- This topic has 45 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 9
Cheltenham ; The Second Last Fence, The Old Course.
The fence was modified in 2003 and has attracted attention recently as a result of a high-profile fatality and, what some would see as a higher than acceptable level of fallers.
Some perceive the fence as a problem: some see a horse seemingly jump the fence itself only to ‘slither’ on landing.
By looking at the figures showing fallers at other courses it should be possible to determine if there is a problem; if so, what the problem is, and if proved, how it may be alleviated.
Prior to the modifications the racecourse management were keen to take on-board research received from the University of Liverpool. Without going into detail the main points from the research are taken as follows:-Key points
• The firmer the going – the greater the risk of injury to horses.
The course prepare fresh ground for the October and November fixtures, the turf then being given a chance to recover before being raced on for the first two days of the festival; a total of 7 days racing per year. The New Course is kept fresh for the remaining fixtures.
• The fewer days since a race was last run on the same course the greater the risk to horses.
Again, with the two courses being utilised, every chance of good ground is maximised. The festival meeting takes place with two days racing over each of the two courses.
• The bigger the field the greater the chance of fallers.
• Horses are more likely to fall when there is a downhill approach to a fence.
• Flat or slight uphill gradients carry lower risk than downhill fences.
Although on an obvious incline, this ‘downhill’ stretch of the course is undulating. The approach to the 3rd last was levelled, and for approx. 100 yds rises gently.
Likewise, the approach to the 2nd last rises gently for approx. 30 yds. Both landing sides are slightly higher than the approach. Both these two fences are wide and inviting.
• The risk of a horse falling decreased the more times it had raced on a particular racecourse.
This would suggest that novices or the more un-exposed horse may be at more risk than the older more ‘experienced’ campaigners.
• Horses which are being whipped and progressing through the race are at greater than 7 times the risk of falling compared to horses which were not being whipped and which had no change in position through the field.
One may expect that horses would come under extended pressure as the race progresses.The Racing post’s Craig Thake published figures as relating to fallers upon The Old
Course at Cheltenham, since October 2003. The Post’s headline figure was that 30% of all falls had occurred at the 2nd last fence.
My own records show:-
Total fallers: 132
At the last – 9. At 2nd last – 39. At 3rd last – 8. At 4th last – 11.Clearly the total for the 2nd last fence is substantially higher than for the other last three fences; in fact the fence claims 39% more fallers than the other three fences combined, and 30% of all fallers in races over the course.
How then would these figures compare with other racecourses staging National Hunt racing.
For an example let us take Sandown Park. This is a Grade 1 course, has the ‘railway fences’ which are widely accepted as tricky on the back straight, the ‘pond fence’ three out, with the last fence on the stiff uphill finish. Since October 2003:-
Total fallers: 59
At the last – 4. At 2nd last – 7. At 3rd last – 0. At 4th last – 0.This comparison shows that considerably less fallers occur at Sandown’s 2nd last (as well as each of the other last three fences).
Is the comparison of Sandown with Cheltenham a true one?
Compare then with a left-hand undulating course. Take Hexham as an example, where the 2nd last is jumped on the back straight before the bend into the home straight. Both the 3rd and 2nd last are jumped on an uphill gradient as the horses emerge from a dip. The quality of horse on show (Grade 4 course) is considerably inferior to that at Cheltenham.
Since October 2003:-
Total fallers: 102
At the last – 5. At 2nd last – 5. At 3rd last – 2. At 4th last – 4.Results show that considerably less falls occur at Hexham’s 2nd last, as well as at each of the other last three fences. Is Hexham a fair comparison?
Apart from the differences already noted, although undulating, the course has no fences situated on a downhill incline.
For a further example let us take Aintree, a Grade 1 course, where the class of animal participating would be of a similar nature. The track is flat and sharp, all characteristics differing from Cheltenham. The field sizes are roughly in line with Cheltenham.
Since October 2003 – The Mildmay Course:
Total fallers: 78
At the last – 5. At 2nd last – 8. At 3rd last – 2. At 4th last – 4.From the simple calculation of comparing basic statistics for fallers at the 2nd last from course to course, we can see a large difference emerging between Cheltenham’s Old Course and the other NH courses looked at.
To attempt to determine why the difference occurs is less straight-forward.
As the course with the most closely matched characteristics to the Old Course, let us compare the figures for the New Course at Cheltenham.
