- This topic has 122 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
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.
And only an idiot would say such a thing.
(Well, you started it Yeats).It’s not one year’s history, it’s 13, 14, 20 years. It all adds up.
We both want the Grand National to survive Yeats. IMO it won’t if we get many more years with this rate of fatalities.
Instead of saying "no changes, no changes, no changes",
why can’t those against change say what’s wrong with getting rid of drop fences, reducing the field size and more watering?
How has getting rid of drop fences at other courses harmed them?
Changing a course doesn’t mean it loses its spectacle.
Has Cheltenham totally changed for moving the dangerous second last?
In years gone by there were nowhere near 40 runners. Years ago, even with less runners there were horses out of the handicap; less competitive than the race is now. Nowadays there are no runners from out of the handicap. Reducing field sizes would still leave the race more competitive than it once was.
So why would it be so bad to reduce the number of runners?
Reducing numbers gives more room at fences and at the start. More room will probably lead to fewer horses colliding/unseating/brought down.
In what way would softening the ground effect the race badly?
Falling on a softer surface will in all probability result in fewer deaths and injuries.
I am NOT saying we should give in and do everything and anything the RSPCA/Animal Aid want. Seems as if some people are against changes purely because they don’t want to be seen to give in to these organisations.
What if a "Racing" body came up with the same ideas? Would they get such short-shrift?
Shouldn’t any ideas/suggestions be considered on their own merits?
Not dismissed purely because of where they came.
It’s not about "neutering the National so that it becomes a lily-livered, risk-free non-event". There will always be some risk Crusty Patch… and the Grand National will always be more dangerous than an ordinary chase. But
if we can make the race safer by changing it slightly without damaging the spectacle; why not do so?
Value Is EverythingIt’s not one year’s history, it’s 13, 14, 20 years. It all adds up.
We both want the Grand National to survive Yeats. IMO it won’t if we get many more years with this rate of fatalities.
Instead of saying "no changes, no changes, no changes",why can’t those against change say what’s wrong with getting rid of drop fences, reducing the field size and more watering?
How has getting rid of drop fences at other courses harmed them?
Changing a course doesn’t mean it loses its spectacle.
Has Cheltenham totally changed for moving the dangerous second last?
Reducing field sizes would still leave the race more competitive than it once was.
So why would it be so bad to reduce the number of runners?
Reducing numbers gives more room at fences and at the start. More room will probably lead to fewer horses colliding/unseating/brought down.
It’s not about "neutering the National so that it becomes a lily-livered, risk-free non-event". There will always be some risk Crusty Patch… and the Grand National will always be more dangerous than an ordinary chase. Butif we can make the race safer by changing it slightly without damaging the spectacle; why not do so?
It’s only really the last few years, not "13, 14, 20 years", that the "this is terrible, we must do something about this" brigade has seized the initiative, panicked and called for the race to be watered down just to show that they are caring, have a conscience and have been moved by what they see as public opinion.
The public as a whole are, despite what is claimed, entirely happy with the race and recognise that sad, often tragic events occasionally happen to jolt people into a state of thinking they have to "do something".
Overly sentimental, over-the-top, knee-jerk reactions by animal rights supporters, "horse lovers" (as they call themselves) and numerous tearful posters on the Daily Mail website are not remotely representative of the overwhelming majority of the racewatching public who have watched the race with excitement, interest and enthusiasm for many decades without the need constantly to be reaching for smelling salts and handkerchiefs.
Accidents happen. Injury and death happen.
The public generally will flock to the race in droves at the course and on television irrespective of the very unfortunate fatalities. There’s no reason whatsoever, apart from absurd over-reaction, to believe that the Grand National is under threat or in its death throes.
The accidents were nothing more than a statistical occurrence which may not be repeated next year, the following year or for five years after that, even without changes to the course and fences, for all anyone knows.
Those who are panicking and predicting the end of the Grand National need to get some backbone and stand up to the fairweather critics. Just as in other aspects of life, where nobody is allowed to take any risks at all these days and all sorts of perfectly safe activities are halted because of the tyranny of the health and safety brigade, not to mention the all-pervading compensation culture, the increasingly vocal risk-averse minority are in danger of foisting their paranoia on to the majority.
It’s irrelevant to talk about the supposed positive effect of getting rid of drop fences at other courses because Aintree is totally unlike other courses. The comparison is wholly bogus because different factors are at work at Aintree. Because the fences at Aintree are unique, any comparison with drop fences at other courses is totally spurious.
The comparison with the second last at Cheltenham is totally bogus because that is a course which may bear similarities with other courses but none whatsoever with Aintree and its fences. A more apt comparison with the second last at Cheltenham would be with the second last at another major or even minor "ordinary" course. The fences are totally dissimilar at Cheltenham and Aintree so the comparison must be as well.
You can’t keep comparing things which are not comparable. If things are not similar, different arguments apply. Aintree’s Grand National course does not bear comparison with other courses so it’s spurious to enforce comparison. They are chalk and cheese, not chalk and chalk or cheese and cheese.
