GN..End is near?

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.

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.

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

Agree entirely with the above

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.

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?

Reducing fence height does not increase safety of the race

Reducing field size will

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.

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.

Maybe all 40 should run individually and best time wins.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

*Becher.

Make the race only for 20 runners though.

How about outriders to catch loose horses?

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

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.

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

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?

Fair point strontium. Topham this year looked very safe

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

well said bw07

boy wonder, at last some sense couldn't have put it better myself the problem is from the moment aintree started making changes in the late eighties the genie was out of the bottle.As for the national waning in popularity with the general public after last years fatality's, the turnover on the race says otherwise.

boy wonder, they have fucled up and made it worse, they need to unfucl it...

all the negative publicity from last year has had the opposite effect in terms of viewers and attendances. Us humans eh? We're all animals deep down.

Even if true, which it may well be, saying we're going to run the race over bigger fences with worse horses carrying more weight isn't going to wash.

Yes of course who neede to see changes in the 80's it was great seeing Dark Ivy flop to ground with a broken neck, or Julian Wilsons commentary in 89 "The field have to avoid a dead horse" 2 died at Beechers that year, one Brown Trix fell in the brook with a broken back.

Dark Ivy incident could have happened anywhere though, the horse just in front immediately to his left jumped right and the horse just in front immediately to his right jumped left, result he hit the fence half way up and did a full somersault.  Again, crowding was the problem rather than the fence in itself.  Less runners, lessen the drop even more on the outside at Beechers are the only options.

Sorry to be negative on a thread full of positive ideas but making the fences bigger and using increased danger as a speed deterrant doesn't sound like it will work or be approved. If they need slowing down then all i can think of are weight, ground and inclines.
Also I dont think flatening the outside of bechers particularly works either - everyone will still risk a drop rather than risk losing ground because the jockeys think they can always try again next year if the horse gets wiped out.

Agree it is unlikely the changes can be undone but 10 less runners would have an effect as there would simply be less of them going for that same ground and giving riders a reason to choose the outside at Beechers would make sense too, even if only one or two did.  Can remember Rhyme N Reason being wide when he made his mistake there, didn't cost him the race.

Maybe im being harsh, I suppose some jocks are intelligent enough to go wide and safe - dont think many though!

Close analysis of the fatalities over the years proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that weight of numbers is not an issue. Since 1980's Only Duncreggan in 1983 could be argued, as a result of having no space to jump.

It's been mentioned on this thread, and elsewhere, that horses should meet a strict qualifying criteria, and have to show an aptitude for the fences. Sadly, this would be nothing more than a waste of time. People read too much into experience over the fences, and although some horses obviously take to it, it's no guarantee that they'll always be a safe conveyance. It's unlikely that Black Apalachi will be back, but if he did, he would be labelled an "Aintree Specialist", despite failing to get round on 3 out of 5 occasions he's tackled the fences.

Apologies for the length of this list, but hopefully it'll go some way to proving the above point. It doesn't include, Pulled Ups, Brought Downs, Carried Out, or Slipped Saddles.

Winners who've failed to get round on other attempts over the fences.
Gay Trip
Rubstic
Aldaniti
Corbiere
Hallo Dandy
West Tip
Little Polvier (twice)
Seagram
Party Politics
Royal Athlete
Rough Quest
Red Marauder
Bindaree (twice)
Hedgehunter
Silver Birch
Mon Mome


Placed horses since 1980 who've failed to get round on other attempts
Royal Stuart (twice)
Rough And Tumble
Three To One (FOUR times)
Spartan Missile
Royal Mail (twice)
Delmoss (twice)
Lastofthebrownies
Rinus
Brown Windsor
Romany King
Lauras Beau
Docklands Express
Moorcroft Boy
Camelot Knight
Superior Finish
Addington Boy
Blowing Wind
What's Up Boys
Lord Atterbury
Clan Royal
Royal Auclair (Three times)
Philson Run
McKelvey
My Will
State Of Play
Black Apalachi (Three times)

Winners of The Becher Chase, The Topham, & The Foxhunters, who've failed to complete on other attempts
Indian Tonic (Twice)
Into The Red
Young Hustler
Young Kenny
Ardent Scout
Vic Venturi
Hello Bud
Tiepolino
Glenrue
Won't be Gone Long
JJ Henry
Northern Starlight
Gower Slave
Clan Royal
Dunbrody Millar
Irish Raptor (twice)
Gwanako (Three times)
Eliogarty
Double Silk
Blue Cheek
Killeshin
Torduff Express
Forest Gunner (Twice)
Katarino
Scots Grey (twice)
Christy Beamish
Trust Fund
Cloudy Lane

It's often stated that horses have to be of a certain standard, here's a list of horses who have ran in The Gold Cup, who have failed to get round.

