Grand National
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
11 Apr 11
19:17
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY’S DIRECTOR OF EQUINE SCIENCE AND WELFARE STATEMENT ON THE GRAND NATIONAL
Professor Tim Morris, Director of Equine Science and Welfare, said:
“The Grand National was attended by over 70,000 people and watched by tens of millions, many of whom would have had a bet, or taken part in a sweepstake. Any one of those millions of people would undoubtedly have been very saddened by the accidents, seen clearly on television, which led to the death of Ornais and Dooneys Gate during the race.
“Racing is a sport with risk, and the Grand National is the most testing race in Great Britain; that is why it has captured the imagination of so many for over a century. Racing works hard to reduce the risk. Some risk to horses is inherent in the sport, as it is to differing degrees in the life of a horse in any environment. Racing is open and transparent about these risks, publishes information about equine fatalities on the Authority’s website, and works to further reduce these risks [see Notes for Editors 1 and 4]
“All those involved in racing do care for their horses. At the race itself there are more than 150 specialist staff who are completely focused on making the race as safe as possible, so there is no shortage of effort or expense in this respect. [see Notes for Editors 2 for detail]. This care and concern is why Horseracing has for many years also worked closely with legitimate animal welfare charities, such as the RSPCA and World Horse Welfare. The role of both these organisations is to be critical and raise concerns with us and, if they are not happy with the action we take, there is no doubt they would be very public about it, as anyone would expect from a legitimate animal welfare organisation.
“Beyond this proper concern for horse welfare, much of the prompting on this issue to the media has been driven by Animal Aid. Animal Aid are not an animal welfare group, as many newspapers and news channels have been misinformed. They are an animal rights organisation against the use of animals for sport and leisure. As such their clearly stated agenda is to ban racing. [see Notes for Editors 3].
“If racing then didn’t exist, this would have a huge impact on tens of thousands of thoroughbreds across the UK; it would effectively mean that owners and trainers wouldn’t be able to look after their horses and the breed would disappear; as would a large part of British life.
“Such Animal Rights campaigners are entitled to their views, but the overwhelming majority of the British public take an animal welfare viewpoint as to how they deal responsibly with their obligations to animals kept as pets, raised for food and used in sport and leisure. They do not want to stop eating meat, keeping pets, riding horses or watching racing, but do want risks to animals be reduced to the minimum.
“So it is clear there are two quite distinct issues here. The first issue is how we can realistically reduce the risk in the Grand National further, and that is the job of the BHA, Animal Welfare groups and Aintree Racecourse. We do listen to those concerns that have been raised and will continue to strive to reduce risk, whether that is in specific relation to the Grand National or in any other race. The second issue is the wider ethical debate of whether it is right for humans to use animals in leisure, sport and for food. Neither of these issues is served by the emotive language and misleading information from Animal Rights campaigners.
“The BHA would also like to clarify the following points:
“The Grand National is a difficult race and was run this year on an unseasonably warm day. Because of that, all the jockeys had been instructed prior to the race to dismount from their horses as soon as the race was over in order to allow the team of handlers and vets to get water to the horses so as to prevent over-heating (which is a main cause of collapse), as it is when people run and race over long distances. This preventative action happened to all the horses, not just the winner, and shows welfare improvements in action. No horse collapsed.
“The introduction of the run-outs, which were used for the first time this year, were introduced in 2009, the year after the horse McKelvey died. They were introduced after much discussion, which included the RSPCA, as a welfare measure to allow loose horses to be able to go round the obstacles, and not, as has been reported, to prevent the race from being voided. Again this is welfare in action.
“The winning jockey, Jason Maguire has been banned for exceeding the strict limits which we place on the use of the whip. The horse was carefully examined after the race and there is no evidence of an abuse. Such abuses are dealt with very seriously and, as we do at the end of every season, we will certainly be reviewing our Rules to ensure that we have the balance right between appropriate use of the whip and controlling inappropriate, unacceptable use.”
