- This topic has 122 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Very interesting point there sir. look at this
http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/ I don’t think they are after just the National.
Ginger I don’t think they agree with your statistics!
If RSPCA were to align with the AA, it would only be a question of time before a stupid physical act was to take palce and discredit their whole argument completely.As they have a history of doing so.
Very interesting point there sir. look at this
http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/ I don’t think they are after just the National.
Ginger I don’t think they agree with your statistics!
Why do you say that IAW? Can’t see anything there to contradict my figures.
Please explain.
Value Is Everything30 deaths in 5 years
What the xxxx!
Judging by even Animal Aid’s own figures there weren’t even 30 deaths (28) inall
races during the last 5 years at Aintree; let alone just the Grand National.
Where did you get 30 deaths in 5 years IAW? That’s 15%
Value Is Everything15 % of what?
For the Aintree query i counted up the number of deaths.
The total number of deaths in the last 5 years for flat and Jumps is 874 in 2010 days.
That is 874 divide by 2010 = 0.434 * 365 = 158 deaths on average per year in the UK over the last 5 years.
I don’t know what that is as a percentage, but it sounds much worse than :
11 deaths in 13 years (2000 to 2012 inclusive) from 519 runners. 2.12%
Where does one find an official record of these things?
15 % of what?
For the Aintree query i counted up the number of deaths.
The total number of deaths in the last 5 years for flat and Jumps is 874 in 2010 days.
That is 874 divide by 2010 = 0.434 * 365 = 158 deaths on average per year in the UK over the last 5 years.
I don’t know what that is as a percentage, but it sounds much worse than :
11 deaths in 13 years (2000 to 2012 inclusive) from 519 runners. 2.12%
Where does one find an official record of these things?
IAW,
This is a thread about the Grand National, not the whole of Racing. There’s been 11 deaths in the last 13 years of theGrand National
. 11 deaths in the last 519 runners. So since 2000
2.12%
of all runners in the
Grand National
have met with their death.
There is no "official record" of deaths that I know of IAW. I don’t like relying on Animal Aid for statistics, but you can see what they claim to be the deaths since year 2000 here. Go to the bottom of the page.
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/ … tional.pdf
Value Is EverythingAs Paul says, anyone who defends the Grand National has to come up with reasons.
Who says so and who said it needs need defending?
I find the attitude of both you and steeplechasing extremely hypocritical, you both are just so negative, continually knocking the sport.
Do you two enjoy the Grand National or do you both dread it every year?I think most people know where you’re coming from Gingertipster with your constant references to Animal Aid and their stats, have you joined yet?
I’m just grateful you’re not responsible for any decision making in the sport after reading your various opinions and solutions for the whip, National, stewards enquiries and betting.
The game would be in ruins if it followed just a bit of your advice.As Paul says, anyone who defends the Grand National has to come up with reasons. Jockeys know that winning the Grand National is the pinackle of their racing career. Prize money also an incentive. No jockey would pass up an opportunity of winning it, even if the race were "unsafe". To say jockeys know best doesn’t wash.
If the jockeys say so ‘Washes’ fine with me Ginge just like an Airline Pilot saying its Ok to take off and land in the fog,these guys know the risks better than anyone and yet keep doing it! When was the last Jockey hauled into a Stewards room for refusing to ride in the Great race because the Fences had timber uprights inside them eh?
As Paul says, anyone who defends the Grand National has to come up with reasons.
Who says so and who said it needs need defending?
I find the attitude of both you and steeplechasing extremely hypocritical, you both are just so negative, continually knocking the sport.
Do you two enjoy the Grand National or do you both dread it every year?Eddie & Gord,
Please look at what context the quote was made. Anyone defending the National needs to provide reasons because of the media-savvy Anti-National organisations. ie What will the general public make of someone saying something like, "race must be ok if jockeys are willing to ride"?… Up against what the RSPCA/Animal Aid come up with.I’m often defending the sport Eddie. Even e-mailed the Daily Mail complaining about their factually incorrect pro Animal Aid propaganda. The Grand National/Red Rum was responsible for getting me interested in the sport. It’s a great race, but there are things I don’t like about it. And more’s to the point… I believe that unless things are changed we run the very big risk of losing the National altogether…. And if the National is lost, then I believe those groups will go after all NH racing. At the moment we are losing the battle for hearts and minds with the RSPCA/Animal Aid. We need to come up with better arguements in defence of the National.