It is even more ridiculous to talk about reducing the size of the National field. Part of the unique character, spectacle and appeal of the race derives from the massive field. Reducing the field arbitrarily would have a major adverse impact on the spectacle of the race. This is a factor in its own right.
The National simply would not, in its present form, have the same appeal if it had a much smaller field. The sight of horses charging down at speed to the fences, with all the dangers that a larger field entails, is worth preserving, even if it statistically and in reality encourages more fallers or causes more mayhem if there are incidents.
That’s part of the unique character of the race that would be destroyed. Why on earth should everything these days be made safe or safer just because some people cannot live with the grim reality that accidents sometimes happen and that not everything can be predicted to the point where absolute safety is almost guaranteed and that accidents can be legislated away with excessive concern for what might happen?
As I say, it’s all a gross over-reaction to a statistical possibility that there may be falls, spills, injuries and possibly deaths in future years.
I’ve got no problem with suitable watering if that does help.
Good job nobody’s suggesting running Frankel at Aintree…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.
And only an idiot would say such a thing.
(Well, you started it Yeats).It’s not one year’s history, it’s 13, 14, 20 years. It all adds up.
Gingertipster,
Changes were made last year in conjunction with the RSPCA, surely you and others haven’t forgotten
Entry requirements for horses were changed, must be at least 7 years old, rated at least 120 and been placed in the first 4 of a race of at least 3 miles.
The ground was levelled out at Bechers and the first, the fourth fence was reduced in height.
A new cooling off area with water and fans was introduced for horses after the race.
There was also a number of other changes.
I’m sure even you would agree that it takes time to see whether such measures have worked or not rather rather than having a panic stricken knee jerk reaction to every years running.
The changes have been made, a line needs to be drawn in the sand by the BHA, this has gone on long enough now.
I have not forgotten about the changes made last year Yeats. But just because there were changes last year, doesn’t make what happened in previous year
s
invalid… So any further changes are/should not be based on the
one
previous year as you implied.
Increasing the minimum age from 6 to 7 is good, but only a minor change and won’t do much to solve any problem. I’d also like to see any horse rated in Timeform with an "X" (for
"poor jumper"
) prevented from running in the National. I know just because a horse is a poor jumper of park fences doesn’t neccessarily make it a poor jumper of National fences; but it is a greatly increased risk.
Although one reason some horses are of higher quality is their jumping, ratings makes little difference. I am for the 3 mile rule, but the "first 4" just enables non-stayers to find a small field conditions race to qualify. Needs to be looked at. Maybe better to say a certain percentage of the field, so one finishing 5th in the Racing Plus Chase might qualify, where as one in 4th of 5 in a conditions Chase doesn’t.
The ground being "levelled out" at Beechers is good, but has it been levelled enough? I believe there’s still a "drop". Not really in favour of lowering fences, just makes horses run faster. However, something needed to be done with the 4th, as it’s been notorious in recent years for no apparent reason.
I’m not for reviewing things every year Yeats, as you say they need time to work. But last year’s changes were minimal, too minimal.
There will be a time when the BHA needs to say to the "animal rights" brigade "enough is enough". Just not yet.
It is true at the moment there is no/little public clamour; but if the RSPCA say it should be banned… Then many people will turn against it.
Value Is EverythingYes the removal of land mines from the run in, and razor wire from the fences needs to be addressed.
It is even more ridiculous to talk about reducing the size of the National field. Part of the unique character, spectacle and appeal of the race derives from the massive field. Reducing the field arbitrarily would have a major adverse impact on the spectacle of the race. This is a factor in its own right.
The National simply would not, in its present form, have the same appeal if it had a much smaller field. The sight of horses charging down at speed to the fences, with all the dangers that a larger field entails, is worth preserving, even if it statistically and in reality encourages more fallers or causes more mayhem if there are incidents.Crusty,
The average field size between 1994 and 1999 (inclusive) was under 34. Was the spectacle and appeal of the race so much worse in those years? The (in your words) "massive" field (of 40) is not "part of the uniquue character" of the National.The fact that in years gone by there were horses running from out of the handicap reduced competitiveness. With all horses within the handicap these days, the National could easily afford to be reduced to 30 runners and still be more competitive than the days of horses running out of the handicap. There would still be enough runners for the spectacle to remain with 30 runners going down to the first.
Value Is EverythingThe average field size between 1994 and 1999 (inclusive) was under 34. Was the spectacle and appeal of the race so much worse in those years? The (in your words) "massive" field (of 40) is not "part of the unique character" of the National.
The fact that in years gone by there were horses running from out of the handicap reduced competitiveness. With all horses within the handicap these days, the National could easily afford to be reduced to 30 runners and still be more competitive than the days of horses running out of the handicap. There would still be enough runners for the spectacle to remain with 30 runners going down to the first.I personally think the extra 10 runners, taking the field up to 40 and not 30, adds an extra dimension as a viewing spectacle and adds to the breathtaking cavalry charge appeal of the National.
But I fully respect your view that 30 runners is quite sufficient to provide a spectacle. It’s purely personal preference. Forty runners, to me, thundering down the course is a better viewing prospect than 30 but obviously you have got very sound and admirable reasons for preferring a smaller field.
