One Final thought !!

Totally agree , it happens every year .

you no what you've started 4th day veterans  national,

Yes agree too ... the whole system needs a rethink...

If you take the format for the Champion series... narionals & trials etc
where top say 5 horses qualify automatically for the race is much better solution ... and Phil Smith can do the rest ...

So horses will have to be targeted specifically ... and show some form will get reserved seat...

Only a suggestion but reckon will work a lot better.

Must surely just be for the day out in most cases. Tbf saint are ran well last year but was never going to run well on the ground this year. How frustrating for vintage clouds that there were also two non runners.

I think this should be directed more at the handicapper who should be dropping the horses more for disappointing runs

The Pertemps model is good...the problem is that with the national you could get a horse 4th or 5th in a trial beaten half the track but qualifies and that defeats the purpose too

A rethink about inclusion is long overdue eg win a race of a certain value and above and grade the horse is in. And those repeatedly overran in the National ought to be excluded too unless showing massive improvement since eg winning qualified races again.

You could always only allow a trainer one runner in the race. This could actually benefit a lot of trainers and ultimately the sport as it makes the big owners spread their horses around a little more like JP does to be fair to him. Most trainers wherever they are based are financially doing poorly.   
It would add a lot more story value as who wants the same combinations winning every other year. If Tiger Roll was to win 3 grand nationals he would not have 10% of the appeal of Red Rum.

I think one runner from one yard is too restrictive eg how does one deal with 3 GN merited horses with 3 different owners from the same yard? I think a max number of runners from the same owner yes especially from the same stable as well eg Gigginstown ran 12 (I think) in the Irish GN with 8 from Elliott; a qualification to partake is the fairer and reasonable way forward, I believe. Also, additional weight added to a horse post official weight allocation announcement should that horse win after.

The present system needs tweaking to ensure more owners and trainers are represented, and a fairer and more level playing field for participants, I firmly believe.

I think 8 to 10 qualifying races may be a good introduction (with just the winner qualifying).   Horses should need to have run 3 times in the season.

Restricting owners/trainers won't work.   Horses will be running under slightly different syndication and/or family/friends names.

I wonder if The Last Samurai will be entered again next year. This is another horse that has clearly shown last year and especially this year that it no longer wants to take part in the race.It almost borders on cruelty to put horses through something they are not/or no longer suited to. If all these horses didn't get entered then horses around the 138 mark might even get in the race off 10st or even a couple of pounds outside the handicap. But these horses that can jump and stay that have contested the normal staying chases will certainly not be without a chance.

Binderee, the qualifying races could be 120+ handicap.   This would give some of the lower rated chasers a chance to get it, albeit may be running out of the handicap.

My personal opinion is that there are two main reasons for the situation, a) the prize money for 1st is ridiculously high, it's a handicap after all b) Phil Smith. His compressing the handicap in the past has been a disaster , why give better horses an unfair advantage? He's created a situation whereby horses more or less need to get a rating circa 142 or more to be guaranteed a run, higher some years. He's forced horses that can only win off about 138 to win a race and then get put 5 or 6 lbs for winning. These tend to be older horses with little improvement. They can then get in the race (a lot are then frightened to run because their rating will revert back to it's proper level and so be too low) but because they have a false rating they are getting maybe 5 or 6 lbs less from the better horses than they need to be competitive. What he has allowed is the big wealthy owners to monopolize the race. Others may disagree but I couldn't care less about getting Gold Cup class horses in the race , they already have plenty of races to go for.

The Gigginstown domination of staying chases means the situation is not going to improve any time soon.

Yes you're right Equine. I actually deviated from my own topic with my last post. That was more to do with the scenario whereby there is never any horses on 10st now. I think owners and trainers should act more responsibly and maybe have a condition where horses would need to run in three 3 mile or over handicaps in the 12 months preceding the race and maybe in at least one designated race such as Welsh,Irish, Scots, Hennessey etc etc. It would at least prevent horses from getting in the race when all they've raced in are small number level weight races. They could of course still qualify by right.

Apr 16, 2018 -- 2:28PM, Bindaree wrote:

My personal opinion is that there are two main reasons for the situation, a) the prize money for 1st is ridiculously high, it's a handicap after all b) Phil Smith. His compressing the handicap in the past has been a disaster , why give better horses an unfair advantage? He's created a situation whereby horses more or less need to get a rating circa 142 or more to be guaranteed a run, higher some years. He's forced horses that can only win off about 138 to win a race and then get put 5 or 6 lbs for winning. These tend to be older horses with little improvement. They can then get in the race (a lot are then frightened to run because their rating will revert back to it's proper level and so be too low) but because they have a false rating they are getting maybe 5 or 6 lbs less from the better horses than they need to be competitive. What he has allowed is the big wealthy owners to monopolize the race. Others may disagree but I couldn't care less about getting Gold Cup class horses in the race , they already have plenty of races to go for.

good post

I know the GN is now gone and not wanting to harp on forever but just to highlight my sentiments just have a look at Delusionofgrandeur and tell me how Smith managed to handicap that horse so it could run. Will be back to it's proper rating of less than 140 now the race os over !!

"is over" that should be.

As a punter I welcome seeing those horses mentioned in the OP being entered. You can discount them straight away. Every little helps in that respect.

I use to love Pipe having a quarter of the field because very few of them ever had a realistic chance of winning and it made the job of whittling down the field so much easier. You can't do that with Elliott.

I like seeing proven older horses running in the grand national, would be a shame if there career was ended due to a biased view.

Get a load of young horses running in the race wont end well.

The thread wasn't about stopping older horses running. It was about horses in serious decline and who clearly don't stay 4+ miles and who have had their chance. Vieux Lion Rouge isn't that old. I'm not advocating younger horses because if I had my way 7 yr olds should be barred , they'll never win the race or even be competitive and it usually ruins them. Vintage Clouds was prevented from running even although he had better credentials than most of the field thanks to a donkey like Maggio getting in by default.

You could have used the same argument to exclude Auroras Encore. The problem with Vintage Clouds has been that, despite many chances in ideal conditions, he couldn't manage a single performance good enough to put him up the handicap. Hopefully, next year, he will develop further and get in.

I don't understand your comparison with Auroras Encore. He wasn't a veteran who was in serious decline and he certainly wasn't short of stamina. Neither was he running off a false rating as it was 2nd in the Scots Nat the previous year off a 6 lb higher rating and in fact I bet the horse. Also it was it's first time in the race and hadn't had at least 2 chances before which showed it was unsuitable. I would also point out that the bottom weight that year actually carried 10st.  Neither are your comments accurate about Vintage Clouds as it had at least 3 pieces of form which entitled it to run but it was kept out by Maggio to name one who had a false rating which was gained 2 yrs ago and didn't have one scrap of form since which showed it was deserving of that rating and which entitled it to be rated higher than horses such as Vintage Clouds which has contested competitive races all season. And that is what my OP is about i.e if these horses which they try to protect a false rating about just to have a runner were re-rated, especially if they haven't run, it would allow lower rated horses who have run to their rating a chance to participate.

Hip