Since October 2003:-
Fallers: 164
At the last – 10. At 2nd last – 10. At 3rd last – 26. At 4th last -36.The 2nd last fence on the Old Course is on a downhill gradient, although the approach rises slightly. No other British course presents it’s 2nd and 3rd last fences on a predominantly downhill (although undulating) stretch. The point at which the horses are being whipped and/or being asked to progress through the race has begun. These actions may not be at their peak though it is generally accepted that the ‘tactical battle for position’ takes place between the two fences: ‘progressing through the race – up to 7 times greater risk etc . .’
By presenting the fences on this stretch of the course, at this particular stage of the race, two of the key research points have been highlighted and negated.
In taking 39 fallers (30%) of the total fallers, the fence is seriously out of step with the course as a whole, as it also is with other racecourses.
The clerk of the course comments that both of the fences are ‘actually uphill’. I think this underplays the reality of the situation.
The course management in modifying the fence correctly attempted to take the ‘downhill speed’ out of the approach by levelling and raising the ground. While this has shown itself to be a satisfactory strategy when applied to the 3rd last, the same strategy when applied with a reduced distance to the 2nd last fence is seen as inadequate. The rise to the 2nd last is only approx. 30% the length of the rise to the 3rd last.
It is my contention that due to the short distance of the rising approach to the 2nd last, that to all intents and purposes this still represents the characteristics of a ‘downhill’ fence.
I would suggest that the levelling off, or slight rise to the 2nd last fence of some 30 yards should be extended in order to lessen the impact of racing ‘downhill’. This distance should be extended to approx. 100 yards, or the same length at the very minimum as that approaching the 3rd last. Given that a horse is travelling at a greater speed approaching the 2nd last than it is at the 3rd last then a distance in excess of 100yds would be more appropriate.
This solution is most likely not possible given the distance between the two fences and geography of the course, and would be best served by re-siting the fence to the foot of the hill, upon the finishing straight itself.Until the problem is successfully resolved and the fence re-sited, trainers and owners should note another key research point, in that the risk of a horse falling decreases the more times it has raced on a particular course, or conversely, that it increases the less a horse is familiar with a fence.
The nature of the 2nd last presents a unique challenge, an unfair challenge, and one with damaging consequences for horse, jockey and the sport itself. I sincerely hope that the fence is re-sited as soon as practicably possible.
Good post. Welcome to the forum.
The 2nd last definitely claims a lot of novices. I’m not sure whether thats because most of the championship races are run on this course as well (I think)
When presenting such detailed statistical evidence, it helps to have the basic facts correct.
The ‘pond fence’ at Sandown is not the second last, it is the third last.
The last three fences on the Cheltenham New Course are not in a straight line in the finishing straight. The third last is on the downhill stretch.
The comparison with the second last on the Mildmay Course at Aintree is not ideal as that fence is an open ditch, not a plain fence.
I appreciate the effort put in for this post, but I would again point out that my personal concerns about the second last on the Old Course are as much to do with the number of horses that are put out of the race there without appearing in the form as having fallen. The safety and welfare issues are obvious, but just counting fallers doesn’t measure the full impact the fence is having on the results of top class races.
AP
I think the issue is slightly more complex, and agree with AP that statistics alone don’t give the full picture.
Racing at Cheltenham is (generally) as competitive as NH racing gets, with decent prize-money and considerable kudos attached to having a winner there. As such, jockeys with horses in contention are often asking their mounts for maximum effort on that particular downhill stretch as they hurtle towards the closing stages.
The second last fence in question is undoubtedly a tricky fence, but crucially comes at the point when the race is developing in earnest and horses are getting tired.
I think this combination of difficulty, location and context is where the problem lies. It possibly does require a full and thorough review, but what the correct course of action is, I don’t pretend to know…
- Total Posts 9
I feel as if I am obliged to offer some form of apology apracing.
I appreciate that others like yourself have personal concerns but thought it useful to present some figures to flesh out my own concerns. With these figures and comparisons, together with an insight into the research acted upon by the course before the modifications were made, I hoped it may be possible to expand the debate. I apologise for the errors you quickly point out but feel they don’t alter my opinion on the various points made. I hope one can see a wider picture and I’m disapointed with your somewhat pompous attitude.There is a conspicuous lack of pomposity in AP’s reply as far as I’m concerned, merely a firm but civil correction of a few inaccuracies.
Be that as it may. If you haven’t already seen it, Zipfastener (and it has of course slipped a few pages down the forum following the last two busy weekends), herewith the original thread on the penultimate fence on Cheltenham’s Old Course, replete with thought-provoking solutions from AP, Grasshopper and others;
https://theracingforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70898
I trust these might help add a little more light and shade to your stats and findings as they stand. And welcome to TRF, of course.
