- This topic has 122 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
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.
Watering down the Grand National until it becomes a pale shadow of itself, arbitrarily closing down six racecourses because there is "too much racing"…
It’s a very good job Gingertipster is passionately pro-racing from head to toe. I dread to think what he would suggest as other ways of "improving" things if he decided to team up with racing’s enemies.
It’s a very good job Gingertipster is passionately pro-racing from head to toe. I dread to think what he would suggest as other ways of "improving" things if he decided to team up with racing’s enemies.
I reckon he could be an Animal Aid plant CrustyPatch, it would make more sense if he was.
It’s a very good job Gingertipster is passionately pro-racing from head to toe. I dread to think what he would suggest as other ways of "improving" things if he decided to team up with racing’s enemies.
I reckon he could be an Animal Aid plant CrustyPatch, it would make more sense if he was.
I’m told Ginger is in negotiations to redub the classic Grand National commentaries into something more acceptable.
"And as they pass through the speed camera on this dangerous run to the first and head through the safety cones on the Melling Road, it’s over to John Hanmer…"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.
Good One ‘Miss’ but I’ll bat
Bonanza Boy
straight back at you.The only thing that beat this fellow was the bloody fences,he too had the heart of a Lion and staying form to boot but he was just too small and again not a natural Chaser imo!
With no commitment to racing any longer, the BBC will be all over Cheltenham and Aintree like a rash next year. And I don’t mean in a good way.
Prepare for daily death/injury counts from morose on-course (non-racing) reporters that start every piece with ‘the day was marred…’ etc etc
Those who wish to offer the National up as some sort of sacrificial lamb better be prepared to lose Cheltenham next. ‘Anti’s’ do not have an appetite that can be sated.
Likewise, those who feel that we should carry on regardless and ignore the RSPCA (which is held in Mother Theresa-like status in this country) are being very foolish indeed.
Wish I could come up with the apparently easy answers everyone else has. I have no idea what racing should do.
Mike
With no commitment to racing any longer, the BBC will be all over Cheltenham and Aintree like a rash next year. And I don’t mean in a good way.
Prepare for daily death/injury counts from morose on-course (non-racing) reporters that start every piece with ‘the day was marred…’ etc etc
Those who wish to offer the National up as some sort of sacrificial lamb better be prepared to lose Cheltenham next. ‘Anti’s’ do not have an appetite that can be sated.
Likewise, those who feel that we should carry on regardless and ignore the RSPCA (which is held in Mother Theresa-like status in this country) are being very foolish indeed.
Wish I could come up with the apparently easy answers everyone else has. I have no idea what racing should do.
Mike
On the contrary, judging by the BBC News coverage of the King George when the first 3 jockeys home all received excessive use holidays, I think the BBC will regard horse-racing as an irrelevance to modern life unless it is an exceptionally slow news day.
Good One ‘Miss’ but I’ll bat
Bonanza Boy
straight back at you.The only thing that beat this fellow was the bloody fences,he too had the heart of a Lion and staying form to boot but he was just too small and again not a natural Chaser imo!
Size might matter, but never having his beloved soft/heavy ground may have had something to do with it Gord.
Value Is EverythingGood One ‘Miss’ but I’ll bat
Bonanza Boy
straight back at you.The only thing that beat this fellow was the bloody fences,he too had the heart of a Lion and staying form to boot but he was just too small and again not a natural Chaser imo!
Size might matter, but never having his beloved soft/heavy ground may have had something to do with it Gord.
Au Contraire my Ginger haired Friend, Au Contraire! the year ‘Bonanza’ blundered his way round Kempton to win the Racing Post chase he certainly got Heavy ground in the National as the plodder of all plodders won it……….
Little Polveir
!
Had the Grand National been run at any other course including Cheltenham,Bonanza Boy
would have won one of his 4 attempts,he just found jumping Aintree too much for him imo.
You may be right Gord, but Bonanza Boy’s soft ground National did come after finishing a distance behind the third in Desert Orchid’s Gold Cup on heavy ground. Wasn’t the same that season after the Racing Posy Chase, seldom seen horses finishing as tired.
