- This topic has 75 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
It would probably only take a couple of thumping Labour majorities for socialism to finally get around to destroying the Sport of Kings
The words ‘Labour’ and ‘Socialism’ mentioned in the same sentence. How wonderfully quaint.
Mike
Just because they have privately educated PR managers running the Party and they got rid of Rule 4 (something I was rather fond of in a way), it is a mistake to think they are not basically socialist: 80pc of their funding comes from unions; everything they do is geared towards the enlargement of the State and its civil administration, paid for by an expanding tax take. That is the modern, wealthy Hampstead version. I preferred the older version to be honest. It seemed more about working and money, not social experiments, civil servants on Facebook, and arse-licking Big Business.
Here’s another plausible scenario if they got rid of the National. How about horse racing entirely (flat and jumps) because that’ll happen if they got rid of the national.
Mind you it’ll please the Prof
I don’t buy into this theory. The Countryside Alliance told us that if foxhunting was banned National Hunt racing would die and it hasn’t. If anything it is as popular as its ever been.
There is an unwillingness among certain sections of the racing community to accept being told what to do by so called outsiders. In response they use scare tactics such as the oft used "this will be the beginning of the end for jump racing" line.
If you don’t buy into this little scenario that I forecast then take a look at this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzHZOHnmNG0
I know this is Australia but look at the deaths rate. Even our flat season has it’s deaths (unregrettable as it is). So in time they will focus on any and all racing.
I think it’s a combination of most of what you mention.
I also think it is a relic of a bygone age which does not have a place in the second decade of the 21st century.
Attitudes change and whereas the risks and dangers may have been acceptable in the past, opinions and tolerances have changed.
I think the attraction in the eyes of the public is the same attraction when rubberneckers slow down when there has been an accident on the motorway.
Although most will deny it they watch the race to see the falls and spills – it appeals to peoples baser elements.
It’s prolonged longevity was also enhanced by the coverage given to the event by our national broadcaster.
Now it has moved to a minority channel its appeal will rapidly diminish in the eyes of the general public.
Indeed I’m sure many of the once a year punters will not even be aware of it happening this year – the only way it may become prominent in the public eye is if the "red tops" push it hard.
I have made no secret of the fact I have moved from being a huge fan of the race, through to ambivalence and am now approaching the stage where I would be quite happy to see the back of it.
I don’t recognise myself in any of those Paul. Although must be many who do watch the race for those very reasons; the reasons for the National’s appeal is varied.
Yes, it is a grueling race where jumping ability is important. I want to see a test, but a fair test. It’s basically an athletics marathon for horses, with testing jumps, where every runner is handicapped to finish in a multiple dead heat… And we can have a wager on it!
Tradition yes, can play its part. But my parents watched it purely because I was interested as an animal lover and particularly horse lover. Although at 9 years old I was ignorant of the price some of these beautiful beasts paid. Media has made it their place to "educate" or even exaggerate risk nowadays. Because of them, we even have racing enthusiasts believing the demise of Synchronised could be foreseen by just spooking at the starting gate. So media will play its part in survival or death of the National. Whether the BBC’s attitude will change now remains to be seen. Should "Racing" go on the offensive to defend the race? Or remain silent and hope for the best? I don’t know the answer. In a way yes, tell people of the improvements, but leave a way clear for further changes if neccessary.
If there are ways of reducing risk while keeping the spectacle, then great. Even if fewer falls, the winner will still need to jump well. If only it were possible to test jumping ability without any falls; I’d be in favour.
We do not yet know if these changes will work. So why don’t "racing people" want to give them a chance? New softer cores, start nearer the first fence, changes to drops, softer going etc are all good things. I said after last year’s race I would not bet in the race again unless changes were made, changes have been made. I’d like numbers lowered to 30 and drop fences entirely eliminated. I know there’s an arguement that fences should be made more difficult to reduce risk… But horses don’t face drop fences anywhere else these days, so they’re bound to catch them out. However, there’s been more changes than I could’ve hoped. Not change just for asthetic reasons or to placate activists, but only if change will make a real difference to safety. Not to make it "safe" but safer.
Safety will govern the general public’s opinion/appeal of the race. Yes, there will be some rubberneckers who want to see falls, but the majority won’t put up with the current fatality rate. Especially if the (wrongly) beloved RSPCA comes out against the race. And if a large minority of Joes are against the race – then it’ll be economic suicide for a non-bookmaker to sponser and associate itself with the great race. No, we are not there yet by a long way, but it is slowly going that way…
And once the Grand National goes, the Cheltenham Festival will be next on their list, at least number of runners per race.
Appeal for me of the Grand national has waned over the years purely because of fatality rates, but still "enjoy" the race (of sorts). Couldn’t celebrate my win last year because of Synchronised and According To Pete’s deaths.
To equate the Grand National with dog fighting is crazy. The objective of the former is to win a race, the objective of the latter is injury and/or death.
There are plenty of other things much more important to horse welfare than the Grand National. Within racing, firm ground is a killer, I too have always been against Summer Jumping. Number of racehorses bred that don’t reach a racecourse is too high…
Out of racing: No barbed wire fences around the paddocks of Britain would save many lives/injuries. Live export for slaughter/meat mainly to Eastern Europe. Horses crowded kick out in cattle trucks and given little or no rest/water. I have no problem with people eating horse meat, but equines are a special case and need to be killed near to home.
Whatever reasons for the current National’s appeal. Safety will be number one in persuading/disuading young/new National(ists) in future.
Value Is EverythingWe do not yet know if these changes will work. So why don’t "racing people" want to give them a chance? New softer cores,
start nearer the first fence
, changes to drops, softer going etc are all good things. I said after last year’s race I would not bet in the race again unless changes were made, changes have been made. I’d like numbers lowered to 30 and drop fences entirely eliminated. I know there’s an arguement that fences should be made more difficult to reduce risk… But horses don’t face drop fences anywhere else these days, so they’re bound to catch them out.