Notes to Editors:
(1) Including this year, in 12 runnings of the Grand National since 2000, 479 horses have raced in the Grand National. 8 horses have been fatally injured, and we openly report this, as do the media including the BBC. Put another way, 471 horses went home after the race. In addition, in the seven years previous to this year’s running of the race, just three horses had lost their lives competing in the race – Hear The Echo, McKelvey and Tyneandthyneagain. McKelvey and Tyneandthyneagain were both injured when running riderless.
(2) 20 horse catchers; at least two fence attendants at each of the National’s 16 fences; four stewards to inspect the course; two British Horseracing Authority Course Inspectors; 10 vets; 50 ground staff; and 35 ground repair staff
(3) In an interview with Nicky Campbell three years ago in advance of the Grand National, Andrew Tyler, the head of Animal Aid, was put on the spot by Nicky Campbell and he admitted that he wanted racing banned. He did the same last year ahead of the Grand National in an interview with BBC Scotland.
(4) For more information on Equine Welfare, including injuries and fatalities, please see:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/horsewelfare.asp
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/injuries-fatalities.asp
Professor Tim Morris, Director of Equine Science and Welfare, said:
“The Grand National was attended by over 70,000 people and watched by tens of millions, many of whom would have had a bet, or taken part in a sweepstake. Any one of those millions of people would undoubtedly have been very saddened by the accidents, seen clearly on television, which led to the death of Ornais and Dooneys Gate during the race.
“Racing is a sport with risk, and the Grand National is the most testing race in Great Britain; that is why it has captured the imagination of so many for over a century. Racing works hard to reduce the risk. Some risk to horses is inherent in the sport, as it is to differing degrees in the life of a horse in any environment. Racing is open and transparent about these risks, publishes information about equine fatalities on the Authority’s website, and works to further reduce these risks [see Notes for Editors 1 and 4]
“All those involved in racing do care for their horses. At the race itself there are more than 150 specialist staff who are completely focused on making the race as safe as possible, so there is no shortage of effort or expense in this respect. [see Notes for Editors 2 for detail]. This care and concern is why Horseracing has for many years also worked closely with legitimate animal welfare charities, such as the RSPCA and World Horse Welfare. The role of both these organisations is to be critical and raise concerns with us and, if they are not happy with the action we take, there is no doubt they would be very public about it, as anyone would expect from a legitimate animal welfare organisation.
“Beyond this proper concern for horse welfare, much of the prompting on this issue to the media has been driven by Animal Aid. Animal Aid are not an animal welfare group, as many newspapers and news channels have been misinformed. They are an animal rights organisation against the use of animals for sport and leisure. As such their clearly stated agenda is to ban racing. [see Notes for Editors 3].
“If racing then didn’t exist, this would have a huge impact on tens of thousands of thoroughbreds across the UK; it would effectively mean that owners and trainers wouldn’t be able to look after their horses and the breed would disappear; as would a large part of British life.
“Such Animal Rights campaigners are entitled to their views, but the overwhelming majority of the British public take an animal welfare viewpoint as to how they deal responsibly with their obligations to animals kept as pets, raised for food and used in sport and leisure. They do not want to stop eating meat, keeping pets, riding horses or watching racing, but do want risks to animals be reduced to the minimum.
“So it is clear there are two quite distinct issues here. The first issue is how we can realistically reduce the risk in the Grand National further, and that is the job of the BHA, Animal Welfare groups and Aintree Racecourse. We do listen to those concerns that have been raised and will continue to strive to reduce risk, whether that is in specific relation to the Grand National or in any other race. The second issue is the wider ethical debate of whether it is right for humans to use animals in leisure, sport and for food. Neither of these issues is served by the emotive language and misleading information from Animal Rights campaigners.
“The BHA would also like to clarify the following points:
“The Grand National is a difficult race and was run this year on an unseasonably warm day. Because of that, all the jockeys had been instructed prior to the race to dismount from their horses as soon as the race was over in order to allow the team of handlers and vets to get water to the horses so as to prevent over-heating (which is a main cause of collapse), as it is when people run and race over long distances. This preventative action happened to all the horses, not just the winner, and shows welfare improvements in action. No horse collapsed.
