Grand National
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
05 Apr 16
17:05
Joined:
Date Joined:
02 Apr 03
AINTREE will hold wide-ranging discussions on the conditions for the first Randox Health Grand National in 2017 after qualification issues were brought to a head by the likelihood that former winner Pineau De Re and Aintree specialists Alvarado and Highland Lodge will miss the cut for Saturday's race.
After BHA head of handicapping Phil Smith on Tuesday reordered runners below the 40-horse cut-off point who were on the same weight, Haydock Grand National Trial winner Bishops Road moved up a place to 41 and needs only one above him to come out, but Pineau De Re has dropped to 46, Highland Lodge to 47 and Alvarado to 48.
Aintree boss John Baker said: "The Grand National is evolving and has taken a different form over the last few years. The quality of the race improves all the time, which we wanted, but that has consequences.
"In the old days you could not have envisaged horses like Pineau De Re and Alvarado missing out, but having so many good horses looking to get into the race is a nice problem to have."
'Win and you're in' a possibility
So-called 'win and you're in' races will be high on the list when the Aintree team have their annual wash-up.
Baker said: "We want the Becher Chase to be a proper Grand National Trial and to connect the two races. Highland Lodge, this season's winner, might not get in, so that could possibly be a ‘win and you are in' race, and similarly the Haydock Grand National Trial, because although Bishops Road may well get in now, there was a danger he wouldn't."
The Grand National is traditionally free of penalties, but Baker said Aintree might look into "something a little quirky like optional penalties", which connections might accept with a runner who looked borderline to make the cut but decline if guaranteed a run.
Automatic qualification for previous winners or placed horses is less likely, however.
Baker said: "You could win a National at eight and still be racing five years later when rated down in the 120s. Would you really want one like that in?"
BHA open to discussions
Any proposals from Aintree's side will need approval from the BHA, but the authority is increasingly open to innovative race conditions.
Spokesman Robin Mounsey said: "We would never rule any suggestions out before we have had a chance to consider any proposals fully.
"The current entry and handicapping approach seems to be working well, with the race going from strength to strength and arguably in 2016 producing the strongest ever running of the race.
"We would, however, be happy to discuss any proposals with Aintree or other stakeholders after this year's meeting has concluded."
After BHA head of handicapping Phil Smith on Tuesday reordered runners below the 40-horse cut-off point who were on the same weight, Haydock Grand National Trial winner Bishops Road moved up a place to 41 and needs only one above him to come out, but Pineau De Re has dropped to 46, Highland Lodge to 47 and Alvarado to 48.
Aintree boss John Baker said: "The Grand National is evolving and has taken a different form over the last few years. The quality of the race improves all the time, which we wanted, but that has consequences.
"In the old days you could not have envisaged horses like Pineau De Re and Alvarado missing out, but having so many good horses looking to get into the race is a nice problem to have."
'Win and you're in' a possibility
So-called 'win and you're in' races will be high on the list when the Aintree team have their annual wash-up.
Baker said: "We want the Becher Chase to be a proper Grand National Trial and to connect the two races. Highland Lodge, this season's winner, might not get in, so that could possibly be a ‘win and you are in' race, and similarly the Haydock Grand National Trial, because although Bishops Road may well get in now, there was a danger he wouldn't."
The Grand National is traditionally free of penalties, but Baker said Aintree might look into "something a little quirky like optional penalties", which connections might accept with a runner who looked borderline to make the cut but decline if guaranteed a run.
Automatic qualification for previous winners or placed horses is less likely, however.
Baker said: "You could win a National at eight and still be racing five years later when rated down in the 120s. Would you really want one like that in?"
BHA open to discussions
Any proposals from Aintree's side will need approval from the BHA, but the authority is increasingly open to innovative race conditions.
Spokesman Robin Mounsey said: "We would never rule any suggestions out before we have had a chance to consider any proposals fully.
"The current entry and handicapping approach seems to be working well, with the race going from strength to strength and arguably in 2016 producing the strongest ever running of the race.
"We would, however, be happy to discuss any proposals with Aintree or other stakeholders after this year's meeting has concluded."
Show More
What a load of nonsense. All of it. If you didn't make it in then tough.
"The Grand National is traditionally free of penalties, but Baker said Aintree might look into "something a little quirky like optional penalties", which connections might accept with a runner who looked borderline to make the cut but decline if guaranteed a run."