I am very much against Animal Aid and RSPCA Eddie, but do agree with some (only some) of their reccomendations. I’ve been for a reduction in number of runners for many years. Had there been a BHA or other site with the relevent information Itsawar asked for – I would not have needed to give an Animal Aid link.
Value Is EverythingI think most people know where you’re coming from Gingertipster with your constant references to Animal Aid and their stats, have you joined yet?
I’m just grateful you’re not responsible for any decision making in the sport after reading your various opinions and solutions for the whip, National, stewards enquiries and betting.
The game would be in ruins if it followed just a bit of your advice.My posts have often been vehemently opposed to and contradicted Animal Aid Eddie.
You say I am "continually knocking the sport"… Yet it was you who was "knocking the" BHA about their whip rules. If you remember it was I who defended them.
As for stewards enquiries, I often defend stewards decisions. As I did in the Duntle clash at the weekend, despite losing out on the decision. So if you were against my opinion there, then it was you who’s "knocking the" stewards Eddie, not I.
As for "betting", I don’t know what you’re referring to, please enlighten me Eddie? I’ve defended bookmakers, so no, not knocking racing there either.
I’ve often been criticised for defending jockeys, trainers, bookmakers, BHA, etc. How does that qualify as "continually knocking our sport" Eddie?
Or is it that you disagree with me on certain issues, so just see it that way?
Talk about portraying someone as the opposite of what he is.
Thanks Eddie. 
Value Is EverythingI re watched the Sir Mark Prescot feature available from RUK, as I remembered this was one of the subjects that he so brilliantly covered. It really is the best RUK feature interview ever done.
http://www.racinguk.com/video/watch/sir … eature-pt1
http://www.racinguk.com/video/watch/sir … eature-pt2
Enjoy.
As Paul says, anyone who defends the Grand National has to come up with reasons. Jockeys know that winning the Grand National is the pinackle of their racing career. Prize money also an incentive. No jockey would pass up an opportunity of winning it, even if the race were "unsafe". To say jockeys know best doesn’t wash.
If the jockeys say so ‘Washes’ fine with me Ginge just like an Airline Pilot saying its Ok to take off and land in the fog,these guys know the risks better than anyone and yet keep doing it! When was the last Jockey hauled into a Stewards room for refusing to ride in the Great race because the Fences had timber uprights inside them eh?
Boxers would argue that their sport is safe. However it is the adulation and adrenalin that induces them to carry on fighting beyond the point where it causes damage to the boxer. Jockeys are no more objective than boxers in this regard.
Boxing is as safe as anything. I would have thought as a punter you would understand that in life, no matter what we do we take a risk. If you want to go to the shops you have drive , you take a risk. If your light bulb blows, you change it, and take a risk. Albeit these are examples of small mandatory risks we all face every day. You can’t rap everything up in cotton wool, its real life.
I don’t understand, that if one does not like a spectacle , why watch it? Why moan about it? Don’t watch it then.
Have I not answered your question IAW?
The Grand National/Red Rum was responsible for getting me interested in the sport. It’s a
great race
, but there are things I don’t like about it. And
more’s to the point
… I believe that unless things are changed we run the very big risk of
losing the National altogether
…. And if the National is lost, then I believe those groups will
go after all NH racing
. At the moment we are
losing
the battle for hearts and minds with the RSPCA/Animal Aid. We need to come up with better arguements in defence of the National.
Value Is EverythingBoxing is as safe as anything. I would have thought as a punter you would understand that in life, no matter what we do we take a risk. If you want to go to the shops you have drive , you take a risk. If your light bulb blows, you change it, and take a risk. Albeit these are examples of small mandatory risks we all face every day. You can’t rap everything up in cotton wool, its real life.
I don’t understand, that if one does not like a spectacle , why watch it? Why moan about it? Don’t watch it then.
Boxers no longer fight until one of the competitors is unable to continue, there have been far more radical safety induced changes in boxing than horse-racing.