“The introduction of the run-outs, which were used for the first time this year, were introduced in 2009, the year after the horse McKelvey died. They were introduced after much discussion, which included the RSPCA, as a welfare measure to allow loose horses to be able to go round the obstacles, and not, as has been reported, to prevent the race from being voided. Again this is welfare in action.
“The winning jockey, Jason Maguire has been banned for exceeding the strict limits which we place on the use of the whip. The horse was carefully examined after the race and there is no evidence of an abuse. Such abuses are dealt with very seriously and, as we do at the end of every season, we will certainly be reviewing our Rules to ensure that we have the balance right between appropriate use of the whip and controlling inappropriate, unacceptable use.”
Notes to Editors:
(1) Including this year, in 12 runnings of the Grand National since 2000, 479 horses have raced in the Grand National. 8 horses have been fatally injured, and we openly report this, as do the media including the BBC. Put another way, 471 horses went home after the race. In addition, in the seven years previous to this year’s running of the race, just three horses had lost their lives competing in the race – Hear The Echo, McKelvey and Tyneandthyneagain. McKelvey and Tyneandthyneagain were both injured when running riderless.
(2) 20 horse catchers; at least two fence attendants at each of the National’s 16 fences; four stewards to inspect the course; two British Horseracing Authority Course Inspectors; 10 vets; 50 ground staff; and 35 ground repair staff
(3) In an interview with Nicky Campbell three years ago in advance of the Grand National, Andrew Tyler, the head of Animal Aid, was put on the spot by Nicky Campbell and he admitted that he wanted racing banned. He did the same last year ahead of the Grand National in an interview with BBC Scotland.
(4) For more information on Equine Welfare, including injuries and fatalities, please see:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/horsewelfare.asp
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/injuries-fatalities.asp
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 18
|
By:
That's a good response from some of the sh*t written in the media over the last few days.
|
|
By:
Excellent stuff. It shows that the BHA are not sitting twiddling their thumbs when you read a bout the dismounting and watering.
I must admit that the thought "Do we need this race?" went through my head when I saw the tarpaulins go up. Most of us accept the accidents that go with jump racing but that does not mean we like it. Some of those against the sport compare it to Spanish bull fighting. How dare they? The UK is not Spain and we do not cheer at death we weep openly like Jonjo O'Neil was seen to do the day Alverton died in his arms at Aintree. That's because we love our horses. Part of their argument is the horse has no say but how much imagination does it take to work out that like us humans horses want to compete, play have fun and win? Sure the get scared at times and they get exhausted but so do boxers, athletes, bull fighters, footballers,gymnasts skiers etc etc., but try stopping them doing it again. If horses didn't want to take part no man alive can make them. A week does not go past that a few horses who are not in love with the game simply refuse to start but you only need to look at horses like A Media Luz at Cheltenham i.e Ridden by the greatest jockey of all time and some would say the strongest jockey couldn't restrain her and got run away with, she was that keen to race. I'm not knocking these people they are entitled to their opinion but they should at least try and get an insight into racing before simply say ban it. They would be much better working with the BHA and trying to come up with constructive ideas to improve safety than ranting "Ban te national" which will never happen. My own take on the race is I want to see it remain but the standards must go up and the numbers down. 1. I would like to see a maximum of 30 runners. 2. A penalty points system similar to the squiggle used by Timeform brought in to enable the BHA to ban any dross from talking part. Certain owners would run anything just to say they have a a runner. Seems off we ban horses from raicng if they don't go into stalls but allow horses who have form like PPFPO to run in the most dangerous horse race in the world. 3. Someone suggested each horse should Schooled at Aintree to qualify which would probably be too costly. Perhaps it would be a good idea, that any yard who intend having a runner/s should have at least 1 Aintree type schooling fence inspected by Aintree staff on their premises. This would let horses and trainers know what to expect and whether their horse was capable of jumping them without being a danger to others. It would take time but could be a rule phased in over the next few years after which time no fence no runner. I'm sure the BHA will continue working to make the race as safe as possible but will also and consider any ideas that might help. Even if they are daft ones like mines  |
|
By:
Top post Ron
Particularly like Point 2,pretty much what i have been saying that rules of entry need looking at. |
|
By:
It's alright saying 'the rules of entry need looking at'. We need firm proposals, though. What would you do with them? Concrete criteria, please.