What about the horse and connections who get demoted as a result of this crap? Not a chance.
"The Grand National is traditionally free of penalties, but Baker said Aintree might look into "something a little quirky like optional penalties", which connections might accept with a runner who looked borderline to make the cut but decline if guaranteed a run."
What about the horse and connections who get demoted as a result of this crap? Not a chance.
Does seem nonsense, maybe they should had won more races instead of being well in.
Maybe the problem is the number of chasers being rated 140+ going through the roof, as outlined by Kevin Blake www.attheraces.com/blogs/kevin-blake/15-February-2016
I can see the logic of a couple 'win and you're in' races but no more than that - it does seem a little strange that you can call a race a Grand National Trial and then the winner can't get in the National - it would potentially enhance the trial races, ensure more entrants ran on their merits and provide a narrative in the run up to the National which would provide a little relief from the Cheltenham centric emphasis which increases jumps season on jumps season.
The optional penalties are surely a potential minefield for punters in terms of which horses have them, when they have to decide whether to take them up or not and reduced clarity in terms of where entrants stand on the list - it's not difficult to envisage connections with multiple entries waiting until the last permissible minute and then declining a penalty to allow one of their horses higher up the list to stay in the race - you could only really avoid that scenario buy having an early deadline for acceptance of the penalty which would surely diminish the value of the incentive? - or I suppose you could offer the penalty on a horse by horse basis following races they participated in and have a deadline within 7 days of the penalty for it to be accepted or not. Will the optional penalties only be offered to winners after the weights are published but also to those who run big races but don't win?
I think the number of question marks around this idea suggest it is too complicated, unworkable and not punter friendly - which means it is almost certain to happen.
The optional penalties are surely a potential minefield for punters in terms of which horses have them, when they have to decide whether to take them up or not and reduced clarity in terms of where entrants stand on the list - it's not difficult to envisage connections with multiple entries waiting until the last permissible minute and then declining a penalty to allow one of their horses higher up the list to stay in the race - you could only really avoid that scenario buy having an early deadline for acceptance of the penalty which would surely diminish the value of the incentive? - or I suppose you could offer the penalty on a horse by horse basis following races they participated in and have a deadline within 7 days of the penalty for it to be accepted or not. Will the optional penalties only be offered to winners after the weights are published but also to those who run big races but don't win?
I think the number of question marks around this idea suggest it is too complicated, unworkable and not punter friendly - which means it is almost certain to happen.
Get a panel of experts get to kick out the non stayers , past it but still high in the handicap and just running to give the owner their day entrants , would sort it out.
at the end of the day its a handicap race, maybe if it was not it would be a better race sand may te best horse win
Alvarado,PDR and Highland Lodge should get a run imo.
Ucello Conti,Wonderfull Charm,VLR and Onenightinvienna should make way.
Ucello Conti,Wonderfull Charm,VLR and Onenightinvienna should make way.
If Alvarado, PDR and Highland Lodge got in nobody would care. You can't just knock the system in certain years and not others. Was any of this mentioned last year or the year before?
All the big handicaps are getting tougher to get into because they are giving more horses high ratings than ever before. As per Kevin Blake's article we have less NH runners now than 10 years ago (31222 in 2014 vs 35368 in 2006) but almost twice as many chasers rated 140+ (292 in 14/15 vs 151 in 05/06). Surely they can't be surprised that it's getting trickier to get into the biggest race of all based on those figures?
All the big handicaps are getting tougher to get into because they are giving more horses high ratings than ever before. As per Kevin Blake's article we have less NH runners now than 10 years ago (31222 in 2014 vs 35368 in 2006) but almost twice as many chasers rated 140+ (292 in 14/15 vs 151 in 05/06). Surely they can't be surprised that it's getting trickier to get into the biggest race of all based on those figures?
Onenightinvienna related to west tip 
Not sure anyone knows who is a non stayer, plenty of 2m4f horses have done well in the national.
Its about it not being a natural handicap but leaning to attract better horses, whether that is working out we dont know, but to have a horse that could had gone close in a gc running and winning a GN only enhances it at the moment.
Just look at the mess of the ratings Cause Of Causes has, is it because it is a certain colour. I hope COC misses out as clearly he is still well handicapped over long distances.
Clearly they need races that qualify, ie horses that try to win, still wont stop the cheaters.
Their are too many horses rated over 140 compared to Gold Cup winners (ratings wise, i dont know the answer)
Not sure anyone knows who is a non stayer, plenty of 2m4f horses have done well in the national.
