- This topic has 52 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
But then higher quality of horses should mean better jumpers.
I wouldn’t have said Cheltenham had as many as 15 fixtures. Just going by the televised ones I thought it was about 5-6. Are the non-televised (I assume there are some) as competitive and high quality? Or are you counting those as days rather than say the Festival is one fixture?
BlackGold checked Animal Aid’s stats. Can we assume that the BHA do not collect and publish stats about injuries to horses at each UK racecourse. Yet Nick Rust said after the Cheltenham review earlier in the year: “We have to listen and stay ahead of public opinion and stay in control of the outcomes for our sport. We have to invest in future audiences and part of that is addressing public opinion around welfare. We must not just do all we can to minimise risk but be seen to do all we can to minimise risk. We must go further and faster.” The BHA has shown many times recently that it does not lead, it reacts to events.
As for earlier comments, such as: “Paul Rooney – Estate Agent turned Racecourse safety analyst. Every business needs to diversify to survive”. “Free publicity for narcissistic owners who don’t have any Cheltenham horses anyway. “ I wonder why people would treat this issue with sarcasm, innuendo and levity. Since Mr Rooney accumulated more than one hundred million pounds from from his estate agent business I suspect that he would have been collecting monthly stats for each Branch; number of clients, number of sales, value of sales, targets met, targets missed, etc, so that he could judge which tactics were working or what changes to make at which locations. He may be very well informed about racehorse injuries. I suspect that the BHA is less well informed and less inclined to do anything about it, which is why they are now running to catch up rather than being in a position to implement collection and analysis of horse injury data for the industry to use. They should already be helping owners, trainers and racecourses, and allowing Nick Rust to sleep at night, instead of being two steps behind the opposition parties like Animal Aid.
I don’t have much confidence in the BHA regarding this subject. Their recent report recommends that horses are checked over by a vet before each race at the Festival. Am I alone in being astonished that this isn’t the norm at every race meeting already? You’d think that ensuring that every horse is fit to race is the very least we should expect, both as punters and from a welfare point of view.
In 2019 Cheltenham are due to have 16 race days, Sedgefield 20 and Southwell 18. It’s a pretty fair assumption that field sizes at Cheltenham are going to be larger so I would think that there would be a greater number of runners at Cheltenham than either of the other courses. Aintree are due to have 8 race days, half the number of Cheltenham. I’m not sure there would be any correlation between higher quality horses and their ability to jump better however higher class races will usually be run faster. Faster run races and larger fields could be part of the reason Cheltenham’s figures are in the headlines. I could be wrong but I think I read fatalities at Cheltenham were around the half percent mark, it would be interesting to compare that with all other courses and other countries such as Ireland and France.
Black gold, what you mean non televised? All uk racing is televised.
2 days January Trials day + new yrs
4 days for festival
2 days for April meeting
1 day hunters chase meeting
2 day October meeting
3 day November meeting
2 day December MeetingSo correction 16 days, with largely good races and big field sizes
Tonge, surely most trainers will ensure their horses are fit and well enough to run before they send them to the races. I can’t imagine many connections would risk their horse if there was any indication that they might have an issue.
In fact these days how often do we hear of horses being given a year off because of a small muscular problem that in days gone by would have seen them race again that season.
As for Cheltenham conducting pre race checks on every horse at the festival I would suspect that’s them trying to be proactive in heading off criticism when these headlines about fatalities emerge at the end of the festival.
I’m sure most would Patriot1. However, I daresay there are also some who bow to pressure to run a horse who isn’t 100% if the owner insists. A vet check takes that pressure of such trainers. Even if the trainer does think the horse is fine, a quick listen to the heart and check on the gait by a veterinary eye on the day could identify a problem. If it only averts one tragedy a year, it’s got to be worth it.
An admirable decision by the Rooneys, I think. They are reportedly very attached emotionally to their horses, and they’re entitled to run where they wish for whatever reason without having to discuss it publicly.
Racing and especially the racing press would do very well to leave this alone now. Nowt the media loves more than ‘Millionaires Damn Cheltenham and the Jockey Club” If it’s not dropped, there’s a strong risk of millions of people watching Sky or the BBC and seeing Starchitect break down. How many times will that tape need to be run before a proper ‘ban NH racing’ campaign kicks off?
Yes, thewexfordman that’s what I thought. Wasn’t sure if you were counting actual days or the festival for example being one fixture even though it’s 4 days.
a quick listen to the heart and check on the gait by a veterinary eye on the day could identify a problem.
The trouble is that “quick” necessarily more or less means “half arsed”. I don’t think many vets would want to risk their professional reputation and a negligence claim by slapping the steth on one location on one side of the chest for a few seconds. You need a good long listen on both sides. Ditto the trot up. Also, there are some “abnormalities” affecting heart rhythm and gait that are common and benign- eg 2nd degree AV heart block, stringhalt. Even an experienced vet might need time and possibly a second opinion and/or some further diagnostic testing to be sure if the abnormality is dangerous or not.If it only averts one tragedy a year, it’s got to be worth it.
Hmm, 97 horses ran on the first day of the festival last year. Even if there was only one vet spending a scant 5 minutes on each horse, recording the result and moving on to the next one, that’s 8 hours of work ie one full working day. Locum vet rates for new grads vaccinating puppies or TB testing cattle on a weekday are about £200/day. I don’t know how much racecourse vets get paid but if I was an experienced horse vet who could bill a few thousand/day in my clinic, I’d want at least £1000. There will be 1511 racing fixtures in GB this year. That’s £1.5mill to lay on the vets needed to check everything pre-race.Would it even prevent one death? Probably not. Those checks won’t pick up things that can start to happen at racing pace- the ventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysms and very severe EIPH cases that are what kills horses. I’m willing to bet they wouldn’t pick up on any very subtle weaknesses that could be the harbinger of catastrophic breakdowns either. After the deaths of Starchitecht and Cliffs of Moher I didn’t see anyone say “aye I thought that one looked a bit dodgy in the paddock”.