I doubt any new rules of entry would have prevented a horse like Dooneys Gate running anyway. He'd won a Chase over 3 miles or more and had jumped round the National course already. If you're going to ban a horse like him running, what's left? The simple, sad truth is that it's impossible to know beforehand which horses will be running in their last race. Animals with massive doubts about the trip like Santa's Son and Piraya were fine. Horses with jumping issues like Can't Buy Time were fine. You can put all sorts of qualifications in place but you'll just be changing the names of the cast - the dangers are still ever present. There is no dross in the National anymore - you've got to be around 140 to get in it - and fiddling around with the eligibility conditions will make no difference imo. Fwiw, for the first time in my life I'm wondering if 40 horses is really necessary. I don't think there is a massive issue with overcrowding or the width of the track, but reducing it to 35 would at least mean 5 fewer horses that could potentially be killed. It's almost impossible given the layout, but the racecourse management should look at everything they can to reduce the distance of the race too. Not by much, granted, it's supposed to be a staying chase after all, but knocking half a mile off the race would do no harm. I also think the Clerk should be hammering the track all week. It's been proved time and time again that a fast ground National is bad, bad news. The course won't be raced on until December now so there should be no fears about ripping it up a bit. Empty the Mersey on it if you have to but there shouldn't be any 'good' in the going description. This won't be popular but I'd also introduce 'Hands n Heels' conditions to the race. It's the richest race in the Calendar with a massive amount at stake - expecting jockeys to ride within the whip rules is optimistic in the extreme so take the option away. Clearly Jason Maguire is a top-class jockey but I thought his contribution on Saturday was pretty sickening and he needs to sort out his use of the stick quickly. Watching tired horses being wellied over the line is not what we want in the shop window, thanks. Finally, this bypassing of fences is a massive own goal and if it isn't reversed I give the race 10 years tops. I thought the run outs were for loose horses, not so we could cover dead horses with tarpaulin, leave them on the track, wave everyone else round the fence and draw the whole world's attention to the poor thing. Racing should not look to run away from the fatalities in our sport but during the most-watched event we have I don't think we should scream them from the rooftops either. Madness. |
|
By:
I would have a panel looking at every entry,and have a list of essential requirements that each horse has to adhere to or at least adhere to a certain amount of them.
I would run the race at a time of year that would reduce the chances of hot whether or fast ground. As long as enough horses can still make the race worthwhile i would leave the distance alone.But i do think reducing the amount allowed to run is a fair point,we really dont need 40 imo. They can keep the whip for riding purposes,but any jockey who hits the horse after the last should see the horse disqualified. I'll put my crash helmet on now!! |
|
By:
There's already a panel that lloks at the suitability of horses, budd. I can't imagine any panel in the country would have kicked Donneys Gate out though
 |
|
By:
30 Horse who must have had a least ran twice the same season over fences from 2mile 4 up and have to finish in the top 6 in one of those races and completed the race in the other. Any horse who has fallen, u/r, pulled up(even with a slipped saddle or broken girth) are rule out. And no horse allowed to run in a hurdle race the same said season. It'll stop trainers using 2 and half mile hurdles as warm ups. . Harsh but fair ...imo
|
|
By:
TINKERING slightly at most is what is required Numbers could remain the same CHELTENHAM saw runners left fifteen lenghts go on to win A STAGGERED start a mere few seconds would create space THE BIGGEST problem LIES WITH JOCKEYS pictures all show unacceptable closeness and a BRAVADO IN RACE seldom seen on a dailly basis HYPE is at an all time high at start.THEY HAVE FOUR AND A HALF MILES in front of them.TO SORT THEMSELVES OUT .Ihad a wager on winner ,second ,and fourth plus three non finishers.FOR ONCE AT END I WAS SPEECHLESS and a bad feeling about the whole race.AUTHORITIES OWNERS TRAINERS MUST SORT THEIR HOUSE OUT ASAP we all love our racing and a common -sense factor must kick in before 2012 FATALITIES in our game wiil always haunt us .WE NEED 600 MILLION TO WATCH.THE SPECTACLE.GRAND NATIONAL ASthe best horse race in world handicaper please give all the animals fairer chance WE MAY IN FUTURE SEE MANY HORSES AT ELBOW ALL WITH CHANCES A REAL SPECTACLE -----please -------- NO WHIPS AFTER CLEARING THE LAST wish all at liverpool a happier outcome in future years the 3 week -gap after CHELTS a great idea and should ,I BELIVE LEAD TO HEAD TO HEAD PHOTO FINISH IN FESTIVAL STAKES WINNER after PERTH small festival a place for all ///.NATIONAL STIL MY FAVOURITE RACE BEST WISHES FOR FUTURE TO ALL WHOM SUFFERED A LOSS NEVER TO BE FORGOTTEN BY US ALL IN THE SPORT WE LOVE ......
