May 8, 2007 at 23:48 #1613
- Total Posts 114
Watched the 4:00 at Kelso today and his fall did not look good, just seen that the Racing Post says it was in fact fatal. Condolences to connections.
Always liked this horse, a fantastic effort in the Champion Bumper was not the start of great things sadly but I still haboured hope that the step up in trip would bring about improvement, alas.<br>
(Edited by ToneLoc at 12:48 am on May 9, 2007)May 8, 2007 at 23:49 #58019
- Total Posts 196
He didnt look to clever after the fall, dont like to see any horse go like that good or bad.May 9, 2007 at 08:51 #58020
- Total Posts 5145
Yes it was particularly unpleasant viewing. Hard to be sure whether losing his footing was due to the leg breaking or as a consequence of it.
I too thought this may have been Rasharrow’s day.
The fearful joy that is NH racing<br>May 10, 2007 at 05:37 #58021
It was one of the worst ones I’ve seen for a long time.. I only saw it on the ATR replay on wednesday morning and it annoyed me that the race commentator said not one thintg about it during running (apart from the fact that it had hampered the horse behind) and that in Zoey’s summing up of the race afterwards it wasn’t mentioned either. It’s wrong not to acknowledge that it’s happened. You can’t sweep it under the carpet and pretend it didn’t happen.May 10, 2007 at 21:31 #58022
I saw the replay and it annoyed me too that the commentator’s only comment was about hampering the horse behind. Even worse that Zoe’s follow up never acknowledged the fate of poor Rasharrow and offer condolences to connections who surely must have been mortified by such an awful injury.May 11, 2007 at 05:13 #58024
I really do think they shoudl be consistent in ackowledging that there’d been a fatality during the race. Often it depends on who’s commentating or presenting on the day but it ought to be a requirement of all of themMay 11, 2007 at 12:58 #58025
- Total Posts 7112
The problem with doing so is that certain tracks are twitchier than others about fatalities being acknowledged.
I know of one course that asked for – and got – a certain commentator to be removed from any more duties there, after he had admitted that a horse that had taken a fall whilst miles clear in one race wasn’t going to get up.
Understandable to a point, particularly with jumps racing (and the ever-increasing sensitivities regarding what image to convey of it).
(Edited by graysonscolumn at 2:00 pm on May 11, 2007)
The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.May 11, 2007 at 18:03 #58027
Sorry that’s no excuse and it does annoy me! Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â ATR; Racing UK and Racing Post are all specialist channels/websites which Joe Public won’t bother with and they should report accurately – if they don’t I usually email the racecourse to ask after the welfare of the horse and most reply. It really infuriates me when the presenters yak on about prices etc and ignore informing about the welfare of the horse – sometimes they are OK and it’s great when they show them up on their feet and the crowd react in appreciation. These people are on the spot and can and should get the information asap. Racing Post SHOULD have the info one way or another on their details for each race.May 11, 2007 at 18:36 #58028
- Total Posts 3068
ATR and RUK staff at the racecourse are very much tied to the same spot throughout the meeting – they have to be to remain in contact with the studio director and in front of the fixed camera position. They don’t have the ability to go to the weighing room or the press room to follow up on incidents like the one that started this thread.
It’s pretty much the same on the terrestrial channels, but they can afford to employ runners who chase around for news and also round up people for interviews.
If information is lacking, it isn’t because the people concerned aren’t bothered about the welfare of the horses, simply a practical problem as they are dependent on the news being brought to them, and a recognition that no news is better than passing on inaccurate information.
APMay 11, 2007 at 18:47 #58029
ATR and RUK should then employ someone to seek out info – they have no difficulty in obtaining info re betting (which I personally don’t care about at all) – I watch racing because of the horses … in Rasharrow’s sad case it was obvious that he was fatally injured.May 11, 2007 at 18:52 #58031
- Total Posts 602
In addition, you should be aware that connections of a fatally injured horse probably don’t have their first priority as seeking out the nearest tv representative to tell them the news. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Racecourse vets and officials are also rightly dealing first with the stricken animal. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â A delay is completely understandable before news is confirmed – particularly if an injury is touch and go. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â In these circumstances the horses matters more than the tv viewer.May 11, 2007 at 19:02 #58033
- Total Posts 5145
Dunno about the ATR replay but live both Gordon Brown on-course and Sean Boyce in the studio made reference to Rasharrow’s injuries straight after the race: (words to the effect) Brown "a tragic race", Boyce "afraid it doesn’t look at all good for Rasharrow".
Don’t really think Doug Fraser (the commentator) can be criticised as it’s his job to call and read the race and in my view he did an exemplary job in immediately calling Possextown as the horse brought down by Rasharrow’s unfortunate fall before his eyes were, of necessity, diverted to the leaders.
Would be all for the RP carrying a daily "scratchings: all engagements dead" column together with respectful considered comment, if only to remind their legions of readers just what it is they are betting on: fragile flesh and blood.May 11, 2007 at 19:20 #58034
Usually I must admit, the commentatirs and presenters are clearly upset and concerned about a possible fatal fall, and Sean in the booth will says he’ll try to find out how the horse is, and that’s fine.
However in Rasharrow’s instance, if Dougie chose to ignore the horses injury I think that’s wrong and then to cap it all Zoey telling us all with a smile on her face what a ‘fantastic renewal of the race’ it had been was the final straw for me. As it wa a replay, I felt they could have then acknowledged what had happened. I understand it’s not always possible to find out at the time.May 11, 2007 at 19:42 #58035
- Total Posts 753
While not wanting to sound insensitive, the death of a racehorse wether the horse was brilliant, decent or plain useless is unfortunate, and the Rasharrow incident was x certificate viewing. But we have seen it all before and we will see similar accidents in the future.<br>Because its the nature of Jump Racing with so many obstacles to negotiate, accidents are inevitable, espiecially when horses are getting tired after slogging around in bottomless ground, of course summer jumps has the added danger of lightning fast ground.<br>There is nothing that can be done about it, unless you ban National Hunt racing altogether, which will never happen, and of course the odd horse does break down on the flat but its very rare compared to NH.<br>By all means post your commiserations on the memorial thread (incidently seems only to be the domain for good horses, while the bad ones are largely ignored), we all have to move on, as racing invariably does.May 11, 2007 at 20:12 #58037
I didn’t see the race live – just the reply and it was Zoe’s after race comments which truely infuriated me – she should have acknowledged Rasharrow. <br>I appreciate what was said re connections and vets and obviously their priority is the welfare of the horse but commentators have a view of the whole course and why can’t they communicate with the ATR/RUK "link" people to pass on info – saying thankfully the horse has got up or sadly the horse is still down … <br>The RP used to carry a scratchings column – why don’t they anymore?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.