Value Is EverythingBHA 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 could say it would be vindication of a ban Eddie.
No rule is ever perfect. Of course there’d be a situation that doesn’t look good. If it stops the horse falling in a 40 runner National and bringing down others… then sod what "anti-racing groups" think.
Are we going to put measures in place that might actually make the race safer?
Or are we going to avoid doing so because we’re too frightened there might be one situation "anti-racing groups" won’t like?It is not about placating these groups, it’s about making the race safer.
Value Is EverythingWatering down the Grand National until it becomes a pale shadow of itself,
Just trying to come up with ideas that might save the race CP. If we continue hving as many deaths as in recent years, we won’t have a Grand National to talk about.
The National hasn’t always had 40 runners, it’s just a return to the past. However, it would still be more competitive than in the 70’s, in the days of Red Rum. So hardly a "pale shadow".
What’s so bad about making Bechers a "drop"less fence? Fence is still be there, just without the drop which I believe is unfair. Particularly as there aren’t many (possibly none) elsewhere, for horses to get used to such fences. For drops to be thought of as unfair on any other racecourse, yet ok at Aintree is imo ridiculous.
Softer going makes it safer, "watering" yes, "watering down" no.
To look at the course after the changes I’d like to be made, you wouldn’t know the difference. But hey, why not exaggerate the opposing opinion.
Value Is EverythingBut, if we take away the drop which, I believe is still greater on the inside than the outer, horses will all bunch to the inside instead of being strung out across the course. They can tell jockeys till they’re blue in the face not to go too fast towards the first fence and invariably get ignored each year but they do have enough of a survival instinct to sort their horses out into a pecking order of good jumpers at Bechers. Everything that’s done to make things safer seems to create another problem it seems.
The thought of horses crowding towards the inner did go through my mind Moehat. Came up with this idea.
Replace Becher’s Brook with a fence with the same drop on the landing side as take off. However, the bigger drop on the inner did help space the runners out. So to encourage some to take the fence more towards the outer, why not make the fence "unique" by gradually slanting it? Higher towards the inner, and lower (easier to jump) towards the outer.
However, one possible problem with that might be the slant left to right (as the jockeys look at it) encouraging horses to jump right-handed away from the left-handed bend? Does that happen? Admiralofthefleet might be able to throw some light on to that one.
May be it is not neccessary to make any slant, just a normal fence. Foinavon and Canal Turn have bends afterwards and have fewer casualties. There’s the same crowding problem with today’s Becher’s. Most horses ignoring both the inner rail (too difficult) and the outer (lose too much ground) jumping the fence about a third of the way along the fence; where most grief happens, fallers and those brought down.
Value Is EverythingYou could say it would be vindication of a ban Eddie.
No rule is ever perfect. Of course there’d be a situation that doesn’t look good. If it stops the horse falling in a 40 runner National and bringing down others… then sod what "anti-racing groups" think.
Are we going to put measures in place that might actually make the race safer?
Or are we going to avoid doing so because we’re too frightened there might be one situation "anti-racing groups" won’t like?It is not about placating these groups, it’s about making the race safer.
