- This topic has 54 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
This debate isn’t confined to Flat racing either. The word on the Cheltenham street was that the professionals were far from happy about the ground on the New course on the Thursday especially, saying that it had been overwatered and that there were false patches. In conjunction with fatal injuries on the unwatered XCountry course, it’s hard to know what a clerk should do.
interesting indeed , however
what if : we get a prolonged dry spell and the national has to be run on good to firm (watered )
I can see the animal aid guys (including the RSPCA) rubbing their hands in anticipation
I would rather see the entire card scrapped than give these idiots (imo ) more ammunition to shoot jump racing down
one wonders with drought watering restrictions (albeit Liverpool should have loads )what A, Aintree will do , and B , what the BHA will do
Ricky
What on earth is wrong with good to firm? Surely that’s "better" than firm ground?
Trainers might want to start toughening up the horses legs now in preparation.
.Very little trainers can do in that department Miss Woodford. Good-firm may be better than firm ground, but still not good enough for Aintree. Racing thoroughbreds around 90 degree corners on a firm surface is unacceptable (imo). Hope if it is on the firm side of good, any trainer with a round actioned galloper pulls their horse out.
So all non-turf racing is cruel? AW surfaces are naturally firmer than any turf course, and dirt is, well, dirt.And again, American horses (and Japanese horses, and many Australian horses) race on firm turf more often than good/soft/yielding, even with watering. A soft course in the southern US won’t stay soft for very long.
To give you an idea:
On May 1-3, 2010 this happened in Nashville, Tennessee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9M5fA3oRpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwCGz1vSh_MOn May 8, 2010 the Iroquois Steeplechase in Nashville, Tennessee went off as scheduled. The ground was
firm
I didn’t mention non-turf racing Miss Woodford. My comment about racing on a firm surface around a 90 degree turn is about the Canal Turn at Aintree. Horses jump a fence and immediately face a 90 degree "square" (not rounded) turn. Where the sharper a jockey can take the corner, the more ground he/she saves, the better his chance of winning. Such a turn on a firm surface must put added pressure on a thoroughbred’s joints.
Value Is EverythingIt’s that pressure on joints that will win the day every time for those in favour of watering.
There is no doubt if one has a firm or good to firm ground horse and they water that increase the chances of other while decreasing their chance.
The have the right to complain but the answer will always be the same..In the interest of all horses we must water and make sure the jar is taken out of the ground.
That of course is only a small part of the real reason they water but it cover’s their backsides and it’s hard to argue with unless you want to appear like someone who couldn’t care less about horse welfare.
The main reason is they want to ensure maximum fields and the best way of doing that is making sure the ground is as near to good to soft as possible.
If they did not water and their was jar in the ground horses would be withdrawn right left and center and the Festival would turn into a joke.
Watering is the lesser of two evils by some way so long may it continue.
AS far as Cheltenham goes I think there’s no such a thing as excessive watering. They do a great job runners are kept to a maximum and the meeting continues to draw a huge audience and that is what matters.
Bath? personally I don’t give a hoot what they do.
Will the drought ban on watering extend to racecourses without their own water supplies ….and will Aintree be able to produce good ground , that is the burning question …as if they dont the animal aid loonies will have a field day
Interesting times ahead , the whole whip debacle that followed last years Grand National , was because racing felt it had to appease those loonies (RSPCA INCLUDED )months of strife followed , my point is this…why give them any ammo , if firm ground is likely , just abandon the meeting , we cannot afford another scandal of fatalities in full view of the Nation one time lets watch racing event
cheers
Ricky
Hosepipe bans don’t start until the week before Aintree.
IF
they will be prevented from following their normal watering strategy they should be soaking the ground now and next week.
I agree, a firm-ground grand national is likely to be a very unpleasant spectacle.
Will the drought ban on watering extend to racecourses without their own water supplies ….and will Aintree be able to produce good ground , that is the burning question …as if they dont the animal aid loonies will have a field day
Bang on Rickmeister! The RSPCA will ‘show their faces’ as per usual at this Historic event but it wont be them that causes any issues,its their hangers-on the ‘Loonies’ as you so rightly call them,extremists that infiltrate any event that will attract publicity,obviously the bigger the platform the bigger their ‘performance’.You wont see them at Cheltenham as they would be massacred! So long as The Mersey runs through Liverpool the ground will be safe but in this day and age of ‘Health and Safety’ its not politically correct for the ‘Board’ to employ the local ‘Pikeys’ to ensure the animal rights ‘Loonies’ are gently escorted from the Course!
I do hope the BHA inform the media this year if they have any ‘surprises’ in store ‘Before…During….or End of Race’ scenarios like last years Dramatisation of events!My comment about racing on a firm surface around a 90 degree turn is about the Canal Turn at Aintree. Horses jump a fence and immediately face a 90 degree "square" (not rounded) turn. Where the sharper a jockey can take the corner, the more ground he/she saves, the better his chance of winning. Such a turn on a firm surface
must
put added pressure on a thoroughbred’s joints.
