- This topic has 122 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
There is clearly a difference between changing something in direct reaction to an event and innovations that come along, well, whenever they are innovated! For example, plastic wasn’t widely produced until the Second World War.
Yes, is a shame it took until the 1980’s to do away with concrete posts on racecourses. Hopefully they won’t take as long to change conditions of the NH Chase when evidence points to it needing innovation.
Why do you think they’re thinking of changing the race due to something “in direct reaction to an event” and not many events? Please take a look at the rate of NH Chase fallers over a considerable amount of time (and they’ve probably looked at number of fatalities in that time too) – compared to every other race at the Cheltenham Festival… And/or compared to other staying (3m5f+) chases… I think you’ll see it is not in direct reaction to one event.
Value Is EverythingThose figures can be interpreted in many ways. Trying to be objective, had Cheltenham set the NH Chase up as a lengthy trial in 2003 and discovered now that it has roughly the same attrition rate as the GRand National, would they keep it going?
Ginge, what a load of nonsense your talking lol
3 fatalities in the last 10 years?
Only scanmed this quickly i couldnt care of its double that, one who went wrong, dont need to look further back thats enough of a sample size, the race has produced in that time multiple cheltenham festival winners, gold cup winners, grand national winners, the OWNERS, TRAINERS and anyone else involved are happy with the race conditions. Some in the last week or so (hypocrites like honeyball) have came out but the majority with a brain cell are more than in favourIf 3 fatalities in 10 years is enough to drastically change conditions then alot of fixing needs done to alot of races.
Hopefully people dont adopt your thinking on this matter, its scary to think your a long term horse racing fan, youll have no sport soon with that type of thinking, you need to goto bed with the ted walsh interview on repeat in a pair of headphones.
You are mistaken, ham.
I would say when only 1 of the last 5 runnings has not resulted in a fatality; the authorities should look in to whether something neeeds to be done.
Ballyward, Mossback, Pont Alexandre and Theatre Queen all losing their lives.…And you could count numerous extremely poor rides (against the rules of Racing) that haven’t (luckily) produced injury or death which could all be seen as negatives for the race conditions. ie Should’ve either been pulled up before falling or pulled up but continued (tailed off and no chance of being in the money yet continuing) or too forceful with the whip etc etc. Some not learning from previous mistakes (or not caring). Amateurs have fewer rides than pro’s and therefore a ban appears to mean very little; seemingly breaking the same rules too often to be coincidence.
…And more fatalities (last of which was in 2004):
Swift Thyne, Mr Babbage, Basilea Star, Millenaire, Laska De Thaix, Magical BailiwickDo you think Ted’s outburst could be something to do with his daughter being an ex-amateur? An ex-amateur who rightly got in to trouble for more than one ride at the Cheltenham Festival – including in this race. Of course he’s going to defend both her and other amateurs. Who do you think received a Timeform comment of?…
“he may need time to recover from a brutal ride, for all he responded to it to get on top after the last; his rider was subsequently banned for 4 days for her actions, having seemingly learnt nothing since her ban for misuse of the whip in the 2007 Champion Bumper”…
With the second horse that day getting a comment…
“can win more races providing the punishment he came in for here doesn’t leave its mark… couldn’t quite hold the winner off as the pair responded to unsavoury drives (his rider picked up a 5-day ban)”.
…But she didn’t learn either! Getting yet another (this time) 7 day whip ban in this race.Value Is EverythingWhen the biggest chair of NH racing, Henrietta Knight, is agreeing that amendments need made to the race then the know that there’s potential issues. She’s forgotten more about jumps horses than anyone on this forum and as much as she loves the history etc. of the race she still agrees – tells you something.
This case is very much like the GN before the changes were made.
One side says leave it as it is otherwise you’ll ruin the race, there will be deaths etc etc. One side says there are issues and things must be done.
The race was tweaked and for me it’s been improved tenfold. Quality is massively up (lower risk probably a big factor?) and i don’t wince half as much as i did watching it prior to the core change.The race was tweaked and for me it’s been improved tenfold. Quality is massively up (lower risk probably a big factor?) and i don’t wince half as much as i did watching it prior to the core change.
I would agree. I think it’s a vastly better race nowadays than it was before the safety improvements.
GoldenMiller – can I ask which changes (not just to the GN, but generally) that have been brought in in recent years are you opposed to?
Mike
It was a long discussion on the race on ‘Racing Debate’ on SSR. It’s available on the website and app if you want to dig it out, it’s the new version of the Sunday Forum basically.
Her points were that they should reduce the trip to the GC distance of 3m 2F and move it away from the last race of the day, similar to what they did with the Grand Annual.
If quality is up in the GN it is only marginally so. It’s not so much of a spectacle and hasn’t been since BB was filled in. The ability to omit fences rather than cordon part of them off has added to this, as has the spruce being too loose. The latter is dangerous, horses must respect obstacles not learn they can be brushed through. Perhaps that’s one reason why the stiffer fences at Cheltenham and elsewhere are now more likely to catch horses out. My views on the recent safety changes at Aintree are moderate compared to those of the die hard aficionados commenting on YouTube videos of GNs who see the contest now as a glorified hurdle race.