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.
Bit of a poor arrival at the forum accusing one of our most esteemed members of pomposity- and more wrong you couldn’t be!
Interesting post Zip and welcome to TRF.
One things for certain if they don’t do something its only a matter of time before there’s carnage at that fence again.
- Total Posts 9
I apologise if I’m deemed a poor arrival. I can only express an opinion as I see it. The effort of merely ‘counting fallers’ was extremely time consuming and tedious. Likewise I took the effort to visit and walk the parts of the course in question. I did read the original thread which was indeed thought-provoking. I took the view that the subject warranted a further push and to keep the momentum going opened a new thread. I also took the approach that opinions need facts and figures to back them up. The review of the University of Liverpool’s work on the subject was also deemed important as it would serve to illustrate where the racecourse were coming from when deciding upon the 2003 modifications. Likewise one could see where they had unintentionally come up short, so to speak, at the 2nd last.
I bare no annimosity towards apracing as have never met or have no knowledge of him/ them. I merely thought his initial response negative and hence my contribution dismissed a little out of hand. Never mind, I have no wish to upset contributor’s as only through informed debate will the issue move forward. Best wishes.Found the points you raised very interesting mr/mrs zip – I hadn’t realised that so many horses had fallen at that fence; I was also interested in apracings comment [?] that the horses only jumped the 2nd last once in 2 1/2 mile races – I really didn’t know any of these facts and I’m grateful to everyone for working towards raising the standards of safety….mo
hi zippy,
Thank you for posting that, I found it very interesting if a little long winded although I know it’s difficult to be concise sometimes, and I’m not sure how many people will stop to read it all.
What I agreed with most was your summing up from:
The clerk of the course comments that both of the fences are ‘actually uphill’. I think this underplays the reality of the situation……
down to:
……..Given that a horse is travelling at a greater speed approaching the 2nd last than it is at the 3rd last then a distance in excess of 100yds would be more appropriate…as these have been my thoughts exactly, but I also agree very much with Alan’s last paragraph, forgive me for repeating it but I think it sums up the feelings of a lot of us who’d like to see something done about it, but always allowing for the fact that possibly a majority [?] would like it left as it is:
"…my personal concerns about the second last on the Old Course are as much to do with the number of horses that are put out of the race there without appearing in the form as having fallen. The safety and welfare issues are obvious, but just counting fallers doesn’t measure the full impact the fence is having on the results of top class races"
Out of interest, are you in touch with the Cheltenham authorities at all? have you made your feelings known?
Margaret
p.s. did you know you can edit your posts, in case you’d like to correct those few errors.- Total Posts 9
Thank you Margaret. I have edited the mistakes as pointed out by apracing, I hope that keeps everybody happy. I’m not involved with racing in any form other than betting, and have not contacted C’ham. My walking the course was somewhat ‘unofficial’. I respect that some more involved with racing have taken mild umbrage with my contribution, but opinions are what its all about.
The number of fallers should be viewed in the context of the number who attempt to jump the fence, not the number who set off at the start of the race, obviously (unless you are Craig Thake).
You could have a situation where 20 set off, 2 fall at each of the first 3 fences, 4 are pulled up mid-race and 2 fall at the last. The 2 who fall at the first represent 10% of those attempting to jump the fence, the 2 who fall at the second 11%, the 2 who fall at the third 12.5% and the two who fall at the last 20%.
Thank you Margaret. I have edited the mistakes as pointed out by apracing, I hope that keeps everybody happy. I’m not involved with racing in any form other than betting, and have not contacted C’ham. My walking the course was somewhat ‘unofficial’. I respect that some more involved with racing have taken mild umbrage with my contribution, but opinions are what its all about.
Zip, if Graysonscolumn found out that Apracing was a serial rapist of young boys he would still find no wrong in him. Actually I too thought his reply was a bit pompous. Anyway welcome to the forum zip.
Another useful contribution.
Some people on this forums it seems are totally immune to even the slightest hint of criticism, and Grayson is jumping to defend his old pals at every opportunity, they can defend themselves Jeremy.
Of course for some of the great unwashed its open season.I respect that some more involved with racing have taken mild umbrage with my contribution, but opinions are what its all about.
Indeed they are, and be assured you are anything other than a poor arrival here.
A rifle back through the archives here will reveal other attempts at quantifying things like attrition rates over certain tracks, and they are always hugely welcome, whilst at the same time liable to equal levels of scrutiny.
Have you any other pieces of research of a similar nature in the pipeline?
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.