Cut off point

At the moment the cut-off is 146 (10st 2lb), according to handicapper Martin Greenwood.

Ah! Given withdrawals etc I was after which horse forumites think might be number 40 this year ...

I think that would be difficult to predict for certain or with close accuracy nevertheless, I think at least 5 will be scratched given Elliot has quite a few above 40 and with the Irish National in mind; next confirmation day is 12pm 1st April.

Its been a standard game at this time of year since the forum began and thanks for your starting contribution 123

I'll go with 142 for the cut off point.

When the weights came out the handicapper said last year you had to be in mid seventies to make the cut. He thought anything in the top 80 had a chance of making it.

So with 16 taken out no. 75 on racecard is now no.59. Of course he said that in February, don't know if he'd still go with that.

Eleven came out at the final stage last year, that would take you down to Captain Redbeard. Hope so he's one of mine.
  There seems to be a massive Irish entry this year they must think their well-handicapped. With some choosing the Irish National instead must be a chance around eleven come out again this year.

looks like w mullins will run the 4 already inside the top 40, and any others who get in.

Elliot guesstimates he'll have about 10 in each National, so that would be 6 out of top 50 at Aintree.

Imagine once a year punters who bet a Gigginstown entry. Why have they all got the same colours? Well there's a different cap. That will work for them.

If so with Elliot that is unsporting as I firmly believe no trainer must be allowed to run more than 3 for the same owner, or 3 in total to preserve equality and fairness to others; 3 is a sufficiently large number even for a big stable similarly, the same owner - to avoid race shenanigan eg Sub Lieutenant (Ryanair Chase). Only one horse can win, and 3 chances are sufficient for any entity.

6 out of the top 50 for Elliot would mean 3 above Vintage Clouds. Can anyone envisage Mullins running both Rathvinden and Pleasant Company against Tiger Roll here when the former is a strong fancy in the Irish version without Tiger Roll? The markets could be good indicators where some of Mullins' and Elliot's could be heading eventually.

Elliott did say he'd run some in both race.

IMPOSSIBLE "UNsporting elliot" , why dont you give up continually having a go at anyone or anything Irish, you have been exposed as a racist on the cheltenham festival thread and you still continue to dig a massive hole for yourself.

Hi this is Mully. Betfair stupidly deleted all my 15+ years of forum history but there you go. Despite my respect for Gordon Elliott, if he and Gigginstown start making mass entries year upon year, with some of them no more than "pacesetters" for others, then the future of the race may be on a downward spiral. We are now staring at the real prospect of Vintage Clouds (again!) and Walk In The Mill (Becher winner) not getting in- something is seriously not right with things if that becomes the case this year.

Ah! 17 years just returned. Must have been that cookie monster playing havoc again

If all 40 runners come from one stable , what needs attention is not the trainer , its the rule makers , they are light years behind because of their committee system. Highly praised for its democratic allegiance but very slow reacting , puts evolving before revolution and generally has to put off things "in the hope" or under the doctrine of "not sporting" . So who decides ? The players decide ........they are the tail wagging the dog, load of stewards or badges ties and blazers are useless when it comes to anticipating.

Ultimately the rules will have to change yes.

Abxolutely right

But they wont change until the egos and the power realise they made mistakes , mistakes which they wont apologise for, because, they will say circumstances change. Failure to recognise that shortcoming is the one trait you can rely upon !

if an owner or trainer has horses in the
h'cap who are illegible to run you can't
stop 'em.
Whether it's sporting or not is another matter.

Agree 100% with Mully. Unfortunately this is a by product of the Phil Smith tinkering with the weights. At least this year it looks like the bottom weight will actually carry 10 st or near it instead of a glorified limited handicap. One way to make it more difficult would be to stipulate participation in certain long distance handicaps before the weights are issued, a bit like the Pertemps hurdle qualifiers.

one can tolerate, to a certain extent, multiple entries in Group races (as we often see on the flat or NH) as there are very, very few occasions when other horses are thereby deprived of a chance. But in major handicaps, under both codes, the rules cannot allow wealthy owners to monopolise the field with excessive entries as this tends to prevent less wealthy owners/trainers from landing a decent pot. It is in the interests of the sport as a whole that there be as wide a base of owners as otherwise the sport reverts to Georgian/Victorian times with a small group of "aristocratic" (in it's broadest sense) owners racing amongst themselves for (largely) money provided by the "peasants" (that's us punters!).
The problem has been exacerbated by the lamentable Phil Smith who would have tried to get Frankel in the national if he could. You now have a field with lots of horses whose rating is not reflective of any form shown in the past 12-18 months. Meanwhile younger horses with good recent form now find it impossible to get in. If Vieux Lion, Vintage Clouds and Walk in the Mill don't get in it may concentrate a few minds.
To make matters worse, I have just read that Don Poli and Outlander are being offered for sale with guaranteed places. So the entry system can be used to get an inflated price for horses that would be lucky to attract decent bids without such an entry.

Regards Don Poli and Outlander: That's cheating, and unsporting as anyone who can afford either could have a runner depriving others further down the chance of running; horses are not a pieces of real estate...with planning permission. I do not think eligibility to run in a big prestigious/handicap race like the Grand National can be transferred from one owner to another just prior if the intention is solely to secure a run.