Bonanza Boy
Golden Freeze
The Fellow
Black Humour
Chatham
Master Oats
Challenger Du Luc
Banjo
Senor El Betrutti
Double Thriller
Escartefigue
The Last Fling
Rince Ri
Marlborough
Alexander Banquet (twice)
You're Agoodun
First Gold
Take The Stand (twice)
Ballycassidy (three times)
L'Ami
Monkerhostin
Tikram
Iznogoud
Idle Talk (twice)
My Will
Iron Man (three times)
Knowhere (twice)
Contraband
Ollie Magern
Madison Du Berlais
Calgary Bay
Tidal Bay
Weird Al
Synchronised

I think that's enough, without having to list horses who have won or went close in The Other Nationals, The Whitbread, The Hennessy, Racing Post Chase etc.

Change is needed, I'm a Grand National "nut", and I sometimes hate myself for it. It needs the powers that be, to really look at it closely, and actaully think about it, rather than just guess. Ignore the number of runners, ignore the obsession with getting a "classy" field. These aren't factors, and won't improve the safety one little bit.

Keep Bechers in all but name, level the damn thing out completely (can't believe I'm saying this, but enough is enough), get rid of The Topham & The Foxhunters (got away with it the last 2 years, but always a PR disaster waiting to happen), and alter the layout at Foinavaon, and The Canal Turn, the only point of the course where it could be argued that weight of numbers is an issue.

While you're at it - why not remove the hill at Epsom, straighten out Tatt.Corner and run The Derby  over a mile.

Your last paragraph is a total joke.

Facts, no need to be so snide, the thing is, we're obviously in the same camp. It's only a suggestion, anything to save the race, if it was up to me, I wouldn't change a bloody thing.

Cheers for them ideas facts I will bring them up at my next ban horseracing meeting.

Well done Fabulous you have put some work into that and also reminded me of a few of my favourite horses. It's really crap that we should all be celebrating agreat race won by a grey who seems to have been around for years and has competed in the top company and probably never got the recognition he deserves,unfortunately his performance is still being overshadowed.

I have commented a lot on these threads and a lot of it emotionally charged through Saturdays events. What is interesting is that yesterday I started a thread saying lets look forward to a great week of racing Newmarket, Cheltenham,Newbury and Ayr. I also put that lets hope we see a new star on the flat. When I checked it had had over 90 views yet no one added anything to it. Just as facts has done to you most on here just want to criticise.

Steamship     16 Apr 12 19:41 
Cheers for them ideas facts I will bring them up at my next ban horseracing meeting.

Well done Fabulous you have put some work into that and also reminded me of a few of my favourite horses. It's really crap that we should all be celebrating agreat race won by a grey who seems to have been around for years and has competed in the top company and probably never got the recognition he deserves,unfortunately his performance is still being overshadowed.

I have commented a lot on these threads and a lot of it emotionally charged through Saturdays events. What is interesting is that yesterday I started a thread saying lets look forward to a great week of racing Newmarket, Cheltenham,Newbury and Ayr. I also put that lets hope we see a new star on the flat. When I checked it had had over 90 views yet no one added anything to it. Just as facts has done to you most on here just want to criticise.



I agree !!

Ps Facts, having read my post, can I just say that I meant level the landing side of Bechers, rather than the fence itself Apologies.

Fabulous - excellent, informative post @ 19.03 - thank you.

Howellsy the 'choice' arguement used by the anti-brigade is quite ludicrous on the basis that choice is completely immaterial in our relationship with domesticated animals and never comes in to it.