I would have to admit that the smaller fields in the other races run over the National fences during the three-day Aintree meeting — and especially at the later meetings in the year — still provide a good or reasonable spectacle.
I’m not necessarily totally opposed to horses running in the race from out of the handicap, although obviously it seems to be accepted by most people that it is best to exclude them. A lot of people like the novelty of the idea of complete no-hopers taking their chance over the National fences, with varying degrees of success, and at huge odds. It’s a little bit of extra fun for some, it could be argued, but safety considerations seem to have put paid to the days of the hopeless, not-a-chance-of-even-completing sporting outsiders.Fair enough CP, both of us have the Grand National’s best interests at heart; even though they are in many ways opposing views.
I’m not necessarily totally opposed to horses running in the race from out of the handicap, although obviously it seems to be accepted by most people that it is best to exclude them. A lot of people like the novelty of the idea of complete no-hopers taking their chance over the National fences, with varying degrees of success, and at huge odds. It’s a little bit of extra fun for some, it could be argued, but safety considerations seem to have put paid to the days of the hopeless, not-a-chance-of-even-completing sporting outsiders.
As far as I know CP, those out of the handicap are not prevented from running as such. It’s just there’s a lot more horses in the handicap, these days they don’t get a run (not in the 40). Not that I have any objection to horses running from the long handicap.
Value Is EverythingI’d also like to see any horse rated in Timeform with an "X" (for
"poor jumper"
) prevented from running in the National.
Entries to be decide by one person’s opinion at a private company? Best of luck with that one.
Mike
There could easily be a panel to look at any horse with a poor jumping record Betlarge. Doesn’t have to be Timeform. But it does illustrate poor jumpers are allowed to race in the Grand National; something I feel is wrong.
Value Is EverythingThere could easily be a panel to look at any horse with a poor jumping record Betlarge. Doesn’t have to be Timeform. But it does illustrate poor jumpers are allowed to race in the Grand National; something I feel is wrong.
Couldn’t agree more but it would have to be the official handicappers or other BHA ‘experts’.
Mike
BHA did say they wanted to stop poor jumpers from running. To date I am unaware of any horse being denied a run.
Value Is EverythingThere could easily be a panel to look at any horse with a poor jumping record Betlarge. Doesn’t have to be Timeform. But it does illustrate poor jumpers are allowed to race in the Grand National; something I feel is wrong.
Synchronised
was a poor jumper imo.I know he won over half his completed races but he was far from a natural Chaser,its one thing that really annoyed me was the decision to run him in the National as not only did his jumping look like it was a huge effort but he was a relatively small horse too.You dont need a panel of judges to say who should and who shouldn’t run in the race,common sense should have told connections of ‘Synchronised’ that he may have had the heart of a Lion but he had a tall task tackling Aintree! Hindsight eh?
Am I the only one who doesn’t find the "cavalry charge" appealing? I like the test of endurance, the strategy of the jockeys over 4 1/2 miles, watching the horses soar over huge fences that are unlike any on other racecourses, the roar of the crowd down the stretch. Having 40 on the track just makes me nervous, watching fall after fall after fall.
I don’t think there’s 40 racehorses right now who are truly Grand National horses, anyway. There’s plenty who obviously won’t stay the distance or make the fences but are entered anyway. Same as the Kentucky Derby, some owners get National fever.
There could easily be a panel to look at any horse with a poor jumping record Betlarge. Doesn’t have to be Timeform. But it does illustrate poor jumpers are allowed to race in the Grand National; something I feel is wrong.
Synchronised
was a poor jumper imo.I know he won over half his completed races but he was far from a natural Chaser,its one thing that really annoyed me was the decision to run him in the National as not only did his jumping look like it was a huge effort
but he was a relatively small horse too
.You dont need a panel of judges to say who should and who shouldn’t run in the race,common sense should have told connections of ‘Synchronised’ that he may have had the heart of a Lion but he had a tall task tackling Aintree! Hindsight eh?
Don’t forget that Battleship was 15.1hh.
http://www.spiletta.com/UTHOF/battleship.jpg
I find that small horses tend to be more careful jumpers since they have to really use themselves and can’t just haphazardly rush over the fences, whether in showjumping or steeplechasing.
Am I the only one who doesn’t find the "cavalry charge" appealing?
You’ll be very pleased to know you’re very definitely in the majority, Miss Woodford. I’m about the only one who does like the cavalry charge of the 40 runners as an exciting and thundering, if unpredictable, spectacle.
Many people seem to want to cut the number of runners significantly, to 30 or perhaps even lower, supposedly for safety reasons. You don’t need to worry about being the only one who doesn’t like the cavalry charge.BHA did say they wanted to stop poor jumpers from running. To date I am unaware of any horse being denied a run.
Maybe, unlike you, they realise the folly of such a selection process even if it was practical or necessary.
What better ammunition would an anti-racing group need than – "BHA ban horse from running in Grand National but allow it to break it’s neck 3 weeks later at Cheltenham".I really do wonder how you dream up some of the things you do Gingertipster, more proof, if it was needed, of what I said the other day, if you were responsible for much of the decision making in the sport it would be quickly in ruins.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.