- This topic has 37 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Sedgefield are to reduce the number of runners in some races following an investigation into the number of fatalities. Twelve horses have died in a twelve month period and the maximum for a novice chase to be reduced to 12 from 15.
Surely making a small change to the number of runners in a novice chase will not have a significant impact on the overall situation? I think Sedgefield is horrible track and would never consider running a horse there. A lot of horses breakdown at this gaff due to the severe undulations and unfair jumping challenges.
A nice new housing development on the undulating ground would be a good solution and hopefully the owners would be able to afford to build a fair track in the region.
It is interesting that the BHA acknowledge the RSPCA’s concerns about the going being a factor – then proceed to ignore it.
I can’t help thinking reducing the safety limits is more cosmetic than anything else.
Time will tell (and I hope that I am wrong) but my opinion is the problems will still occur at Sedgefield for as long as they keep coming up with good to firm ground – that kind of going is not conducive with the configuration and layout of the course.
I can only guess at how enforceable a ruling would be that Course A can never again host meetings on good to firm whereas Course B can; and the long-term effects on jumping under Rules (and the buying of horses for jumping under Rules, come to that), were that ruling to represent the slippery slope towards banning good to firm going completely, would be keenly felt.
I’d need to have a look at the breakdown of how horses were killed at the track before drawing too many major conclusions myself. The camber at Sedgefield in the back straight in particular looks fearsome from the TV pictures (for my sins it’s one of few courses I’ve never walked on my visits to it), with most of the obstacles on it appearing to be jumped by horses unsettled by approaching them on a pronounced left-to-right slope. But is it on that section of course that the rump of the fatal accidents are occuring? I can’t remember precisely.
I share the view that the reduction of the safety limits is largely meaningless, a piece of action taken for the sake of having to be seen to take action. Barring the odd John Wade Selling Hurdle or 0-90 handicap chase at certain times of year, the existing factors are not actually breached that often – certainly not in novices’ chases. I’m sure Sedgefield doesn’t feature highly on Glenn’s lists of courses at which 16-runner handicaps get reduced to 13- or 14-runner affairs at short notice.
Wallace’s remark about burying the course under a housing development prompted a rolling of the eyes here, and it’s unlikely the racecourse executive would bite anyway – the course is the site of an extremely lucrative and well-established car boot sale which I believe brings in as much money as the racing as often as not. It’s not quite the cash-poor, struggling enterprise which somehow avoided cessation of Levy Board funding more than once during the 1960s and 1970s, a move which at the time would have killed it off, no question.
Ostensibly an alternative provision to Sedgefield exists just four miles down the road at John Wade’s own property in Mordon, at which point-to-points have been successfully run (and often free of charge) since the early 1990s. However, even if an approach were made to Wade to upgrade the site to a replacement Rules venue to Sedgefield, the challenge to horse and rider would not necessarily be that much kinder on a fast surface – does a course layout of left-handed, eight fences, uphill backstraight and downhill run over the last two fences sound familiar to any of you?
Jeremy
(graysonscolumn)Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Jeremy, asking horses to jump fences downhill on fast ground especially in the home straight (at speed) is verging on cruelty in my book. Sedgefield is a bad gaff track and adds nothing to improve the image of jump racing. The slope across the track in the back straight certainly is responsible for fallers.
As for the fast ground jumping a case can be made for the scrapping the summer jumping and letting all involved in jump racing have a proper break during the summer. The real jumping sport would benefit from this.
I can only guess at how enforceable a ruling would be that Course A can never again host meetings on good to firm whereas Course B can; and the long-term effects on jumping under Rules (and the buying of horses for jumping under Rules, come to that), were that ruling to represent the slippery slope towards banning good to firm going completely, would be keenly felt.
Jeremy,
I wouldn’t have thought it that unenforceable. The licence conditions for a course could easily be amended to specify permitted ground conditions.
For example good to firm at a course like Newton Abbot, which is naturally flat, must be considered far safer than good to firm at a course like Sedgefield.