Does the police horse/dog have a choice in being put on the front line?
Does the mouse have a choice whether or not to be experimented on in the name of medical research?
Do the dairy cows have a choice in being kept permanently pregnant do satisfy the demand for milk?
Does the family dog have a choice in getting it's balls cut off? Does the kitten have a choice in being ripped away from it's mother and sold to a stranger who may neglect/abuse/starve it?
Does the cow have a choice to be slaughtered for meat?

The answer is no because our cultural and legal attitude towards animals is that they are property and their choice doesn't come in to it and this has always been the case. So to say 'yes but the horses don't have a choice and humans do is a useless and hypocritcal arguement unless you also advocate a complete rehaul of our relationship towards domesticated animals as property. (Which as I understand is almost what Animal Aid want for animals not to be used by humans for any work/leisure/research purposes. Which although they are completely barking mad at least they are consistent in their madness.)

The only arguement can be based on whether or not the risk in the national is acceptable given the deaths. My fear is that many who wan't the National banned feel that the risk is also too high in all NH racing and if the National goes NH racing will follow.

If the powers that be accepted the choice argument for the national then the whole sport is gone as the runners in the 3.55 Beverley tomorrow haven't chosen to be there either...

The only arguement can be based on whether or not the risk in the national is acceptable given the deaths. My fear is that many who wan't the National banned feel that the risk is also too high in all NH racing and if the National goes NH racing will follow.


Don't worry - will never happen.

Synchronised and According To Pete both dead after the Grand National.

Money and Grred alive and well.

Failed on that one then !

Whoever made the point about the prize money is spot on.
How on earth can we have a handicap over 4 and half miles as the biggest earner,above all the Grade 1 races??.
Whats next? the Cesarewitch more than the Derby??

Its a handicap ffs,and thus should be treated as such and the money drastically reduced.Maybe then we would have proper staying handicappers running in the race and the classier horses competing where they should be,after all their are enough other races for them throughout the season.
Also buy reducing the temptation of connections entering the race,it would give the horses more chance of running in races more suited to them.Around this time of year we have races at the festival like the Kim Muir,we have the Irish National,the Scottish National,the midlands National and the Whitbread,so its not as if they have no other races to be trained for.
Take the ridiculous prize money away and change it to what a handicap should be,may just help save the race.
Maybe a reduction in the size of the field and a review of the troublesome fences as well would help.
Do all that we would still have the spectacle,but it would imo be a spectacle with more suitable horses running in it,and less casualties.

The National now has great horses running in a lottery style race, whilst one of our greatest staying chases the old Whitbread has become for horses of a lower mark.

Have no problem with the prize money myself. The National is the toughest race in the Calendar and should be rewarded as such imo.

Agree it has gone too high relatively, should be a bit less than the Gold Cup which is the true blue riband event.  Not a lot less, say 10-20%.

Sint,i see what you say,but for me its a handicap,however tough it may be,and should not be anywhere near the amount won by the Gold Cup winner or Queen Mother winner,the best horses should really be earning the best prize money imo

Anyway,my point is more about resisting the temptation for the wrong horses to be entered in the race,with the current conditions of the GN putting the race in jeopardy,and trying to work out a way of keeping the race.

I really dont see a problem with lower graded horses running in the race if they are suited to its conditions,ie tough staying handicappers,which is what the race is,a tough staying handicap.

Its my belief that if we had say 30 of those types running in the race,we would still have a race that we enjoy,and one that would be less controversial.

Disagree. You can have any type of horse running - and if there are 40,30 or 20 runners, there is still the likelyhood of fallers,refusals ,brought down etc- as in any race run over fences(or hurdles come to that). And potential therefore for horses to be injured /killed. This goes on up and down the country everyday for most of the year - and accidents happen. Its the sport.
The only reason all the hysteria arises out of the Grand National is that its a 'once a year' spectacle - with the worlds press on it - and every 'loony tune idealist' just salivating at the prospect of a 'horror show' so they can have their 15 minutes of glory.

Todays newspaper is tomorrows fish & chip wrapper.

yes i realise we will always have casualties in horse racing,and thats in every race be it a 5f sprint or a 4m chase.
The point i am making is that the way things are going we could lose the race,and all im doing is trying to find ways to prevent that.
I dont expect everyone to agree with me,of course not,its just opinions i have on what can be done to safeguard the future of the race.

