Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
plenty of headlines in the next few days. Don't think it can survive in its current format for too long
Imminent changes:
1.Safety limit on runners
2.Height of fences down by 3-6 inches
3. More watering
4.scrapped
Imminent changes:
1.Safety limit on runners
2.Height of fences down by 3-6 inches
3. More watering
4.scrapped
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 104
|
By:
I seriously think now is the time to change every fence to a regulation fence. Make them all the same as the ones at Cheltenham.
How great would it be to have plenty of horses in with a chance with 2 to jump? The amount of fancied horses wiped out on the first circuit was ridiculous. |
|
By:
Its NH Racing in Australia all over again.
Seen this all before. Give the AR groups a chance and they will do everything possible to destroy racing. The problem down under was the racing authorities listened to the AR groups and made all their fences and hurdles easier to jump (reminds you of anything????). it was a total joke. horses were flying through them like they weren't there...end result was even more deaths and the whole thing got banned. The RSPCA are a lot smarter than people give them credit for....they're not a bunch of crackpot greenpeace hippies just their for a laugh. they mean business. I hope the racing community is prepared for this. |
|
By:
Ofcourse they are smart. They wont be happy until all racing is finished. They literally dont give a sh1t about having 100,000 people unemployed.
|
|
By:
We tend to lose as many horses at Cheltenham as Aintree. The fences aren't the real issue, the size of the field is. If we had 40 runner handicap hurdles there would be absolute carnage. But if you cut the number of runners drastically, the race would rapidly lose it's popularity.
The RSPCA spokesman said an interesting thing today. Cruelty is deliberate inflicting of suffering for amusement he said, and no-one enters horses hoping they will suffer so there's no cruelty. Encouraging sentiments, but slightly begs the question why are the RSPA buzzing round the event every year. |
|
By:
If you change the fences to standard ones then you have lost the Grand National - might as well not run it. Two things I think cause problems at the moment.
1. Size of the field and distance to first fence. When you have so many horses on good ground looking for a good position, the horses are going so fast for the first half a mile to then come to fences that many have never encountered before. I actually found the sight of Giles Cross going much faster than he wanted to get front rank and then clambering over the first quite distressing. 2. The race is now so competitive we have much better horses, brave ones that want to go faster and as the advert says, speed kills. There were a lot of horses actually in contention this year with two to run so in that fact the handicap has worked. But by the same token it MAY have been part of the problem that caused the carnage behind. |
|
By:
really think that if the race is to continue then the field has to be reduced.think thats the main problem,and as Sint says the 1st circuit was ridiculous.
a figure between 20 and 30 from next year imo,and lets see what happens then. |
|
By:
Interesting point from Roobuck
Got me thinking has anyone considered the role of the official handicapper in all this? If memory serves, his avowed intention about a decade ago was to increase the quality of the horse in the Grand National Seems to me its a case of 'be careful what you wish for' Time was the national was a bit like the augusta masters, half the field complete outsiders - and they knew it, held up out the back hoping to pick up the pieces. Now it would appear as if theres a field of 40, all believing they have a genuine chance all going hell for leather for the first fence. Carnage results Is it just me or has phil smith assumed the role of cheer-leader-in-chief for the jumps game? Taken as a whole his policy of whacking great big ratings on anything that wins a jumps race by a wide margin is barmy I mean this is national hunt racing after all, a poor jump at one fence can mean you lose by 10 lengths plus Harvey Smith described him as a mad b*st*rd a few years back and you can see why |
|
By:
Agree entirely with the above
|
|
By:
yep,good points,better horses means faster races,means more likely casualties,so what is the solution??
Reducing the amount of runners im convinced will help,but one thing i know for sure is that the Horseracing body needs to be seen to address peoples concerns,and try to make the race as safe as possible,and must continue to do that. We cannot have 2 horses dying every year,and not be seen to try to stop that,that would imo see the end of the race,and if the race continues as it is at the moment then ive had my last ever bet on the race and watched my last Grand National. |
|
By:
Why doesn't bha say that we'll change the National if the government will change the laws on roads to reduce deaths. Maybe we should get rid of cars?
|
|
By:
Reducing fence height does not increase safety of the race
Reducing field size will |
|
By:
Yep. People get moral about the deaths of two horses, yet Government, and the ''general public'', think it is OK for people to have a pint of beer and get behind the wheel of a car.