|
|
By:
Headmaster,
i werent away of a panel,thought it was just a case of their chase rating.As for Dooneys gate,i agree and horses will still get injured or worse even if they do qualify,but at least we will be seen to addressing peoples feelings against the race and trying to recuce the chance of fatalities. |
|
By:
I've been having a rethink about eligibilty for the race and I do think it's sensible to say horses must have finished in the first three over fences over 3 miles or more. Not because the Santa's Son types are in danger of killing themselves, but because it's the 2 and 2 1/2 milers that tend to find themselves in front on the first circuit and set the pace for the race - a pace that most agree is too fast and leads to accidents. The four horses below would all not have been allowed to run with the stipulation in place and all contributed to a decent gallop early. Probably a drop in the ocean but we need to slow this race down somehow?
2011 SANTA’S SON Led 4th, headed 10th, led 13th, mistake and headed 15th (Chair), weakened 5 out, pulled up before next 2010 CONNA CASTLE Jumped right, with leaders, led 4th, headed 22nd (2nd Bechers), 6th when blundered 4 out, behind when pulled up before 2 out 2009 IRISH INVADER Led to 3rd, chased leaders, lost place 3 out (op 18-1 tchd 20-1 in places) 2008 MILAN DEUX MILLE With leaders, led 2nd until after 16th (water), soon lost place and behind, tailed off 21st, eventually completed (op 100-1) |
|
By:
What if we put these changes in place for next year, and then 2 horses are killed? I am all for banning the whip completely, putting in place a rule where the horse must have won over 3 miles,good to soft ground, even reduce the number of fences and runners, sort out the drop at Beechers, but if they do all this and horses die then the race is knackered. I believe we are better educating people about racing and horses altogether, because if I did not have such a love for the sport and had seen Saturdays race for the first time then I would think its barbaric. Racing needs to ask do we need such a race as our flagship event?
|
|
By:
Well,if we do all those things and the objectors are still adamant that the race be banned cos horses are still suffering then we will probably lose the race,but we have to do something cos the momentum is increasing every year it seems.At least that way we have more chance of keeping it.
Do nothing and i really think that the next few years will see the race go. |
|
By:
ffs horses have and always get killed racing .the price you pay all the tree huggers can cry all they like .dont forget the frogs eat the feeeckers .its the london marthon on sunday how many dads will died from heart attacks and no one will call for this to be stop. now that is sad we put horses in front of people
|
|
By:
maybe,but it dont alter the fact that we might lose the race
|
|
By:
It was only a couple of months since we complained about the Eider being run on heavy ground
|
|
By:
And before they banned jump racing in Australia didnt they try to make the fences smaller??
|
|
By:
There seems to be a lot of people on here and in the media advocating only running the National on soft or heavy ground.
The National has been run on soft or heavy ground three times in the last 20 years. The number of horses to complete the course without being remounted on those occasions was 6,5 and 2. Is this what we should be trying to achieve ? |
|
By:
The one thing I would suggest they look at is the whip. Take away the whip and you significantly reduce the cruelty argument. How can you justify it? Many races are decided on how much a jockey is prepared to beat his mount and that just isn't right from an animal welfare or indeed betting perspective.
|