Facts - you clearly care about racing and the National so I find your attitude strange. The National is the most dangerous race on the calendar. It is also the highest profile by far. The negative PR effects of these injuries are a disaster for the sport. Sports seen to be cruel to animals have been banned by society, most recently fox hunting but there are plenty of others. Every year in which there are injuries in the National it's massive ammunition for the anti-brigade. Injuries at other tracks are just not the same because they aren't on BBC1 in prime time watched by 10 million people - rather they are seen by a handful who are probably already committed racing fans. Even the deaths at the Festival cause only a small ripple compared with those in the National. That makes those accidents sad and regrettable, but not a big threat to the sport. The National, however, has the potential to destroy jump racing if this continues.

One thing im pretty sure of,thats we cannot afford to be blase about this and bury our heads in the sand.
And certainly those that can put pressure on the race aint going away,and the more we are seen to address concerns can only help the race and the sport in the long run.

^Exactly right Budd.

I'm saying its hysteria - and will be forgotten about in a few weeks. Same as last year - and year before. If the powers that be want to pander to the loons, then they can alter a fence reduce field sizes whatever. But I believe this is an uneccessary overreaction.We shouldn't let people who's sole knowledge of horse racing is the 15 mins they see on the box once a year, dictate the future of NH racing.Wouldn't happen in any other sport.

Facts why are those people that want racing bamnned the loons? They do ask serious questions about this race and the sport in general. The hysteria is not forgotten and that is why 5 live did a programme the day before the race. What was a great event for the BBC is something they are probably glad to get rid of. 10 million viewers this year you wont get half that now next year partly to do with the move to c4 but also to do with this. What we got out of this race was 2 horses dead 2 others injured a jockey with a broken leg. Before the race tears by connections of ATP and tears from the owner of the horse that won and him saying this decision had split his family. Makes our sport look great.

Steamship     17 Apr 12 14:09 
Facts why are those people that want racing bamnned the loons? They do ask serious questions about this race and the sport in general. The hysteria is not forgotten and that is why 5 live did a programme the day before the race. What was a great event for the BBC is something they are probably glad to get rid of. 10 million viewers this year you wont get half that now next year partly to do with the move to c4 but also to do with this. What we got out of this race was 2 horses dead 2 others injured a jockey with a broken leg. Before the race tears by connections of ATP and tears from the owner of the horse that won and him saying this decision had split his family. Makes our sport look great.



That's why they broadcast it then. To sensationalise it. Why didn't they broadcast the rest of the year ?

A total assumption on your behalf - no factual evidence that this will be the case

The 'split' in the family was whether to retire the horse or not

No the split was because of the race.Did you see the interview that Hales did with Hislop?

You have not answered the question that I put to you.

10 million viewers this year you wont get half that now next year partly to do with the move to c4 but also to do with this.

Yes the viewing figures will be lower because of C4, but not because of this. Last year's images were far worse ( remember the airship shots with the poor horse covered by a tarpaulin )and yet record amounts were bet on the race on Saturday. Those who love the sport are feeling it more because we lost our GC winner

"We shouldn't let people who's sole knowledge of horse racing is the 15 mins they see on the box once a year, dictate the future of NH racing"

Ideally that's right, but it isn't how politics and government work in our society. How many people who wanted (and got) fox hunting banned had ever seen a hunt, let alone been on one?

Two wrongs don't make a right

If that's the best arguement racing's got we're in trouble.

this is the RSPCA's official blog, written by Gavin Grant their chief executive...



Trepidation turns to fury during the Grand National

Posted by Gavin Grant

Published on 17 April 2012 under Animal welfare, Horses. Tags: Animal Welfare, Animals, Horse, Horse racing, Horses



Stable yards at week-ends have been a second home. All three of my children have ridden from early ages. Both my daughters still do. Indeed Clare competes in dressage. I watched her put her beautiful horse, My Scallywag Prince through his paces on at a  wet and blowy Easter Dressage camp near Winchester on Easter Monday.

Holly, my youngest at ‘sweet 17′ had decided to restart her riding and on Saturday morning she and Liz went to book their assessment sessions. Later we all sat down to watch the National together.