Its about it not being a natural handicap but leaning to attract better horses, whether that is working out we dont know, but to have a horse that could had gone close in a gc running and winning a GN only enhances it at the moment.
Just look at the mess of the ratings Cause Of Causes has, is it because it is a certain colour. I hope COC misses out as clearly he is still well handicapped over long distances.
Clearly they need races that qualify, ie horses that try to win, still wont stop the cheaters.
Their are too many horses rated over 140 compared to Gold Cup winners (ratings wise, i dont know the answer)
Onenightinvienna a seven year old novice that has had four chase starts.
Terrible decision to risk such an inexperienced horse.
Terrible decision to risk such an inexperienced horse.
I know that they cannot do it but I would like to see trainers only allowed two entries as this year we have 10 horses from 2 stables and if we cleared six of them then the next six in come from 6 different stables.
I know that they cannot do it but I would like to see trainers only allowed two entries as this year we have 10 horses from 2 stables and if we cleared six of them then the next six in come from 6 different stables.
I know what you mean Steamship but as you say it's not really workable. It would be very harsh on the owners. If you had your pride and joy with Nicholls and he had to make a decision between yours and another wealthier owner's horse then he's going to keep the wealthier owner happy.
They should definitely do something to boost the smaller trainers a bit outside of the National, especially here in Ireland. A good, valuable series of races for trainers with a low number of winners would help spread the money a bit more. It might even encourage owners to move their classier horses to smaller stables to gain entry to these races. The results of such an exercise might naturally spill over to the Grand National and other big races.
They should definitely do something to boost the smaller trainers a bit outside of the National, especially here in Ireland. A good, valuable series of races for trainers with a low number of winners would help spread the money a bit more. It might even encourage owners to move their classier horses to smaller stables to gain entry to these races. The results of such an exercise might naturally spill over to the Grand National and other big races.
Optional penalties are quite clearly the way to go in my humble. To those that say it's unfair on those horses that get leapfrogged, I say get out, win and leapfrog them back. Two years ago Ely Brown was hogging one of the last spots thanks to an inflated rating that had cobwebs on it. He'd run once that year, in a handicap hurdle (pulled up) and only had four lifetime Chase starts, three of them in Nov Chases the year before. He should not have been running and fairly predictably was sent off 100/1 and fell at the first. Meanwhile, horses like The Package, who had just bolted up at the Festival, could do nothing about it. Which horse would you have rather seen line-up? It wouldn't be a last minute turnaround either. You win and you have until the next Monday to accept or decline the penalty.
I can see why the PR men would get excited about win and you're in, but it's flawed imo. Why should a horse get in over another that's rated a stone higher? And when it's 12lb out the handicap on the day it will all look rather silly.
I can see why the PR men would get excited about win and you're in, but it's flawed imo. Why should a horse get in over another that's rated a stone higher? And when it's 12lb out the handicap on the day it will all look rather silly.
This is a race that has been fudged and f**** for years. All that punters ask is that they know the score months in advance. The full race conditions need publishing on the Racing Post when early closing races are initially declared.
I don't want to see special dispensation applied within the 2 months of the race.
The BHA are open to discussion, but whether they've the intelligence to apply any sensible thought remains to be seen.
I don't want to see special dispensation applied within the 2 months of the race.
The BHA are open to discussion, but whether they've the intelligence to apply any sensible thought remains to be seen.
Grand National handicap system is in serious need of an overhaul since the race became safer and fences easier, merely due to the fact that a former National winner, a dual Welsh National winner, a Becher Chase winner and horses placed in the last two Nationals are all currently outside the top 40 in the handicap and require defections above them to secure a run !! Surely previous form on the course and in the unique race should count for something - I can remember National winners over the years winning the Welsh counterpart too (Bindaree, Earth Summit, Silver Birch, Rag Trade, Corbiere) and indeed a recent winner of the Chepstow marathon Monbeg Dude was third in last year's National. So how come Mountainous (who has won two of the last three Welsh renewals) finds himself unlikely to secure a place in the field this year, when several above him will not get past the first few fences on Saturday ? It's a bit of a racing travesty for connections of these fancied horses ...
john. Just because a horse won the National two years ago, why should he be guaranteed a spot over up and coming Chasers iyo? I don't get the fuss about Pineau de Re not being in myself. Its 2 whole years ago, countless horses have arrived on the scene as potentially top class staying chasers since then and he's done next to nothing since. If his form had held up well and he'd continued to run good races, they wouldn't have this problem.
