and saying "oh this is easy" and bang. Horse down. These horses are sprinting to these fences because they look too welcoming and thus don’t respect them. If they were made a tad bigger and no so sloped; both horse and rider would respect them more and thus will slow down and jump them accordingly.
3. Turrets should be made around the course to look out for animal rights protesters. If they come anywhere near; we gun their arses down.
Can someone confirm (or not) that the national fences are actually narrower?
It didn’t look much to me like they’d narrowed the fence to create more room, it looked more like they’d built a ‘bus stop’ effectively making the course wider.
Surely though, narrow fences must be perfectly safe, otherwise they’d never need to bypass fallen horses would they?
Ooo I feel a bit nervous posting on here as a newbie but here it goes
I love racing, I love jump racing although I feel I shouldnt. I have owned 3 ex racers and they are beautiful, rewarding and kind animals – therefore I do feel an unpleasant conflict of interest in that I also enjoy betting, even on the National.
However, this year has really upset me. Not only the deaths, that are unpleasant but an unfortunate part of racing, but the fact that the winning jockey got a 5 day ban for over use of the whip.
I dont understand how someone who cheats gets to keep the win – the ban isn’t going to teach him anything now? Clearly it didn’t after he was banned last time!
i rewatched the race on you tube and bechers brook has indeed been made narrower by the bypassing being intorduced, watch the race and then watch again from few years before
vf
The BHA are well organised when it comes to safety limits and take a pro-active stance.
I remember when Great Leighs opened, Kevin Darley went down there as a matter of urgency and gave his considered opinion that fifteen was the correct safety limit and not sixteen. He didn’t need any evidence of injuries or fatalities, he simply used his expertise.
I’m sure similar assessments have been made at Aintree and the conclusion, quite rightly, has been that forty runners going hell for leather over giant obstacles, over marathon trips, in cramped confines is
much much safer
than the killing fields that existed on the flat at Kempton, Southwell, Lingfield, Great Leighs et al before that sixteenth stall was taken away.
Put simply, this isn’t the public relations disaster that existed five years ago, when you couldn’t switch on the telly without coming across an edition of Panorama railing against 16 runner flat fields or have a day out at Sunbury without seeing tarpaulin littering the home straight post race.
There is nothing to see here.
i rewatched the race on you tube and bechers brook has indeed been made narrower by the bypassing being intorduced, watch the race and then watch again from few years before
vf
Thanks. I’ll take your word for it. It’s nice to get a straight answer instead of emotive ramblings. (See some of the posts about this!)
However, this year has really upset me. Not only the deaths, that are unpleasant but an unfortunate part of racing, but the fact that the winning jockey got a 5 day ban for over use of the whip.
I dont understand how someone who cheats gets to keep the win – the ban isn’t going to teach him anything now? Clearly it didn’t after he was banned last time!
Safety and welfare is paramount for the BHA, which is why they take such a tough stance on whip abuse.
The punishment is twofold:
1) Riders are banned from running in any 1500 pound races for a few days (races worth more than this are usually open to negotiation – if you say "oh please let me off" and offer the BHA the opportunity to waste a few more thousand on lawyers, you will be allowed to ride in them).
2) Riders names and indiscretions are pinned to the racecourse notice board. This is
the real punishment
. The shame can be unbearable for the jockeys concerned. I’ve heard of more than one tale of a jockey, rope round his neck ready to finish it all, having to be talked down from his stool as a result of such public disgrace.
I think the effectiveness of these bans is there for all to see. Jason Maguire had clearly learned his lesson from the previous infringement on Peddlers Cross on his first ride back on the same horse and kept that lesson in his head on Saturday.
Some interesting points in here but add me to the list of folk who believe there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the National.
The law of averages dictates that if we have the National as it is every now and again we will have two fatalities in the race, just as it sometimes can happen in a selling hurdle at a gaff track; I believe the general public understands this and it is just a few agenda-driven journalists who try to make capital. But the way the BBC coverage exposed this so starkly has caused something of a PR disaster/victory depending on your stance.
I hear what Bosranic has been saying but I think the course could have done more to ensure less quick going. It was clear in the Topham that the going was on the firm side of good but apparently there was no further watering. They have done so on the eve of the race before so why not this time?
Early pace is another issue and jockeys have to be encouraged to take it steadier over the first few. I would make it a condition of the race that runners should have won a Class 2 Chase over at least 3m.
Also, ban the use of whips in this race. Why not? Most horses are genuine enough….