If you winced when watching the GN before the changes, Kev, perhaps you should have chosen not to view it. As for general recent safety changes, Mike, off hand I can’t think of any I object to. But I do think a line should be drawn now because what is happening is that a poorly led BHA, out of touch with the vast majority of trainers and jockeys, is merely reacting to specific renewals of any given race that they fear may resonate badly with a section of the public that is not really interested in racing, or with extremists, and in doing so they are gradually destroying the fabric and heritage of the sport on an inconsistent basis. Which, in light of the reduction in the number of runners in the GA (which I do object to), brings us back to the NH Chase.
Clutching at straws just a tad to associate the reduction in the national fences with increased fallers at Cheltenham.
An attitude of ‘If you don’t like it, don’t watch it’ is only going to go one way for this sport. I, like many others i’d suspect maybe wouldn’t be into the sport if it wasn’t for the likes of watching the national at a younger age.
Yes, Kev. I became interested in Racing with Red Rum. But in today’s climate people (including kids) know more about what’s happening regards horse deaths/injuries etc. Had I known the facts in the late 1970’s I’d not have been interested in Racing at all – in fact may well have been totally against the race/Racing.
Horse welfare first clicked in to my mind when injured horses were being pulled out of the drop (trap) fence, Beechers Brook, in order for the horses to jump the fence second time around. I said at the time, will not bet again in the race unless Beechers was changed. Thankfully it was.
Value Is EverythingWhich shows there are less finishers and more fallers in the longer distance races (NH, GN) which is logical. And no difference between the percentage of fallers in those two races for the former being confined to amateurs. Thanks, Joe.
Wrong, Golden Miller. It does not show there are more fallers in long distance races, neither does it show no difference between amateur and pro’. Comparing the Grand National to National Hunt Chase is one thing.
To get a clearer view maybe you’d like to compare the NH Chase with other top staying races in the same period (back to 2003):
National Hunt Chase 42 fallers in 319 runners, 13.2%
Scottish Grand National 23 fallers in 412 runners, 5.6%
Welsh Grand National 16 fallers in 297 runners, 5.4%
Eider Chase 14 fallers in 209 runners, 6.7%
Warwick Classic Chase 12 fallers in 196 runners, 6.1%
Bet365 Chase 5 fallers in 281, 1.8%
Grand National 32 fallers in 236 runners (only back to the core changes) 13.6%Comparing number of fallers around conventional fences the NH Chase is massively higher; twice as much as any other top staying race.
Value Is EverythingThe trouble with these stats on finishers, fallers etc is that comparing like with like is impossible. Mark, all those races are essentially for seasoned long distance chasers. Is the increased faller rate in the NH Chase down to them being novices or the jocks being amateurs, or a combination?
Also, the PU figures should play a significant part in any analysis, the trouble is in defining whether pulling a horse up is a good thing or a bad thing? Is it wise jockeyship or is it poor jockeyship having got your horse into a condition where it is not fit to continue?
What the figures do lend credence to is the law of probability: what is likely to happen if you pair amateur jockeys with novice chasers in a 4 mile race over one of the toughest jumping tracks in the country in the most competitive atmosphere of the year?
You need not be an accomplished statistician to have a reasonable guess at the outcome when the figures are broken down.
The “Hen” letter in full:
Nick Rust’s patronising interview on Luck on Sunday confirms the urgency for the horsemen to start exercising their influence in the selection process of the new BHA chairman to avoid yet another disastrous period.
The incumbent CEO is clearly not qualified to be involved in this process, as he demonstrated by his absurd analogy on Sunday comparing racing with blood sports.
His inability to grasp the relevant welfare issues facing racing, precipitated by the greed of the racecourses, by presiding over an expansion of an underfunded fixture list with a horse population which is staffed inadequately, moving fixtures out of the core season to summer jumping, the plethora of mares-only races that will weaken the breed and distort pedigrees, racecourses over-racing and racing on false watered ground and licensing trainers with unsustainable business’ are some of the welfare issues of the time that need addressing.
It is also rather surprising that after a series of highly questionable appointments, we are still hiring people from the Antipodes, a region where they have successfully placated the ‘angry brigade’ and regulated jumping to near-on non-existence. Have we not got the necessary expertise nearer to home who have experience of National Hunt racing?
Jockey Club Racecourses is not blameless, significantly changing the nature of the track at Haydock – historically a National-horse trial course – and closing Nottingham, both of which were bizarre decisions if you want to produce horses to be properly equipped for the amphitheatres of Cheltenham and Aintree.
For them and the BHA to allow air-time for gimmicks like City Racing is an example of where commercial greed over-rules the head and contradicts all they are trying to achieve.
The BHA now appears to have lost the confidence of Parliament as a governing body and the people they are regulating.