Amazing, even for you Gingertipster
You apparently find it quite acceptable to have a panel of "experts" bar a horse from risking it’s neck in the Grand National because of it’s jumping ability but be allowed to risk it everywhere else.I would imagine it would not only be anti racing groups who would be up in arms if such a farce was ever implemented, I suspect most of racing would be.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2746/042516401776254808/abstract
Racehorse injuries, clinical problems and fatalities recorded on British racecourses from flat racing and National Hunt racing during 1996, 1997 and 1998
Summary
For improvements to the safety and welfare of racehorses to be possible, it is essential to have access to basic descriptive information about the veterinary incidents encountered during horseracing. A 3 year surveillance study (1996–1998) was conducted by The Jockey Club into racing injuries, other postrace clinical problems and fatalities from all 59 British racecourses (mainland Britain only) to identify risk factors. During the survey there were 222,993 racing starts: 106,897 starts in flat races on turf (47.9%), 26,519 starts in flat races on all-weather surfaces (11.9%), 30,932 starts in chases on turf (13.9%), 51,786 starts in hurdle races on turf (23.2%) and 6,859 starts in National Hunt flat races (3.1%). Information was recorded about age of horses, racing surfaces and clinical events observed or attended by a veterinary team of 2 clinicians and one veterinary surgeon employed by the racing authority. Of the 2358 clinical events re ported (1.05% of all starts), 1937 involved the musculoskeletal system and 421 involved other body systems. Six hundred and fifty-seven incidents (0.29% of starts) resulted in death or euthanasia. Eighty-one percent of limb injury reports involved forelimbs and 46% involved flexor tendons/suspensory ligaments. Non-limb problems included epistaxis (0.83/1000 starts), ‘exhausted horse syndrome’ (0.47/1000 starts) and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (0.20/1000 starts). Incidents includingfatalities per 1000 starts were 24.7 from chases
, 19.45 from hurdle races, 8.46 from National Hunt flat races and 3.97 from flat races. The overall tendon injury was higher in chases than in hurdle races, even though age-specific rates of tendon injury were higher in hurdle races than in chases. The risk of injuries per start increased significantly with age, while softer racing surfaces were associated with fewer fatalities and injuries than firmer surfaces. The survey described in this paper has provided an up-to-date description of the fatal and non-fatal horseracing incidents under conditions on mainland Britain, enabling progress to be made towards improving the safety and welfare of racehorses.
0 Deaths
1988 Good to Soft 9m 53.5s (9/40)
1992 Good to Soft 9m 06.4s (22/40)
1994 Heavy 10m 18.8s (6/36)
1995 Good 9m 04.1s (15/35)
2000 Good 9m 09.7s (17/40)
2001 Heavy 11m 00.1s (4/40)
2004 Good 9m 20.3s (11/39)
2005 Good to Soft 9m 20.8s (21/40)
2010 Good 9m 04.6s (14/40)1 Death
1991 Good to Soft 9m 29.9s (17/40)
1996 Good 9m 00.8s (17/27)
1999 Good 9m 14.1s (18/32)
2003 Good 9m 21.7s (14/40)
2006 Good to Soft 9m 41.0s (9/40)
2007 Good 9m 13.6s (12/40)
2008 Good 9m 16.6s (15/40)
2009 Good to soft 9m 32.9s (17/40)2 Deaths
1989 Heavy 10m 06.9s (14/40)
1990 Firm 8m 47.8s (20/38)
1997 Good 9m 05.9s (17/36)
2002 Good 9m 08.6s (11/40)
2011 Good 9m 01.2s (19/40)
2012 Good 9m 05.1s (15/40)3 Deaths
1998 Soft 10m 51.5s (6/37)
Above yields 23 GN deaths from 920 runners = 2.5%, cf. with chasing as a whole (see prev. post) of 24.7 deaths per 1000 runners = 2.47%.
The thought of horses crowding towards the inner did go through my mind Moehat. Came up with this idea.
Replace Becher’s Brook with a fence with the same drop on the landing side as take off. However, the bigger drop on the inner did help space the runners out. So to encourage some to take the fence more towards the outer, why not make the fence "unique" by gradually slanting it? Higher towards the inner, and lower (easier to jump) towards the outer.
However, one possible problem with that might be the slant left to right (as the jockeys look at it) encouraging horses to jump right-handed away from the left-handed bend? Does that happen? Admiralofthefleet might be able to throw some light on to that one.
May be it is not neccessary to make any slant, just a normal fence. Foinavon and Canal Turn have bends afterwards and have fewer casualties. There’s the same crowding problem with today’s Becher’s. Most horses ignoring both the inner rail (too difficult) and the outer (lose too much ground) jumping the fence about a third of the way along the fence; where most grief happens, fallers and those brought down.
Relocate the fence – it could be moved 50 yards or so closer to the 5th, and the distance between the fences would still be more or less the same as between the earlier obstacles. There might be scope to realign the bend and increase the distance between it and the fence further.
I suspect the slant of the fence is almost as much a cause of fatalities as the drop is; quite a few have resulted from horses hesitating before jumping – Dooneys Gate last year springing to mind.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.