I think Headmaster's option is definitely the best... and agree entirely with his post. The 'win and in you're in' idea is great from a marketing / excitement point of view, but you could well end up with horses running from well out of the handicap which makes a mockery of it. Its definitely flawed.
I think Headmaster's option is definitely the best... and agree entirely with his post. The 'win and in you're in' idea is great from a marketing / excitement point of view, but you could well end up with horses running from well out of the handicap which makes a mockery of it. Its definitely flawed.
Surely you could easily mitigate the potential flaw whereby a 'win and you're in' race winner could be out of the handicap by giving them a penalty for the win which ensures they are in the handicap proper? Would have thought that was just as easy to implement and no more radical than the optional penalties - if not easier.
I don't see that scenario being too likely anyway if the races are carefully selected - I appreciate the Becher Chase winner and the Haydock Grand National trial winner may well miss out this year but it's not by much - might be a different story if a Class 4 handicap at Fontwell was a 'win and you're in race' but I doubt that's on the radar.
I don't see that scenario being too likely anyway if the races are carefully selected - I appreciate the Becher Chase winner and the Haydock Grand National trial winner may well miss out this year but it's not by much - might be a different story if a Class 4 handicap at Fontwell was a 'win and you're in race' but I doubt that's on the radar.
The bottom weight in the Haydock trial was rated 125. The bottom in the Becher was 132. If that type won they'd be massively out of the weights.....and re giving them a penalty....what if a horse near the top of the weights won and they don't want the penalty?
Hang on, I've got a good idea...what about an optional penalty and why don't we just do it for all races?
Hang on, I've got a good idea...what about an optional penalty and why don't we just do it for all races?
The Grand National worked perfectly well for many years. The horses must run to their ratings.
Apr 6, 2016 -- 5:06PM, The Headmaster wrote:
The bottom weight in the Haydock trial was rated 125. The bottom in the Becher was 132. If that type won they'd be massively out of the weights.....and re giving them a penalty....what if a horse near the top of the weights won and they don't want the penalty?Hang on, I've got a good idea...what about an optional penalty and why don't we just do it for all races?
Why would you give a horse near the top of the weights a penalty for winning beyond the rise in the handicap it would get anyway? It would be in the handicap proper. That's not what I suggested.
What if the horse rated 125 won by 20 lengths or the horse rated 132 won by 12 lengths? How many winners of the Grand National Trial or the Becher Chase in the last 10 years were/would have been out of the handicap in the National?
Under your system you could win, decline the penalty by the following Monday, win again three weeks later be offered another penalty and then accept it. Would the penalties be uniform? 5lbs?, 10lbs?, range between 5-10lb to be determined by the handicapper based on performance? When would they apply? From the date weights were published until the Wednesday before the final decs on Thurs? From when the weights are published to the Cheltenham Festival? (a bit arbitrary). From the date the weights come out until 31st March?
It's the people's race - added complexity will turn the casual observer off, the majority of people can relate to 'win and you're in'.
You could give a winner an optional penalty of 5lbs which he accepts and he's in and then the following weekend he's out again because two more have picked up and accepted optional penalties. Be like the hokey cokey.
With optional penalties, in certain years you'll have horses running for penalties when they usually wouldn't. Then you'll have those around them forced to run for penalties. You'll have horses running a lot closer to the National than connections would prefer. It's just messy.
To react after one year would be idiotic. There was no problem the last few years. Make an announcement to review it in 2018 and leave that be the end of it.
It's a handicap. Everyone knows the rules.
To react after one year would be idiotic. There was no problem the last few years. Make an announcement to review it in 2018 and leave that be the end of it.
It's a handicap. Everyone knows the rules.
Is this really not about someone doing their job properly i.e. Newland and then trying to blame everyone else.
If you want to run you make sure your horse carries enough weight which means running it fit and to it's ability or close enough to achieve that goal.
If you play with fire sooner or later you get burnt. If it's hurdle win had been over fences he would of had around 4lbs extra he gets a run then not rocket since.
If you want to run you make sure your horse carries enough weight which means running it fit and to it's ability or close enough to achieve that goal.
If you play with fire sooner or later you get burnt. If it's hurdle win had been over fences he would of had around 4lbs extra he gets a run then not rocket since.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539