Due to the lack of leadership over the last two decades, the culture within the BHA and the lack of knowledge of the people they have chosen to employ, the BHA have become a liability and detrimental to the future survival of our industry.
This was apparent last week, but more worrying is the tampering that is going on behind the scenes by the endless large committees that suffocate accountability, and are influenced and fuelled by the greed culture.
If we do not implement what is best for the long-term interest of the horse and not be swayed by the best commercial argument at the time, racing deserves everything it has coming to it.
Before this next chairman is selected there needs to be more transparency. The process has not been a success to date and the horsemen need to be confident that the incumbent has a plan, has a very big broom and is not going to be unduly influenced by the racecourses.
Henrietta Knight, Charles Egerton and Mick Channon
There may be the occasional ride where it’s the jockey’s fault for going too fast for his horse and as a consequence needed to pull up. But for the vast majority I think it’s fair to praise a jockey for pulling up.
What the figures do lend credence to is the law of probability: what is likely to happen if you pair amateur jockeys with novice chasers in a 4 mile race over one of the toughest jumping tracks in the country in the most competitive atmosphere of the year?
That’s my point throughout this thread, Joe.
I don’t blame everything on the race being for amateurs.
I’d expect a bigger percentage of fallers at Cheltenham.
I’d expect a bigger percentage of fallers with novice chasers.
I’d expect a bigger percentage of fallers in 4m races.
I’d expect a bigger percentage of fallers in an amateurs race…
And that’s what’s happened.But that’s exactly why putting all those things together is going to cause problems – more poorly judged rides and more fatalities than imo is acceptable.
Either:
Open it up for professional jockeys?
Or make it a race for established chasers (not novices)? I’d be in favour of using horses with most experience – a Veterans amateur 4m chase.
Or Take the race away from the Cheltenham Festival? I;d imagine that’ll be the most unpopular.
Or Try reducing the distance? Although given the percentages at other courses am less sure that’ll work… And it’ll be too similar to other races at the Cheltenham Festival (Foxhunter & Kim Muir).
Or a combination of the above? imo Best to make it a Veterans 4m Handicap open to pro’ jockeys. Maybe having a bonus for any winner going on to Grand National victory?Value Is EverythingTo get a clearer view maybe you’d like to compare the NH Chase with other top staying races in the same period (back to 2003):
National Hunt Chase 42 fallers in 319 runners, 13.2%Rather than a questionable comparison with other staying chases for experienced horses it might be somewhat less unenlightening to compare with other Novice Chases run at Cheltenham, and not just those run at the Festival
If you read the letter properly you will find other more interesting things like:
moving fixtures out of the core season to summer jumping
I think they are 100% right on that one. The core season and the summer jumping have season become one. You need more horses to provide smaller tracks with sufficient runners which most likely results in more foals that have to be bred and a generally a breed of lower quality.
the plethora of mares-only races that will weaken the breed and distort pedigrees
Right, why do we need so many “Mares Only” races? If they’re good enough to compete against the “boys” then they’re good enough for breeding. If not, don’t encourage owners to go that route with horses that can only compete against their own sex.
Looking at new the Mares Only races at the Festival and at all the horses that won those races, how many good ones besides Quevega, Apple’s Jade, Annie Power, Laurina and Bennie des Dieux have gone on to become CC, RyanAir or Gold Cup material? I think mares are supposed to be part of the future of NH racing. But, if they are to be called Festival winners, I would expect them to be far more superior NH horses than they have shown by contesting those races. The above five are true superstars, but where is the rest of them?
racecourses over-racing and racing on false watered ground and licensing trainers with unsustainable business’ are some of the welfare issues of the time that need addressing.
No one on this forum ever likes talking about this point. Everytime I’m concerned that Southwell NH racecourse is a killing field, or that the ground at Hereford is of poor quality or that certain trainers run 50-rated horses at SP’s of 500/1 over fences I only get stupid replies.
Ginge, I like your argumentation about the NH Chase in general, but comparing the NH (Novices’s Chase) with the ones you’ve mentioned doesn’t make much sense. We’re talking about vastly inexperienced horses (National Hunt Chase) and comparing them with 2nd or 3rd season chasers participating in the other races. I think it’s no surprise that you’ll get a higher number of fallers in the former.
Apart from the good horses that have contested the race, there are just too many bad ones trying their luck in it. You don’t get that kind of range in the proper Chases like the Gold Cup, the Betfair or the King George.
Now looking at a few runners from the NH Chase 2019:
Just Your Type had four previous starts: finishing 4th, 5th, falling (when in command) and 6th again.
Mulches Hill three previous starts: 6th, 2nd (Bangor), 4th.
Warthog three previous starts all of them over 2m4f including one win.
Beyond The Law: Well beaten in five previous starts, including one fall.
All of them failed to complete (three fell and one was PU) and all of them come from very respected stables. What I’m trying to understand is from the limited amount of chasing experience these horses have, what made connections think their horses would be suited by 4 miles on very soft ground in the last race of a seven race card?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.