Why on earth you would allow that is beyond me, drinking and driving should just be outlawed full stop. Hundreds of people and families destroyed each year by road accidents, yet the preventative measures are pathetic. |
|
By:
If it comes down to the horses not having a choice, which seems to be the main plank of the anti-argument, then perhaps we should introduce a law banning parents from driving cars with their kids in the back seat. Hundreds of kids get killed in road accidents every year, not having made the choice to be in the car.
|
|
By:
Maybe all 40 should run individually and best time wins.
 |
|
By:
I agree sintonian and have just made an ironic post on another thread. It seems that the point a lot of the defenders of the race are missing is that it is different to any race on the calendar. Did anyone on here enjoy watching them go over those fences seeing all those falls? I've loved this race in the past and dealt with friends telling me it is cruel, but I think more and more people are seeing it that way.
|
|
By:
Steamship, that's right. As it's by far the highest profile race as well it's negative effects on the sport as a whole are magnified enormously.
Howellsy - the law does require that those children are strapped in special seats or with safety belts, that the vehichle is roadworthy and regularly tested, and that the driver has been tested. I.e. being in a car has been regulated to make it as safe as possible. In the same way, steps should be considered, where possible, to make horse racing safer. |
|
By:
Historically it is NOT the case that better faster horses were more likely to get injured, more often than not used to be horses out of the handicap coming down at the 1st or 3rd!
Fact of the matter is that they have effectively narrowed the course but left the safety limit the same thereby negating and advantages from the safety measures themselves. They either have to re-widen it or reduce the field sizes. The attempt at introducing qualification is too feeble as well. How does finishing 4th over 3m at Hexham prepare you for this? Why not have a minimum number of chase starts as a requirement? If it was 10 chase starts the GC winner wouldn't have been able to run this year... |
|
By:
No matter what you do there will be deaths, the only measure I can see is reduce the number of runners.
What I want to know is what excitement did anyone get from yesterdays race? |
|
By:
The finish was exciting.
Had there been no deaths it may have been even said it was one of the best races ever in the National. |
|
By:
Think the problem with the Grand National is that its used as racings shop window but in so many ways bears absolutely no resemblance to the rest of the program
There are no other races run over such a long distance, over much bigger obstacles than anywhere else featuring a field size of 40 It is in short an anachronism Similar races at chepstow, ayr and fairyhouse are run over regular fences with at least 10 fewer runners Not being of such a high profile, any fatalities are not as newsworthy Solutions are that the race's profile needs to be lowered The hope is that C4 will stick it in the middle of a particularly impossible scoop 6 card THus no human interest stories with the potential to back-fire THe handicapper needs to stop over rating average horses Field size needs reducing and the 'national fences' doing away with Prize Money needs channelling away from this notorious handicap so that in the end we all just treat it like any other race |
|
By:
The fences should be changed to get rid of the drops and they need to make the course wider and get everyone to use it. I still get the feeling that jocks are taking stupid risks to get nearer the inside and get cover knowing that if the horse gets wiped out, they can always try again next year on a different horse. So many could have avoided being bought down yesterday if they'd took a safer wider route but there seems to be a 'win or fall trying' attitude by some.
I still don't think reducing the field size is the answer. Neither of yesterdays fatalities were down to field size in my opinion. There were 20 left when ATP was bought down. The GN needs to lose its reputation as a brutal course yes, but needs to stay as a 40 runner lottery to keep the publics interest. |
|
By:
There were 20 left when ATP was bought down
That relates to the point I was going to make in more detail earlier and was picked up in part by thelatarps. As the race is framed to be keep the handicap compressed, it makes the race in a way too competitive for the runners it now attracts. The point is that ATP was actually brought down on the 2nd circuit and still lots of horses involved. It has been made like a normal handicap but it simply shouldn't be - its the Grand National. We have lost our GC winner in the race this year. What other handicap would he have been able to run in without a penalty? It's not surprising he pitched up. |
|
By:
Thieves - these events show that no qualification rule can eliminate problems. Virtually noone would say that the Cheltenham Gold Cup winner is not a competent steeplechaser - and if he's not, what is? However, I agree the rule this year was pathetic. I'd be more in favour of something like "must have won a chase over 3m+, or finished in the first 3 of a class 3 or better chase over 3m+ and with at least 16 runners". Someone has suggested on another thread that entrants should have prior experience of the National fences which is an interesting idea though perhaps impractical.
It's good to see some thoughful, sensible suggestions on this thread - it what's going to be needed in the coming months. |
|
By:
Maybe the Grand National trials should be run at Aintree over the fences themselves. Add another race outside of the becjer over 3 miles in January.
|
|
By:
*Becher.
Make the race only for 20 runners though. |
|
By:
How about outriders to catch loose horses?
|
|
By:
Solutions so far:
Reduce number of runners Reduce Height Get rid of drop fences Outriders More races over GN fences Stricter qualification rules to eliminate no hopers Widen the course Conventional fences some mechanism of stopping jockeys all going for the inside  |
|
By:
Bestmate - thanks. Interesting that you put the shocked face against the suggestion of more races over the National fences (actually it was that National runners must have experience over the fences which might in turn require more races over those fences). Does anyone have the stats on injuries over the National fences but in non-National races? The Topham this year was a far safer race than the National - it would be intresting - and instructive - to know if that is part of a pattern.