I hope I’m wrong but I think having the start nearer the first fence is a terrible mistake, especially if it is not coupled with a reduction in numbers.
With the previous run to the first fence the field had time to sort itself out and runners had a better chance of getting sighted going into the first
The number of fallers at the first in the last five years is 0-2-1-1-1 and four of the five were prominent, so were jumping errors as opposed to being unsighted.
With the shorter run-in the 40 runners will have less time to get sorted out into a decent position and there will be more runners arriving at the fence unsighted, with the potential for more fallers and horses being bought down. All five casualties mentioned were Falls as opposed to BD’s.
I certainly agree with you in relation to dropping the limit to 30
There are plenty of other things much more important to horse welfare than the Grand National. Within racing, firm ground is a killer, I too have always been against Summer Jumping. Number of racehorses bred that don’t reach a racecourse is too high…
I agree with you on both points and would also add the problem of jump racing in extremely hot weather in the summer – remember those terrible scenes at Worcester a couple of years ago?
It’s easy for some to say just ignore those who complain about the National but that reeks of arrogance and demonstrates a certain naivety and complacency.
The "issue" with the National is, whether we like it or not, the race has become the "shop window" of the sport in the eyes of the wider public and is therefore under greater scrutiny. It doesn’t help racings cause when the highest profile race has such a high casualty rate.
I hope I’m wrong but I think having the start nearer the first fence is a terrible mistake, especially if it is not coupled with a reduction in numbers.
With the previous run to the first fence the field had time to sort itself out and runners had a better chance of getting sighted going into the first
The number of fallers at the first in the last five years is 0-2-1-1-1 and
four of the five were prominent
, so were jumping errors as opposed to being unsighted.
With the shorter run-in the 40 runners will have less time to get sorted out into a decent position and there will be more runners arriving at the fence unsighted, with the potential for more fallers and horses being bought down. All five casualties mentioned were Falls as opposed to BD’s.
I certainly agree with you in relation to dropping the limit to 30
Bringing the start forward certainly makes a possibility of more horses unsighted and brought down Paul. I made the same point on another thread that it would work better if reducing field size.
However, the fact "prominent" runners are the main group of fallers is no coincidence. Most Nationals are won by those ridden prominently, so a prominent position is (normally) favoured. They also don’t have the danger of being brought down or hampered at later fences. Jockeys know prominent runners have an advantage so want to get a "good position"; risking going too quickly at the first. It is not "jumping errors" as such that usually catches them out, often no "mistake" is made. Tending to over-jump and losing their under-carriage on landing. So hopefully a shorter run will slow them down, reducing prominent fallers. We will see if hold up horses are as badly effected.
I think the BHA are reluctant to reduce field sizes because if it does not work at 30 they’ll be under pressure to reduce it further. If it were any other race they wouldn’t allow so many runners. Width of the fence makes little difference when jumping Beechers/Foinavon and in particular… I’d like to know the average number of horses still in the race at the first Canal Turn? How many horses would be allowed to jump a fence that is basically three horse widths wide?
If the race can not be made safer Paul, then I will reluctantly come around to your way of thinking and be in favour of discontinuing. Just don’t think we’ve reached that point yet.
P.S.
Had a look around your site the other day Paul. Excellent for the experienced and newbie racegoer. Even has the table of odds and chances.
Value Is EverythingSurely the National should be a Hunter/Chase( STRONGER HORSES) at level weights not a handicap.
P.S.
Had a look around your site the other day Paul. Excellent for the experienced and newbie racegoer. Even has the table of odds and chances.Thank you kind Sir
Here’s another plausible scenario if they got rid of the National. How about horse racing entirely (flat and jumps) because that’ll happen if they got rid of the national.
Mind you it’ll please the Prof
I don’t buy into this theory. The Countryside Alliance told us that if foxhunting was banned National Hunt racing would die and it hasn’t. If anything it is as popular as its ever been.
There is an unwillingness among certain sections of the racing community to accept being told what to do by so called outsiders. In response they use scare tactics such as the oft used "this will be the beginning of the end for jump racing" line.
If you don’t buy into this little scenario that I forecast then take a look at this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzHZOHnmNG0
I know this is Australia but look at the deaths rate. Even our flat season has it’s deaths (unregrettable as it is). So in time they will focus on any and all racing.
Of the 8 separate racing regions in Australia, only two permit jump racing. Of those two Victoria have 69 jump races per annum and South Australia 23 (compared with 4,286 and 1,475 flat races).
The so called "ban" in the other states is misleading because of those states that had actually "dabbled" with jump racing, all had phased the sport out prior to the "ban" due to economic rather than animal welfare issues.
It is worth pointing out that the death rate of 1 in 115 over jumps in Australia compares unfavourably with the UK rate of circa 1 in 250, and I am sure if our death rate were to double overnight there would be an outcry and rightly so.
Jump racing in Australia bears no resemblance to the sport in the UK both in terms of size and organisation. It is therefore completely erroneous to draw comparisons between modifications of our tracks, in particular the Grand National, and the impression being given by animal rights activists in Australia that they have forced jump racing into virtual extinction, and are waiting to get stuck into flat racing.
Jump racing in the UK has a huge bargaining chip in its favour – money. It generates an enormous amount for the exchequer and therefore will not be banned, although pressure will always be applied (rightly) to ensure animal welfare is of the uppermost importance. Similarly Flat racing in Australia is a hugely profitable source of revenue for the Australian government and therefore it will never be banned.
In an ironic way you have fallen into the classic trap of actually believing the hype of the Australian animal rights activists without drilling down into the facts.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.