Ginger, my dear old thing, once again you are bombarding us with bad science you seem to believe is a law of nature. May not
must
, opinion not fact
Firstly, any jockey worth the name who decides to take the inside of the Canal Turn presents the horse at an angle to the fence in order to minimise the degree of turn required when landing, so the horse does not "immediately face a 90 degree square"
Secondly I would take serious issue with your ‘fact’ that a firm surface "must put added pressure on a thoroughbred’s joints" when meeting that surface on the turn, at an angle.
When a body travelling in a straight line is forced to change direction it has to overcome the angular momentum produced that ‘wants’ to keep the body travelling in that straight line.
Hence when hooves hit the turf at the Canal Turn there’s a considerable lateral force placed on the leg joints. This lateral force is (to keep it simple) horizontal to the turf surface. Therefore what is likely to cause more injury to a horse? A firm and/or robust surface that doesn’t give way to the lateral force or a soft and/or loose surface that does? You decide
Would athletes competing in the 200m or 400m prefer to round the bends on regulation track or sand?
And what would their tarsals, tibias, fibulas and gastrocnemii prefer, not to mention their ankles and knees?
My comment about racing on a firm surface around a 90 degree turn is about the Canal Turn at Aintree. Horses jump a fence and immediately face a 90 degree "square" (not rounded) turn. Where the sharper a jockey can take the corner, the more ground he/she saves, the better his chance of winning. Such a turn on a firm surface
must
put added pressure on a thoroughbred’s joints.
Ginger, my dear old thing, once again you are bombarding us with bad science you seem to believe is a law of nature. May not
must
, opinion not fact
Firstly, any jockey worth the name who decides to take the inside of the Canal Turn presents the horse at an angle to the fence in order to minimise the degree of turn required when landing, so the horse does not "immediately face a 90 degree square
Dear Oh dear Ginge,its simple Mathematics man!
My comment about racing on a firm surface around a 90 degree turn is about the Canal Turn at Aintree. Horses jump a fence and immediately face a 90 degree "square" (not rounded) turn. Where the sharper a jockey can take the corner, the more ground he/she saves, the better his chance of winning. Such a turn on a firm surface
must
put added pressure on a thoroughbred’s joints.
Ginger, my dear old thing, once again you are bombarding us with bad science you seem to believe is a law of nature. May not
must
, opinion not fact.
opinon
" on what a racecourse vet told me. I suppose his informed opinion (or "
bad science
" if you prefer) could be wrong if you want to be so pedantic. And I should’ve said "must surely" instead of "must". Sorry.
Firstly, any jockey worth the name who decides to take the inside of the Canal Turn presents the horse at an angle to the fence in order to minimise the degree of turn required when landing, so the horse does not "immediately face a 90 degree square"
"face"
a 90 degree turn", ie that is how the course is
constructed
. I described it as
"square"
because Miss Woodford is American and may not have seen the race as often as you or I. It is also what the jockeys
physically see
, a rail on the inner at 90 degrees. Therefore, they
"face"
a 90 degree turn.
"the sharper a jockey can take the corner, the more ground he/she saves"
which I’d have thought is exactly the same as you saying
"presents the horse at an angle to the fence in order to minimise the degree of turn required".
Obviously no horse will need to be a
contortionist
and physically do 90 degrees.
Secondly I would take serious issue with your ‘fact’ that a firm surface "must put added pressure on a thoroughbred’s joints" when meeting that surface on the turn, at an angle.
When a body travelling in a straight line is forced to change direction it has to overcome the angular momentum produced that ‘wants’ to keep the body travelling in that straight line.
Hence when hooves hit the turf at the Canal Turn there’s a considerable lateral force placed on the leg joints. This lateral force is (to keep it simple) horizontal to the turf surface. Therefore what is likely to cause more injury to a horse? A firm and/or robust surface that doesn’t give way to the lateral force or a soft and/or loose surface that does? You decide
Would athletes competing in the 200m or 400m prefer to round the bends on regulation track or sand?
And what would their tarsals, tibias, fibulas and gastrocnemii prefer, not to mention their ankles and knees?
not
asking for
heavy
ground or
"sand"
Drone. Of course the other extreme would not be ideal either. All I am asking for is some
cushion
. And I am not asking for
over watering
which I agree could result in a
"loose"
surface and be even
more dangerous
to horse and rider. Genuinely
good or good-soft
ground would (
in my opinion
) be ideal.
I am sure you wear walking boots to give some cushion on your long distance walks Drone. On Sunday I ran 6 miles over uneven firm countryside in the Sportrelief run. My squash trainers did
not
give enough cushion and ended up with blisters and some feeling in my tendons. Had it not been a late decision to enter, could have saved my poor feet/legs by buying my running shoes earlier. (No time to tread them in beforehand). They have far more
cushion
as do
athletes footwear
when racing around a regulation 400m track.
Although racehorses have
racing plates
which give a little protection, they are
not
designed to go around such
tight
turns. So good or good-soft ground would in my opinion give
added cushion/protection
.
Hopefully I have made my opinion clear now Drone?
Value Is EverythingMark ….Toys …Pram …..
