- This topic has 122 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Chief Exec Gavin Grant puts down his marker early
The report says: "Grant is most unlikely to be granted the seven wishes he made shortly after this year’s race, including the removal of Becher’s Brook, which he described as "a killer fence", the levelling of all drop landings and a reduction in the number of runners."
I sincerely hope that Aintree and racing stand up to the RSPCA and don’t allow the race to become a pale shadow of itself.
Racing, and steeplechasing in particular, is an inherently risky and dangerous sport. Don’t just make endless concessions to the bleeding heart do-gooders who can’t accept that in a fast-moving, all-action, unpredictable sport, there will sometimes be very unfortunate casualties, sometimes several in one race in one year.
The fact that there are sometimes multiple casualties is nothing more than a statistical misfortune that must inevitably happen from time to time when horses are charging at fences so fast and without being able to predict what the finger of fate might throw up in a split second.
To remove Becher’s Brook would be absolutely ridiculous. You might as well neuter the race completely and run it over an ordinary park course. How about the Mildmay course? But there have been plenty of falls and occasional fatalities on that course.
The National is unique and part of that appeal is the danger it involves. To deprive it of its unique features, with all their inherent dangers and the associated potential for disaster, would be an absolute travesty.
The reduction of runners would be a retrograde step because the big field is part of the attraction. You might as well run the National on a Flat course or a point-to-point course if you want to sanitise it beyond all recognition. Horses die and jockeys sometimes get seriously injured or occasionally die on racecourses. That’s a fact of life and a fact of racing. Get over it and accept that.Some here will recall my strong support for David Muir who was, formerly the face of the RSPCA in racing. David was and is a racing man – his policies were, I thought, a decent compromise to help keep the Gavin Grants of the world at bay.
But Mr Muir took unwarranted flak from many sides, not just on here – behold the result.
We were always going to be better with the ‘devil you know’ so that the likes of Mr Grant be kept ‘in his box’. The man appears to have a very dangerous characteristic for someone with that level of power – a large ego.
If he doesn’t get what he wants from racing, I don’t think it will take much (as I’ve frequently warned in the past) to see the RSPCA turn against racing and begin anti-racing campaigns. If that happens, it’s goodbye major sponsors and many potential racegoers.
Expect the pragmatic Mr Bittar to make some ‘surprising’ concessions.
I am coming round to your view Joe , it seems the race is under threat long term
I would expect more concessions , to the point of racing being really scared ….which brings me to the question ….is the hassle really worth it , or do we think these guys want jump racing scrapped full stop
Whatever the real scenario is , Jump racing is under the cosh , I could see another labour Gov agreeing to scrap or neuter it entirely
Here’s hoping I am totally wrong
IMO of course
Ricky
If the cessation of the Grand National secured the mid-term future of jump racing then it might not be such a hefty price to pay. Regardless of my own personal views, the fact that it generates negative publicity for the highest public profile event in the calendar is something that racing itself refuses to acknowledge. The ingrained attitude means that the preservationists are part of the problem not part of the solution.
Don’t think you’re wrong Ricky, and I’d also agree that Joes fears are probably well founded.
The race obviously is in danger, and doing nothing is clearly not an option…..for the good of the sport in the long run.
I’ve said before that if concessions are to be made, then let’s hope that they’ve actually sat down and gave it some proper thought, and not just guessed at it.
Think the crux of the matter is basically they need to be retaining the spectacle, whilst removing the danger as much as is humanly possible. Not easy!
A lot of people will clamber for the standard of entries to be looked at, but as I’ve said enough times before, this is a waste of time…a real waste of time. If any of those involved have even spent more than 5 minutes looking at this issue, then they shouldn’t really be involved in the first place, and are just wasting everybodys time.
The number of runners is also an utter irrelevance, normally brought up by people who want to spout an opinion on it, without actually having given it any real thought. There hasn’t been one fatality in the last 30 years that can be attributed to number of runners, yet it raises its ugly head, time after time. Sadly, I think it’s inevitable that this is gonna happen. The only area where I think this could be of any concern, is around Foinavon/Canal Turn, but surely it wouldn’t be a massive effort for the course to be widened here. That’s at a push.
It’s quite clear that the main problems revolve around the fences. Can’t stress enough, that if it was up to me, I wouldn’t change it anyway, it doesn’t really need any further sanitising, but as the current climate dictates, something must be done. The spectacle can be retained, whilst modifying the fences at the same time. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over the drops being removed, and it wouldn’t be the end of the world, if they levelled out the landing side of Bechers completely (can’t believe I’ve just said that).
It’s encouraging to see that they’re looking at the start of the race, it’s been embarassing in recent years, and lets hope they’ve came up with something that goes in some way, to slowing down the field.
If the new guy at RSPCA, needs placated, then I hope they show enough balls, and don’t capitulate entirely, I wish them luck.