The smell of damp horses and feel of Prince demanding his apple from me were in my mind and senses as as the build up to the Grand National started.


I’d already spoken to Mike Hogg our northern regional manager and former chief inspector and had several conversations with our equine consultant David Muir at Aintree.

They were part of our eight strong inspectorate team for Aintree. Six of our specialist equine inspectors were positioned at the start and around the key jumps. That team was led by chief inspector Cathy Hyde (pictured left) who competed for Britain and is now a horse judge away from her RSPCA duties. Inspector Jon Knight, a former national hunt jockey and senior stable lad had opted to cover Beches Brook.

Our highly experienced and professional team were out in force to use all their knowledge and skill to do all they could to help the horses.

I had written to Aintree’s organisers before the four day meeting started asking for extra safety effort to protect the horses. A death in the second race on Thursday was awful and rightly condemned by Ricky Gervais on 5 Live just as I pulled into our Eastern HQ.

But no further deaths, the wet weather and new watering systems belayed my worries. It would be OK wouldn’t it?

Horse deaths are not a necessary risk of horse racing

The shambols at the start of the race made my heart sink. Why was Synchronised not withdrawn when he bolted? What on earth was the starter doing? Surely we could not have another disaster like last year, could we? Some changes had been made under RSPCA pressure, surely lessons had been learnt?

As the 40 horses raced to the first fence the images of the cavalry charge in the film ‘Warhorse’ filled my mind. Then the first faller, and another and another. I looked desperately on the tv long shots back down the field. Had the horses got up? On the second circuit the grim images of the screens and flags diverting the field filled the tv – please, not a dead horse.

Then the run in and a winning jockey striking his horse again and again and again. Surely that cannot be right? What about the new whip rules? A call to Mike told me what I had hoped not to hear. Synchronised and According to Pete destroyed, other horses badly hurt.

As the winning owner whooped, a cold fury welled-up in me. My visits to our equine rescue centres at Gonsal Farm, Felledge and Lockwood. Our loving staff caring and bring back to life so many mistreated horses. These are magnificent animals, beautiful creatures. They deserve care and love; not death and destruction before 11 million tv viewers disbelieving eyes.

Horse deaths are not a necessary risk. Nor are they part of the spectacle. They are unnecessary and unacceptable. Horses are living creatures not crashable machines. The National has to change or die. The nation knows and demands it.

Fewer runners and riders, changes to killer fences, safer landing areas, more stewards to catch lose horses, less fallers, a sane starting system and automatic withdrawal of bolting horses. They are all commonsense reforms that keeps the skill and spectacle but safeguard the horses. Surely Aintree’s organisers can see that?

I’m not resting until they do. From tv and radio studio to parliament and beyond the horses need and deserve our respect, care and help – let’s make the dead duo of the 2012 the National the last. That would make it a truly grand race.





Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services

5 Responses to “Trepidation turns to fury during the Grand National”






Giles Bradshaw 17 April 2012


ok so you disagree with a horse race because two horses die. I’ve been campaigning against a clause in the Hunting Act which requires me to shoot all the deer I flush with my dogs. I only flush them to disperse them and have never killed one. I want to manage my land without killing any mammals.

When I challenged the Hunting Act because of this clause in the courts the RSPCA supported the Government in arguing it was right that the law required all those deer to be shot.

Please explain – why if two horses dieing is cruel is it not cruel to gun down an entire herd of deer fleeing from hounds where there is a considerable chance of wounding and extreme suffering?

You should have a consistent approach.
Reply .



Sharon 17 April 2012


Well said !!!

110% with you and the site has my email please feel free to contact me !!

Will love to help you !!
Reply .


Gavin Grant 17 April 2012


Many thanks. We will be in touch.
Reply .




Giles Bradshaw 17 April 2012


Also to say horse deaths are not a necessary risk is nonsense. Death is a necessary risk of life. However you use and care for horses their is a risk that they will die. Most horse accidents happen on pasture.
Reply .