I don’t think anybody is suggesting the abolition of jump racing on good to firm ground, however recognition that such going can be dangerous at some courses would be a good move.
Jeremy, asking horses to jump fences downhill on fast ground especially in the home straight (at speed) is verging on cruelty in my book. Sedgefield is a bad gaff track and adds nothing to improve the image of jump racing. The slope across the track in the back straight certainly is responsible for fallers.
I think we are agreed that the back straight camber at Sedgefield might not be especially conducive to good jumping practice. Jumping on an even downhill stretch of course on fast ground, however, as opposed to that uneven ground, may or may not be quite such an open and shut case.
Consider that the likes of Plumpton and Towcester have fences on falling ground as well, and both are equally capable of producing a similarly quick surface at certain times of year, yet the attrition rate of those fences at either track is not being called into question in quite the same manner. Plumpton in particular is no less sharp than Segefield, and the downhill fences are taken no less quickly on a fast surface than the Durham venue.
I repeat my query from earlier – is it the downhill elements of Segefield that are killing horses? Is it the wobbly back straight? Is it accidents on the flat? Is it slip-ups on the sharp bends? Is it the whole bloody lot? Even then, irrespective of the spread of fatalities, is the estimable quality of horses running, or just appalling misfortune, contributing as least as much to the attrition rate as the conformation of the course and the going, or even more?
Whilst far from adopting the same blase attitude as some did over the deaths at two out over Cheltenham’s Old Course last autumn, I do however think any moves to alter Sedgefield’s challenge to horse and rider has to be predicated on something a bit more copper-bottomed than going-downhill-on-fast-ground-can-sometimes-cause-bad-accidents.
For all anyone knows, removing the camber in the back straight to create a more even upward slope (remember that carving a flat all-weather circuit out of the ground was considered at Sedgefield not so long ago, so the will to perform earthmoving at the course appears to be there), and / or slightly widening the bellies of the downhill fences as happened to Cheltenham two out may improve matters.
As for the fast ground jumping a case can be made for the scrapping the summer jumping and letting all involved in jump racing have a proper break during the summer. The real jumping sport would benefit from this.
Whether it can, such a case should emphatically not be made. A look through older form books suggests that it has never been the case that all summer meetings are the preserve of small fields on rattling fast ground, nor will they ever be hereafter, on account of;
– the watering strictures placed upon the courses entrusted with summer jumping, which forbid the production of anything faster than good to firm (strictures which don’t start until June, so did not forbid firm ground at the likes of Exeter and Towcester this month. Time for a review?),
– increasing sensitivities among some of those tracks which has often seen watering occur to maintain good rather than the specified good to firm ground as a matter of procedure (Market Rasen being the most frequent example, with the Summer Plate meeting in particular often watered to prevent faster than good),
– our increasingly soggy summers.
I take the mention of "real jumping sport" as an inference that summer jumping is not "real", and that is both invidious and increasingly inaccurate. A genuine and burgeoning pattern of very good class racing has emerged in the 13-year (and counting, thank goodness) lifetime of summer jumping, including but not limited to the Summer National, Summer Hurdle, Summer Plate, Lord Mildmay Chase, the Perth Gold Cup (tomorrow, and won by Tamarinbleu last year, lest we forget) and their respective supporting cards.
Tomorrow’s card at Perth would be regarded as competitive, entirely acceptable fare were it taking place in mid-December. Moreover, the bottom weights in the most recent runnings of both the Summer Plate and Lord Mildmay Chase, which routintely attract maximum fields nowadays, have all brought ORs in the 120s to the contest. It defeats me how this may be regarded as "unreal" racing, or anything especially in need of removing from the racing calendar forthwith.
Summer jumping was far too long in coming, it’s here to stay, and patronage by trainers, courses, sponsors and the public wouldn’t suggest a cessation is beneficial.