There isn’t even close to being the backlash against The National which some have suggested, in fact it’s practically non-existent, despite what some would have you believe, on here and elsewhere. However, and this is important, the danger of well-oiled PR campaign from the RSPCA can not be underestimated.
Worrying times ahead, but let’s hope those in charge are strong enough to see this through, and have actually sat down and given it some serious thought. Let’s hope that any recommendations made are for the good of the long term future of the sport, the race itself, and the welfare of the horse, no easy task.
We’ll see!
Doing nothing isn’t an option – however looking at the stats there’s no evidence that making the fences smaller has helped with the fatality rate (I believe it’s as high now as it ever was) and if anything we need to make them bigger.
There’s no substitute for experience – moving the National Trial from Haydock to Aintree would be a start and staging a race over the big fences at the October meeting would help, reducing the field size to 30 is probably a decent idea too with a consolation race ala the big flat sprints.
Pointlessly knocking inches off the fences and letting them go faster by taking fences out is no solution to the problem and will only lead to an increase in fatalities/serious injuries.
Martin
Pointlessly knocking inches off the fences and letting them go faster by taking fences out is no solution to the problem and will only lead to an increase in fatalities/serious injuries.
Martin
This used to be an argument I thought was valid. However, it may not be that good an argument. There are much fewer fallers and casulties over hurdles yet they go much faster than any chase.
There are much fewer
fallers and
casulties over hurdles
yet they go much faster than any chase.
Supporting data?
Thanks.
Whoa there boys, we’ve been here before..
To save slowing up the forum even more just search for the National thread made at the time, hundreds of posts covering every possible scenario, suggestion and option were made, why repeat them?
There are much fewer
fallers and
casulties over hurdles
yet they go much faster than any chase.
Supporting data?
Thanks.
The BHA collates data but for some reason doesn’t publish it. I will email them to see if I can obtain it.
However, my own research has shown that at Cheltenham for instance, over the last five years, 13 horses were killed during hurdles race’s and 25 over fences.
If someone can provide data to show I’m wrong I’m happy to take back what I said. Whatever, there is no evidence that making the National fences smaller will lead to more fatalities.
Kenh, if you take this document…
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/booklets/unsport.pdf
and use the pdf reader case exact search on these four…
hdl hdls fnc fncs..the search count you get corresponds to the deaths in the tables at the foot of the document. I get totals…
hurdles = 136 fences = 118.
There are more runners over hurdles but in terms of deaths they seem similar.
Kenh, if you take this document…
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/booklets/unsport.pdf
and use the pdf reader case exact search on these four…
hdl hdls fnc fncs..the search count you get corresponds to the deaths in the tables at the foot of the document. I get totals…
hurdles = 136 fences = 118.
There are more runners over hurdles but in terms of deaths they seem similar.
Thanks for that. Not computer savy so found it difficult to read as data pages seemed to be wrong way round and not sure how to read them properly. Interesting nonetheless.
I presume if you have raceform interactive a search can be made on there for number of fallers over fences and hurdles in a season say October to November and also number of respective runners over both in same period. I don’t have it but would be grateful if someone who does could do this.
I think it would also be interesting to compare fallers over courses with easier fences compared to those with harder ones
I would think that figures for fatalities according to going (although official going does often seem to be a mere suggestion rather than fact) might prove useful.
I bought a book when I was on holiday called ‘The Grand National’ by Ivan Smith, which was written in 1969
. I was surprised to read that the Society for the Protection of Animals
were against the race right from the start. Unfinished business, perhaps? I’ve loved the race, it’s characters and it’s history from as far back as I can remember, but I’m not sure how I feel about it now.I know we all worry about the horses going out to run over jumps and want so much for them to come back safe, but to watch the preliminaries knowing that at least one of them isn’t going to return is getting harder each year. But I know I don’t want it turned into some sort of long distance hurdle race.And I wish the people who are so opposed to it understood just how special it has been. An anachronism now, perhaps, in the sanitised age in which we live?
I think within 10 years (even maybe 5) the National will be run over Park type fences (over the same course) with a maximum field of 30. Think of the Scottish National at Ayr as a template.
Although one alternative suggestion that Sberry would like:-
Reduce the field to 14
Run it as a 10 furlong flat race on the Lingfield Polytrack.
Rename it the Grand National Classic (Handicap 0-65)Lingfield have a meeting the same day…
I know we all worry about the horses going out to run over jumps and want so much for them to come back safe, but to watch the preliminaries knowing that at least one of them isn’t going to return is getting harder each year.
It’s not that bad Moehat – only checked Wiki (not the greatest resource I know) but I’m shocked at the number of horses who’ve collapsed while running riderless in recent years, surely a case for outriders "rounding up" the loose horses.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.