Don Poli the first one I crossed off looking at the current 40 entrants.

Horses with different merits currently not getting a run include

Irish Grand National winner
Scottish Grand National 1st and 3rd
Last years 3rd 5th , 8th , 9th and 12th
Becher winner

hows it cheating?
they'd run in Gigingstown colours anyway.
If I'm right Party Politics was sold before
winning the race.
Noone mentioned cheating then.

I agree with the sentiments regarding Vintage Clouds and Walk in the Mill but haven't any sympathy for Vieux Lion Rouge as it's had 3 attempts and hasnt got nearer than 27 lengths. David Pipe has already stated it doesnt appear to stay so why enter it.

I think you find they wont run in the Gigginstown colours.

yeh I know, they would if they weren't for sale.

I think the point that was being made is why not wait until after the race. Of course not because O'Leary wants to use it to make himself even more which isn't the purpose og the G/N.

^^^ is the point I was making

besides which Penzance, I am not suggesting it is cheating. I am suggesting that if you allow an excessive number of horses to be entered by one owner, the chances of a fair and reasonable field are reduced. Not everything that is unfair is against the rules or cheating. It may just be wrong. Morally. Which the present situation is imho

And no doubt come the day we will have 38 or 39 runners .

why would he sell them after the race?

Why before then?

why do you think?

Clearly they don't think they can win but selling with a G/N entry will inflate the price.

perhaps nonoe will come in for them.
who knows.But if they do it will be a few quid.

There's always someone who wants the thrill of owning a G/N runner and will probably pay way over the odds.

well they paid alot for Blaklion.

Very true but he only had one horse entered I believe and not a job lot of which he disposed of a couple and still had 8 or so runners left.

For a very rich person buying a gelding who have seen his best days but has an historic high enough rating to get in the 40, will be pocket change , to have your colours in the best horse race on the planet.

at the end of the day what they are doing is
not cheating,their horses are in the h'cap.
Unsporting maybe,but that's the rules as they stand.
   GL

We're not saying it's cheating , it's just ruining the best long distance handicap.

This forum highlights that fact. It used to be a buzz from Feb up until the race but it's dead nowadays.

Dear Sir,
The decision of Gigginstown to offer Don Poli and Outlander for sale 2 days before the Grand National with the benefit of a guaranteed place in the race ought to cause the BHA to consider restricting the number of horses any owner is allowed to run in the race.
As it stands, including both these horses, Gigginstown have 11 guaranteed to run in the race. Those horses not guaranteed to run include a Scottish National 1st and 3rd, 2 Becher chase winners (one of whom who has come 2nd twice more in that race) and the horses who finished 3rd and 5th in the Grand National last year.
There is no doubt that Gigginstown have a perfect right to run as many horses as they wish. The question is whether it is correct for them to be allowed to do so.
When Graded races over the jumps and flat are monopolised by a few wealthy owners, there can be little complaint since they are not depriving other owners/trainers of the opportunity to land a big prize. However, it might be argued that it is of greater importance for racing authorities to encourage a greater number of less wealthy owners to enter the sport than it is to maintain a policy of laisse-faire in respect of entries for the major handicaps. There is little incentive on new owners to enter the sport if they know that their chances of having a runner in such a big race is reduced by the plethora of horses owned by the "aristocrats" of horse racing, many of whom have obtained their (unrealistic) ratings by competing against each other in the same small field Graded races over the last 2 or 3 years. Upon what realistic basis (other than rating) can it possibly be argued that Blow By Blow ( a novice, winner of a 5 finisher novice chase at Galway in October) is guaranteed a run whilst Walk in the Mill ( Becher Chase winner) is not?
My concern at the present position is enhanced by the reasonable suspicion that the purchase price of Don Poli and Outlander will be enhanced by their guaranteed place in the race. One is entitled to ask whether they were ever intended runners for their present owners. Grand National entries ought not to be used as a free advert to swell the coffers of owners who are wealthy enough as it is.
Yours faithfully


Doubt if the RP will print it but we'll see

"the question is whether they should be allowed to do so"
Never could copy and paste properly

in fact I did it right ;-)

^^
I wish you good luck!

Some excellent debate here and a wonderful letter. I really hope we're not back on this thread in 5 years time saying "Look, we predicted the demise of the race in 2019, and look what it has been reduced to now".

Back on topic.

Bristol's out no smutty comments please) and so is Daklondike, putting 10st 2lb as
the cut-off (though I think the weights will rise??)

Do they draw lots if there are a few horses in a cluster? Making Valseur Lido as likely to run as
Ms Parfois, even though one is no.37 and one no.43?

They only draw lots for the final position if there are more than one horse with the same rating which hasn't altered since the publication of the weights. Ms Parfois is actually rated 153 now so obviously takes precedence over the others on 146.

I think you'll find the numbers they are currently allocated is the pecking order.

Looks like Blaklion is out

yes, blaklion out injured, and they paid all that money.

Owner interviewed on Sky this afternoon. Very cool - "thats racing" etc. Much respect to him ...

Elliott might run 12!