The fence bypassing detracted from the race and highlighted the problems – I really feel bypassing should be avoided at all costs.
Let’s not wear the hairshirt for too long. It’s the greatest race in the world.
From the BHA –
BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY’S DIRECTOR OF EQUINE SCIENCE AND WELFARE STATEMENT ON THE GRAND NATIONAL
“The Grand National was attended by over 70,000 people and watched by tens of millions, many of whom would have had a bet, or taken part in a sweepstake. Any one of those millions of people would undoubtedly have been very saddened by the accidents, seen clearly on television, which led to the death of Ornais and Dooneys Gate during the race.
“Racing is a sport with risk, and the Grand National is the most testing race in Great Britain; that is why it has captured the imagination of so many for over a century. Racing works hard to reduce the risk. Some risk to horses is inherent in the sport, as it is to differing degrees in the life of a horse in any environment. Racing is open and transparent about these risks, publishes information about equine fatalities on the Authority’s website, and works to further reduce these risks [see Notes for Editors 1 and 4]
“All those involved in racing do care for their horses. At the race itself there are more than 150 specialist staff who are completely focused on making the race as safe as possible, so there is no shortage of effort or expense in this respect. [see Notes for Editors 2 for detail]. This care and concern is why Horseracing has for many years also worked closely with legitimate animal welfare charities, such as the RSPCA and World Horse Welfare. The role of both these organisations is to be critical and raise concerns with us and, if they are not happy with the action we take, there is no doubt they would be very public about it, as anyone would expect from a legitimate animal welfare organisation.
“Beyond this proper concern for horse welfare, much of the prompting on this issue to the media has been driven by Animal Aid. Animal Aid are not an animal welfare group, as many newspapers and news channels have been misinformed. They are an animal rights organisation against the use of animals for sport and leisure. As such their clearly stated agenda is to ban racing. [see Notes for Editors 3].
“If racing then didn’t exist, this would have a huge impact on tens of thousands of thoroughbreds across the UK; it would effectively mean that owners and trainers wouldn’t be able to look after their horses and the breed would disappear; as would a large part of British life.
“Such Animal Rights campaigners are entitled to their views, but the overwhelming majority of the British public take an animal welfare viewpoint as to how they deal responsibly with their obligations to animals kept as pets, raised for food and used in sport and leisure. They do not want to stop eating meat, keeping pets, riding horses or watching racing, but do want risks to animals be reduced to the minimum.
“So it is clear there are two quite distinct issues here. The first issue is how we can realistically reduce the risk in the Grand National further, and that is the job of the BHA, Animal Welfare groups and Aintree Racecourse. We do listen to those concerns that have been raised and will continue to strive to reduce risk, whether that is in specific relation to the Grand National or in any other race. The second issue is the wider ethical debate of whether it is right for humans to use animals in leisure, sport and for food. Neither of these issues is served by the emotive language and misleading information from Animal Rights campaigners.
“The BHA would also like to clarify the following points:
“The Grand National is a difficult race and was run this year on an unseasonably warm day. Because of that, all the jockeys had been instructed prior to the race to dismount from their horses as soon as the race was over in order to allow the team of handlers and vets to get water to the horses so as to prevent over-heating (which is a main cause of collapse), as it is when people run and race over long distances. This preventative action happened to all the horses, not just the winner, and shows welfare improvements in action. No horse collapsed.
“The introduction of the run-outs, which were used for the first time this year, were introduced in 2009, the year after the horse McKelvey died. They were introduced after much discussion, which included the RSPCA, as a welfare measure to allow loose horses to be able to go round the obstacles, and not, as has been reported, to prevent the race from being voided. Again this is welfare in action.
“The winning jockey, Jason Maguire has been banned for exceeding the strict limits which we place on the use of the whip. The horse was carefully examined after the race and there is no evidence of an abuse. Such abuses are dealt with very seriously and, as we do at the end of every season, we will certainly be reviewing our Rules to ensure that we have the balance right between appropriate use of the whip and controlling inappropriate, unacceptable use.”
Anyone who doubts the national is either very misguided or on a wind up
Horses get injured all over the place – oh theres a crisp packet lets duck out or lets jump over that puddle
Horses get killed all over the shop.Its right to be worried about horses but anyone who thinks we shouldnt have the national or should sensitise it has been watching the flat too long. Not interested now and never will be
I would make the fences bigger but softer and water more – but thats just me. They wouldnt go so fast at them them.
Horses get killed all over the shop.- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.