- This topic has 52 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Deepest condolences to the Rooneys who have now tragically lost Willoughby Court post op – it never rains but it pours and what with this happening on top of everything else you would have to seriously wonder how much longer they will continue owning NH horses.
Load of fuss over nothing?
And just in time for them to make entries for the Festival!
So we are none the wiser as to what the actual ‘issues’ were as the only change that was made since their boycott started was the moving of a fence a few yards further from the home turn on the new course.
I know Starchitect’s death in the Caspian Caviar Gold Cup was on the new course but it wasn’t an issue with the position of that particular fence and I am not sure how you can blame course safety (ground was officially soft) for a horse breaking down when galloping between fences.
Unless they come out and say exactly what their issues were and how they think Cheltenham have now resolved them since the boycott (don’t hold your breath), I think there is always going to be some doubt cast over this entire situation.
So we are none the wiser as to what the actual ‘issues’ were as the only change that was made since their boycott started was the moving of a fence a few yards further from the home turn on the new course.
The change that was made was the moving of the 2nd last fence on the OLD Course. It wouldn’t make sense to change it on the New Course.
My only worry at Cheltenham is that the fences should be a lot wider, especially at the Festival. Look at the main French tracks, where there is so much room for everybody to jump an obstacle at the same time.
E.g. Auteuil, Enghien (closed down two years ago), Cagnes-Sur-Mer….I suppose horse welfare is paramount to them at the smaller meetings in January but isn’t quite as important when the prize money goes up in March.
Cheltenham shouldn’t even accept entries for their horses after the negative publicity they, and racing in general, received on the back of this.
Thanks for the correction Ruby, got my old & new courses muddled up (old age don’t you know) – always felt it was a mistake when they moved the Latalomne fence from its original position in the first place (didn’t feel it was any more difficult to jump than the 4th last at the top of the hill, which also has its fair share of fallers) but I digress.
Would argue that no matter how wide the fences are made, more often than not jockeys invariable don’t want to cover any more ground than absolutely necessary (especially in ultra competitive handicap races), and though you do get the odd few that swing wide off that turn it is usually more as a result of not being able to get a run on the likely to be more congested inside during these races.
Not sure how making fences wider will stop that kind of thinking if I am honest and even reducing field sizes (as they have done) is no guarantee that you still won’t have a host of horses in contention swinging off that turn and then getting in each others way as they charge into the 2nd last.
It comes back to the old inherent danger of asking a number of half ton racehorses to jump multiple 4ft+ obstacle whilst travelling upwards of 30mph+, even with every known safety precaution taken fatalities are sadly inevitable.
The other big difference between France and England other than the width of the fences is the fact that the tracks are flat. No problems getting out of balance – the courses are watered more so the pace is slower. It would be interesting to see the stats for Auteuil fatalities v Cheltenham.
I think that re-sited 2nd last will continue causing problems. They ought to bite the bullet and move it to the back straight.
It would remove a troublesome obstacle while giving the track a row of feature fences in a relatively straight line. Think down the back at Warwick or the railway fences.
Surely the biggest difference between the fences at Cheltenham and Auteuil is how soft the fences are at the French track.
In fact I don’t know of any French tracks that have fences as stiff as British ones.
As our championship racecourse Cheltenham should be the ultimate test of jumping. However I would agree about the penultimate fence on the old course. It needs a rethink.
In the main there barely seems much difference between French hurdles and fences (apart from the bull finch & white rails fences which are immediately noticeably) and I don’t think I have ever seen a meeting at Auteuil where the course doesn’t look like a ploughed field it is that soft/heavy and French soft/heavy seems to be on another level because even the noted mudlark Agrapart couldn’t handle it when he ran there.
I really don’t think Cheltenham’s fences are the issue, it is a proper test of what the sport is…jumping and the Festival is the pinnacle and as such should be the ultimate test of a NH horse on all counts.
I do think that regulations should be brought in to standardise all fences in regards to height/angle/depth/thickness as some chase course fences are so soft (Ludlow springs to mind) that you get horses not even getting halfway up a fence and it barely hinders them……that encourages bad jumping technique which gets found out (sometimes fatally) when they try to do the same at a course with much stiffer fences. That to me is grossly unfair to horses and has a very big impact on their actual welfare.
To come back more on topic, I would like and it would be nice if the Rooneys could give us some sort of context into what exactly was their issue in the first place (suspect they won’t), so that we could compare if it is something that could be applicable to other courses or if it was just a perceived Cheltenham thing clouded by the tragically unfortunate accidents that befell their horses Starchitect & Melrose Boy.
Auteuil was a stupid comparison, because Cheltenham is a totally different track. At Cheltenham, especially over the Old Course, you have to almost hug the rail and stay on the inside, if you want to win a race. The bends are also very tight and you keep turning all the time. Auteuil is flat with a very long back straight and they simply have more space there.
But you could move back the 2nd last to it’s initial spot (Joe mentioned that, I think as well) and CHANGE THE ENTRANCE (sounds a bit like a Dessie quote) to the straight. That bend is just too tight in my opinion, especially when the straight is about 2 1/2 furlongs short.
The Cheltenham fences are okay imo, the width is only an issue when you have bigger fields and everyone wants to position himself accordingly. The open ditch at the top of the hill could be a bit wider just to give horses the chance of measuring it better.
Some people here have short memories.
Moving the second last on the Old Course has to be one of the most sensible equine welfare decisions I can think of – it used to produce the majority of fallers at the course at meeting after meeting, many of which would jump the fence perfectly well and be caught out by the rising ground on the landing side. Certainly there were far more of them than at the fence in its current position.
It’s always seemed to me that the fatalities Cheltenham gets that other courses don’t are the horses who go wrong as they start the descent from the top of the hill. Short of major earthworks or running the races elsewhere, though, it is difficult to see what to do about it.I do think that regulations should be brought in to standardise all fences in regards to height/angle/depth/thickness as some chase course fences are so soft (Ludlow springs to mind) that you get horses not even getting halfway up a fence and it barely hinders them……that encourages bad jumping technique which gets found out (sometimes fatally) when they try to do the same at a course with much stiffer fences.
Wholeheartedly agree. Maybe not so much with height as they can see that- but definitely with the regards the other factors that affect the stiffness of the fence such that you could batter through the top foot and a half at some courses…try that at other courses where the fence looks the same and you’d be flipped on your head.
Yes, and start with the fences on the Grand National course. The problem is nothing new, here is a snippet from the 1849 page of my upcoming (in about 4 years lol) website:
“For the second consecutive year there were, unfortunately, three fatalities. At least four of the six deaths occurred at mere eighteen inch high banks. The dual theory was advanced that these obstacles were the same colour as the fields leading to them (horses are colour blind) and were arguably too small to be worthy of the respect of animals familiar with the larger jumps elsewhere on the course. However, little appears to have been done about it.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.