£1.5m/year could make a bigger difference to welfare spent elsewhere.My issue is that if the Rooneys have their own evidence that is so damning of Cheltenham (and not other courses) that they felt it necessary to take this action, shouldn’t they then be obligated (as obvious horse lovers) to make said evidence available to all other owners/trainers/custodians of racing so that action could be taken to rectify whatever the issue is?
With regards to the vets checking horses before racing to find problems, there was a case on ITV’s Challow Hurdle raceday in the last race where Mick Fitz’s owners club had a horse running (Onefitzall) and just before the off (as Fitzy was talking on air about the horses issues) the vet just happened to have the horse trotting up and down several times.
They would appear to have been satisfied that the horse was ok to run and he was allowed to jump off with the others and in the early stages he was running well but around halfway (after the 8th fence) he was suddenly being pushed along and started to lose his place and was quickly pulled up after jumping the 11th fence.
The point being there is no guarantee that a vet will be able to spot anything other than a horse not moving well or maybe an irregular heartbeat (not sure if they are able to check that at the start of the race though) as a lot of issue will not present themselves until a horses is in a race environment.
Seems like it could be a total minefield in that I am not entirely sure what the cost of having a vet(s) on course would run to and if they are checking every horse running on the day when do these checks takes place – as they arrive at the course, before they are saddled or on course before the start of the race?
At a Cheltenham Festival would it be logistically possible to do all this given the numbers involved and what are the repercussions to vets making a snap judgement (after maybe just a few minutes checking a horse over) to withdraw it and is there any comeback on trainers for bringing an unfit horse to race?
Lets also not forget that some of the uneducated public perception brigade’s automatic default setting is that horse racing (of any kind) should be banned regardless on the grounds of animal cruelty – if it was banned, I wonder if they would go as far to think just exactly what would happen to all the thousands of racehorses that overnight would have no purpose?
My guess would be hell no and once racing got banned they would simply move on to something else (probably the showjumping/eventing community, which would be seen as equally cruel) and these are the people that we are allowing to majorly dictate how the sport is run and policed.
Yes the sports governing body needs to have checks & balances internally and also needs to be able to answer robustly to reviews from appointed independant bodies – but said bodies need to have a general working knowledge of the sport they are questioning and not have individuals on it that ask questions like, when will horse fatality rates be reduced to zero!
As much as I wont to say this (Sheikh Mohammed Obaida comes to mind ) The owners pay the bills and if the Rooneys don’t want runners at Cheltenham then that is their prerogative . Whether the stats bear it our regarding their horses or horses running at Cheltenham in general would be interesting to know.
Personally I think Starchitect has a huge bearing on this decision and it was harrowing to watch as is it is all the time when a horse breaks down !
Fair play to them as I say they pay the bills.
If they had said it was simply a decision made due to the distress of losing two horses at the course that has put them off running horses there then you can fully understand it and not question it.
But the fact that it is an implied issue regarding safety concerns and their racing manager has refused to comment further on the matter leads me to believe that there is a specific issue relating to Cheltenham itself – could it be more down to how they perceive Melrose Boy was treated (or not) after being struck into and then subsequently having to be put down just a few days later?
I think when you have as many horses in training as the Rooneys it is a sad fact of life that some will suffer injury or worse on the racecourse and that could be anywhere. Look what happened to talented Neon Wolf who ran that amazing race against their horse Willoughby Court, at Cheltenham, before sadly going home and fatally injuring himself in a freak accident
Horses have won Gold Cups and top races at Cheltenham and gone on to perish weeks later at Aintree…One Man (Melling Chase) Alverton (Grand National) Synchronised (Grand National)
The Rooneys have a right to decide where their horses run or don’t run but I don’t understand why their decision had to be made public or why they even decided to write a letter which was leaked to the press. Why not have just not made entries and talked about their decision and concerns to the racecourse direct, it seems that nowadays nobody talks face to face with anyone.
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...I wonder exactly how the letter came to light. My hunch is that an enterprising Racing Post journalist noticed the absence of Rooney runners at Cheltenham and began ringing round trainers. Which trainer, I wonder, conveyed the contents of the letter?
And why shouldn’t they – in this scenario it would just have been an honest reply to a direct question. Perhaps the trainer in question strongly disagrees with the Rooneys’ decision. Watch out for their horses being removed from someone if they find out who spilled the beans.
It was naive of the Rooneys if they thought the absence of Prestbury Park runners wouldn’t be noticed or become public knowledge and a relatively big deal, however, their lack of reaction tends to suggest they were caught by surprise.
Their deafening silence has only served to exacerbate the possibility of a potential blow to the perception of racing amongst the wider public and I maintain that, as leading owners, the Rooneys have imposed a duty upon themselves of responsibility to the sport which exceeds what they choose to do on a whim.
Just to put a different slant on this, the breeders/bloodstock agents won’t be too keen knowing that whatever they breed/buy that goes to the Rooney’s will not get to Cheltenham. If an agent has several owners/trainers to buy for- perhaps it would make them have a little think about where the horse is going. The whole breeding industry wants championship horses and this could change the pages of mares significantly at the sales. I would be more interested to know the Rooney injury statistics occurred in training than the racecourse.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.