I realize that there is a risk to anything in life but for you to argue that because the jockeys said that the National is safe doesn’t necessarily make it so. The public would largely accept that the jockeys make a choice to ride in the race and regard any human casualties in the race as self-induced. The equine participants do not have that freedom of choice or the capability to make that choice so the public have a far greater sympathy for any equine casualties.
Personally I do not bet on the National and only watched it this year after the event so that I could pass a considered opinion upon certain aspects of the race. It is noticeable that you use the term spectacle, unfortunately this aptly describes the National. It is an anathema to horse racing and as such it does more harm than good to the sport in general because it is so unrepresentative of the daily aspects of the sport.
If you want to go to the shops you have drive , you take a risk. If your light bulb blows, you change it, and take a risk. Albeit these are examples of small mandatory risks we all face every day. You can’t wrap everything up in cotton wool, it’s real life.
I don’t understand, that if one does not like a spectacle , why watch it? Why moan about it? Don’t watch it then.That’s exactly the point. Nobody is allowed to take any risks these days. Everything has to be sanitised and we have to pander to the delicate flowers who can’t bear to see any risk or any possible risk of injury or, God forbid, death on a racecourse or in the Grand National in particular.
People are wringing their hands desperately trying to appease people who have no love for or intrinsic interest in racing because it is seen as compassionate and sensitive to the public mood. It’s just getting ridiculous how virtually everyone in racing, including many members of this forum, are doing so many contortions in a losing bid to win some acceptance, praise and recognition from professional agitators and malcontents, all to be seen to be "responding to the public mood".
It’s just pathetic. It’s as bad as David Cameron desperately trying to do everything he can to appear to have responded to the public mood not to be the nasty party and making all sorts of politically correct concessions to show how "caring" he is.
Why on earth should everyone be so keen to be risk-averse and to pander to the critics who believe that nothing bad should ever happen in racing or in life in general? The Grand National is a unique race, which carries unique risks and dangers that are part of its appeal. Sometimes these risks will produce very unfortunate and sometimes tragic consequences.
To neuter the National so that it becomes a lily-livered, risk-free non-event just to ease our consciences would be a travesty.
The Aintree stands will still be packed to bursting point next year and it will no doubt be another record crowd on that day and over the two other days even if not one jot of a concession is made to the bleeding hearts.If you want to go to the shops you have drive , you take a risk. If your light bulb blows, you change it, and take a risk. Albeit these are examples of small mandatory risks we all face every day. You can’t wrap everything up in cotton wool, it’s real life.
I don’t understand, that if one does not like a spectacle , why watch it? Why moan about it? Don’t watch it then.That’s exactly the point. Nobody is allowed to take any risks these days. Everything has to be sanitised and we have to pander to the delicate flowers who can’t bear to see any risk or any possible risk of injury or, God forbid, death on a racecourse or in the Grand National in particular.
People are wringing their hands desperately trying to appease people who have no love for or intrinsic interest in racing because it is seen as compassionate and sensitive to the public mood. It’s just getting ridiculous how virtually everyone in racing, including many members of this forum, are doing so many contortions in a losing bid to win some acceptance, praise and recognition from professional agitators and malcontents, all to be seen to be "responding to the public mood".
It’s just pathetic. It’s as bad as David Cameron desperately trying to do everything he can to appear to have responded to the public mood not to be the nasty party and making all sorts of politically correct concessions to show how "caring" he is.
Why on earth should everyone be so keen to be risk-averse and to pander to the critics who believe that nothing bad should ever happen in racing or in life in general? The Grand National is a unique race, which carries unique risks and dangers that are part of its appeal. Sometimes these risks will produce very unfortunate and sometimes tragic consequences.
To neuter the National so that it becomes a lily-livered, risk-free non-event just to ease our consciences would be a travesty.
The Aintree stands will still be packed to bursting point next year and it will no doubt be another record crowd on that day and over the two other days even if not one jot of a concession is made to the bleeding hearts.Well said CrustyPatch,
I couldn’t have put it better myself.
We get the same tripe every few months from the same people on here, why don’t they bugger off and join forces with Grant or whatever he’s called at RSPCA. Steeplechasing even thinks it’s acceptable to give into blackmail to appease people like Grant.Only someone with limited intelligence would think you make changes to something like the Grand National every year based on the previous year’s running.
Thanks Eddie. 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.