I like your outrider suggestion - it would be good to try it out. |
|
By:
How many horses in last two years lost their lives in Topham and Foxhunters? Or the Becher for what its worth. Don't think its the fences
|
|
By:
Isn't the more relevant question how many fell, unseated or were brought down? Fatal injuries are a chance occurrence following one of those things. The fences must sometimes be relevant as some horses just don't take to them.
But if you're right, asking why there are injuries in the National but not the other races is key. Is it where they start? Is it smaller field sizes? Is it that the horses get worked up because of all the hype around the National? Something else? |
|
By:
Fair point strontium. Topham this year looked very safe
|
|
By:
stront,
Since 1986 in The Topham, 14 have died. 2 fell fatally at first. 2 fell fatally at chair. 1 fell fatally at Bechers 1 broke leg landing at Bechers. 2 fell fatally at 4th/20th 1 fell fatally as loose horse at 12th/28th 1 fell fatally at 5th/21st 1 collased after finishing 2 fell fatally at Valentines 1 broke leg whilst running. In The Becher Chase, only 2, as far as i know, Merano fell fatally at 10th/26th, and Bold Account at The Chair. Don't know about Kisslain Des Gallas, who never ran again, took heavy fall. As for The Foxhunters, I'd have to look over the races, but there have been a few, I get the feeling though, it would be just slightly less than The Topham. Apologies in adavance, if the above stats are wrong, but they're off the top of my head, as accurate as I could do. |
|
By:
Much appreciated Fabulous - it suggests at first glance a similar rate to the National which is very instructive in terms of what might and might not help.
|
|
By:
Which again shows that these fences kill. I'm sick of hearing people inside racing saying accidents can happen to horses anywhere. These fences are an unacceptable risk and I believe we have 30 mins of action over them each year and look what it does to our sport. If we make a bold move to ban this race it will show that we have listened and taken action, it does not then mean that other races will be affected.
|
|
By:
We need to have analysis of the fatalities as a comparison before and after the alterations have been made to the fences.
My gut feel , and I may very well be wrong, is that more recently there have not been so many losses in the other races. I watched both the Topham and Foxhunters this year and they just looked so much better than the carnage of the first circuit in the National. Whilst I found this race uncomfortable viewing this year, I still don't think it should be banned as such. It is a race that is very much part of our tradition and you only have to read how much was gambled on the race to understand that the vast majority of people couldn't care less - it is obvious to me that people who love the sport care more. I believe it naive to think that if it was banned other races would not be affected - to my mind the opposite would happen. |
|
By:
Roobuck, I'm not sure I agree (though I'm not certrain!). I think if racing bans this itself it will be seen as a positive step and other things may be unaffected. If the National is banned throuigh public outcry/legislation/government action then it will not be the end. What is clear is that the National fences pose a far greater risk to horses than hurdles or park fences - doing a back of the envelope calculation, by 15-20 times.
Even if the changes have made the course safer this is a case where image is more important than substance. We've had 4 deaths in 2 renewals. If there is another next year that will be the headline. If there isn't the headline might well be "no deaths in National" rather than "X wins National". That is likely to be the case for several years now - i.e., we need several death free yeras in a row because in the media and public mind horse deaths are becoming the focus of the race. This race is watched by 10 times more people than any other NH race. If it's 15 times more likely for a horse to die in the National and 10 times more people are watching it, it magnifies the problem 150-fold in the public eye. Is that the PR racing needs? As day to day racing is far safer perhaps it would be wise to stick to that? |
|
By:
Part of the qualification, in the old days, a horse finishing
4th or better in a 'chase over National fences, when there were at least three meetings per year and the national course used regularly then, however a horse could finish 4th and had fallen several times during the race, be re-mounted to finish last in a four horse race and be qualified to run in the National. |
|
By:
i cant believe some of the crap i have read on here leave the race alone the two deaths this year resuled i a b d and fracturing a leg wlile galloping loose if you want less falls go back 50 years heighten the fences 2 inch make the top weight 12 stone and this will hopefully mean a subdued pace and more careful jumping the powers that be got it wrong when they started encouraging the quality gold cup type of horse to enter and decreasing top weight to 11-10 also the prize money is fundamental in all of this the grand national was a staying handicap for good old fashioned chasers ie slow careful jumpers now it is worth more than the gold cup this is where all the problems lie
|
|
By:
well said bw07
|