Jeremy
(graysonscolumn)Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
For example good to firm at a course like Newton Abbot, which is naturally flat, must be considered far safer than good to firm at a course like Sedgefield.
But therein lies the point. Is it really? Newton Abbot is perfectly capable of sticking horses on the floor around its sharp corners on fast ground with neither an obstacle nor an undulation in sight.
I maintain that we have to be very precise as to what constitute the real dangers (over those either exaggerated or imagined) at any course before imposing strictures on it and not on others.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Jeremy, I should not have diverted this thread into the summer jumping debate. You make me feel really old by reminding me we have had summer jumps for thirteen years!
When a horse is galloping downhill it is on the forehand and IMO far too much stress is placed on the forelegs especially when jumping on fast ground. A lot of horses breakdown at Sedgefield as a result of the undulations but the exact stats are not easy to gather.
Sedgefield was considered as a venue to hold flat racing but it could never become a flat track.
Jeremy, I should not have diverted this thread into the summer jumping debate. You make me feel really old by reminding me we have had summer jumps for thirteen years!
It’s put the years back on me, too , Wallace – doesn’t seem that long since Perth fanfared its arrival on June 4th, 1995…
When a horse is galloping downhill it is on the forehand and IMO far too much stress is placed on the forelegs especially when jumping on fast ground. A lot of horses breakdown at Sedgefield as a result of the undulations but the exact stats are not easy to gather.
Indeed they aren’t. I suppose what was underpinning my whamping on yesterday was that old maxim, “be careful what you wish for”. We live in such a sensitive racing climate nowadays that if, say, the banning of any racing on good to firm was introduced, no matter how brilliant or flawed the reasoning or statistical evidence for doing so, there would be little prospect of a reversal of that policy at a later date. And it’s where that homogenisation stops once it’s started – maximum fields of 10 for any race, removal of open ditches, any other worst case scenario you care to dream up – that concerns me a little.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
surely we have to look at the roots of national hunt racing/steeplechasing..isn’t it meant to be a jumping test of horses in all sorts of conditions over all sorts of terrain; a challenge to both horse and rider…..I don’t want to see horses hurt, no one gets more upset than I do when it happens, but we don’t want to see horses running over flat tracks in one direction jumping identical fences.
Fast ground aside, Sedgefield is actually a pretty good place to send novices as the fences are pretty straightforward. The camber discussed above provides for some "low" parts and the undulations ensure that the gallop is never too severe. The winter jumping ground and surface is usually pretty reliable too (though I do take on board some of the observations about the faster ground).We have run plenty there – Lucky Nellerie, Delray Beach, Deja Vu over fences and the last two named + Rich Lord, Nine De Sivola over hurdles. Perhaps I am influenced by geography and a decent record there but I like it as a track.
Deleted Part post – Cormack15
Remainder of post-
Sedgefield is a gaff track for low grade horses.
In your opinion Wallace!
The discussion was about relative safety/suitability of the track and I simply replied from my own experience of being connected with 7 different horses that have run there 25 times in total.At least one of this years Cheltenham Festival winners ran there as did a horse that fetched £85K at the recent sales so it is not exclusively for low grade horses!
The advent of the Sendrig Construction series of novices’ chases at the track, with a recent class 2 £20,000 added handicap final contested by horses rated up to 137 (and a winner in Snoopy Loopy who hardly devalued the form at Perth yesterday), would add weight to that counter-argument.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Doesn’t Cheltenham have a much stiffer downhill fence that has been responsible for lots of injuries and fatalities? I’ve never seen this track described as ‘gaff’.
If you got the calibre of horses that run at Cheltenham to run at Sedgefield you probably would never have a fatality because the fences are so easy to jump – it’s just unfortunate that Sedgefield in the main attracts the ‘lowest class’ of jump horses (although some decent horses do pop up from time to time) meaning there will always be fallers and there will always be injuries.
At least Sedgefield have acknowledged they have a problem and are taking steps to try and improve the situation.
Mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.