I do agree though the ground needs to be right
Now where’s those chill pills …..
Point taken Ricky.
May be I over-reacted.
Sorry Drone.
Your patronising and pedantic first sentence got to me.
But I suppose others might accuse me of pot, kettle, black.Value Is EverythingMy apologies Greenginger if you found my Blofeldian endearment patronising, and the may/must correction pedantic: I had the Conditional Mood beaten into me at school. If you would care to explain the correct usage of shall/will or even the can/may (bit easier that one) dichotomy I’d be grateful
Regarding the annual twaddling TRF discussion on Aintree’s ground, and the usual baloney about good-firm: whilst I’m quite prepared to believe the following words of mine from another thread are equally balonioius, perhaps you (and Ricky Lake) would care to comment – don’t hold back boys
If one’s concern about NH horses is the possibility of them encountering top-of-the-ground then the NH season may as well finish when the snowdrops emerge
One week is a long time in British Weatherlore, three weeks an eternity
Robert99, please feel free to correct but…
…it’s my understanding that the topsoil at Aintree is a dark, peaty water-retentive organic loam and as such remains a favourable and forgiving surface even when superficially dry, or if you prefer inexact racing idiom – ‘firm and fast’
Cheltenham’s topsoil on the other hand is a more typical silty-clay loam that as the ‘clay’ bit might suggest was once notorious for waterlogging. Now that excessive remedial drainage work has been done the surface can become genuinely ‘firm and fast’ and unforgiving as heavy soils tend to harden rapidly under a strengthening sun beneath sparse spring grass
So if I as an owner didn’t regard Cheltenham as the ‘be all and end all’ and the integrity of my horse’s skeletal structures were the primary concern, Aintree it may well, and only, be
Robert99, please feel free to correct but…
…it’s my understanding that the topsoil at Aintree is a dark, peaty water-retentive organic loam and as such remains a favourable and forgiving surface even when superficially dry, or if you prefer inexact racing idiom – ‘firm and fast’
Cheltenham’s topsoil on the other hand is a more typical silty-clay loam that as the ‘clay’ bit might suggest was once notorious for waterlogging. Now that excessive remedial drainage work has been done the surface can become genuinely ‘firm and fast’ and unforgiving as heavy soils tend to harden rapidly under a strengthening sun beneath sparse spring grass
So if I as an owner didn’t regard Cheltenham as the ‘be all and end all’ and the integrity of my horse’s skeletal structures were the primary concern, Aintree it may well, and only, be
Drone,
The basic soil types for Aintree are:
Naturally wet very acid sandy and loamy soils of very low fertility. High water table. Some reddish fine loam over clay, slow draining subsoils. Canal Turn and National finishing straight final bend areas are heavier clay. So with a bit of regular slot draining and feed the turf should grow well and gets plenty of rest and natural watering between meetings so good roots with less divots (repaired with peat and sand mix plus soft type grass)that really mess up good tracks.For Cheltenham:
Slow draining, chalky-clays and fine loams, silts, clays. Lime-rich loamy and clayey soils with impeded drainage The far third of the course (shallow lime-rich soils over chalk or limestone), however, is well draining, the Stands side 2/3 of course is medium to heavy clay. Soils of medium to high fertility. A mixed bag like many "natural" courses and regular slot draining work needed in several areas.
Benefits from having two tracks to reduce wear and tear and the dreaded divot repairs. Artificial watering (or over watering)is tricky as the soil varies so much. Watering also collects in the dips and hollows leading to soft spots that in the worst case can break horse’s legs.If Robert is correct then all should be well and my initial concern is misplaced ….and I have no reason to doubt he is wrong ,
I am happy now , done deal ground should be fine , lets look forward
Ricky
My apologies Greenginger if you found my Blofeldian
endearment
patronising, and the may/must correction pedantic: I had the Conditional Mood beaten into me at school. If you would care to explain the correct usage of shall/will or even the can/may (bit easier that one) dichotomy I’d be grateful
No I would not "care" Drone.
Don’t try and apologise for my misunderstanding your words Drone. There was NO misunderstanding. There was NO "endearment" in "Ginger, my dear old thing,
once again
you are
bombarding
us with
bad science
".
If you don’t want to apologise then don’t.
I took your comment for what it was, a patronising critique of my posts on this forum.Value Is EverythingIn my early racing days it was not at all uncommon to see ‘hard’ as a going description – especially at the ‘holiday’ meetings in the West Country. Any clerk thinking of posting ‘hard’ these days would be led away to a dungeon by the BHA whitecoats.
I don’t know anything about soil husbandry or the effect of firm ground on the legs of horses but I’d guess that much more damage is done by speed on such surfaces than by ‘simple’ impact.
Also, watering must, by definition, produce irregular and variable patches and I wonder if it is the lack of underfoot consistency that sometimes catches horses out?
From a betting viewpoint, inaccurate going reports remain the key curse; if it is anything other than good, or genuinely good to firm, clerks are simply commercially programmed not to admit it.
.
So all non-turf racing is cruel? AW surfaces are naturally firmer than any turf course, and dirt is, well, dirt.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.