Gavin Grant 17 April 2012


Hello Giles, As you say life’s a risky business. That is why we all take sensible actions to mitigate risk in our lives and around those we care about . Sensible actions to substantially reduce the risk to the horses running the Grand National will be recommended by us to Aintree and the British Horseracing Association. Our proposals will be based in science and informed by the practical knowledge of experienced Officers with extensive horse knowledge who witnessed Saturday’s events at first hand People who care about animals will support those changes. Those who put “spectacle” before horse safety probably will not.
Reply

Oh FFS, what melodramatic crap.  Look, I'm a soft, wet, small-l liberal, leftie, anti-hunting, card carrying, active, pinko, democratic republican socialist and reading that made me liquid burp it is so over the top.

Yes there will absolutely have to be changes for the simple reason that the changes they already made have made it WORSE!  But save us from this sentimental bullsh1t.  We live in a country where animals are a)property and b)killed for food.  We have ended the nastiness of killing for sport, that it a whole world away from accidental and undesirable death from a sport where the sole aim is to win.  Do they think the connections wanted their horses to die?  It is impossible to eliminate risk from any equine sport, to pretend otherwise is utterly disingenuous.

^Well said.RSPCA text was risible.

What a cringeworthy piece of emotional claptrap. My favourite bit is "Holly, my youngest at ‘sweet 17′". He should be reported to the NSPCC for publicly embarrassing his poor kid, rather than being allowed to run the the RSPCA.

' ......Horse deaths are not a necessary risk of horse racing.....'



What an utter nonsensical statement.
The more I read his report the more irritated I get.In addition to it being patronising and arrogant, its  badly written bilge.How an earth this man heads up the RSPCA, God only knows. Its certainly not on his intelligence.

It is an embarassing and melodramatic piece which is a shame becuase some of his suggestions are sensible and should be considered (fewer runners, safer landing areas, more stewards to catch lose horses, less fallers, better starting system and automatic withdrawal of bolting horses). However the way the piece is presented means the author lacks credibility.

sums it up Stront,certainly come up with some fair points.

National is the best race there is, lets cut out the cr*p. Sad to see horses but come on leave it alone. Newspapers full of it on Saturday morning with all the pull-outs to increase sales and then bites the hand that feeds it on Sunday morning

They won't ban the national. How can he write that the nation is against it when it's the most viewed and bet on race? Horse racing is all over the papers during the build up with sweep stakes etc.

Well said Duncster. Media are the biggest hypocrites.

They are hypocrites Facts - and that's why they could turn on a sixpence an d run a campaign to get it banned. How long do you think the race would last if the Daily Mail took that route?

As for saying "they" won't ban the national GCW, "they" have a habit of banning plenty of things people enjoy and people think are untouchable, many of them a lot more economically and socially important than one horse race. 98% of the once a year viewers wouldn't notice the difference if the race was run over the park fences at Aintree.

Racing needs to deal with the National carefully, considerately and quickly, and no idea should be left out of the considerations (even if not eventually implemented). As Budd said earlier, "we cannot afford to be blase about this and bury our heads in the sand". Fortunately I'm quite confident appropriate steps will be taken as this seems to be the sort of thing Paul Bittar is good at.

I know their are disagreements about changing the race,but i do think we all want the same end result and thats the future of horseracing is secure.
I honestly think that those that actually think we can carry on as we are,are basically living in cloud cuckoo land.
Pressure builds and builds and something normally gives,and whether we like it or not,whether we think it right or not- what we like or think is not really the point,the point is that we are nearing the time,or probably at the time when racing simply has to be seen to address concerns about the welfare of the horses involved in our great sport-even if many in the sport disagree-the sport and its future is far more important than individual opinions from us fans.

strontium     18 Apr 12 23:17 
They are hypocrites Facts - and that's why they could turn on a sixpence an d run a campaign to get it banned. How long do you think the race would last if the Daily Mail took that route?


No one in their right mind takes the Daily Mail seriously strontium !!

If only that were true

What would seperate the Grand National from the other Nationals if they ran over park fences? Do you think it's simply a tradition which would be upheld over smaller obstacles? I fear it may just become another national that only all year round punters would bet on.

GCW - name recognition and media coverage. I'd turn your question round and ask how many people do you hear argue the Scots/Irish/Welsh Nationals should be run over Aintree style fences?

In any case, do we (as people who care about the future survival of jump racing) really care if it only stays of interest to all year round punters? My worry is that the National course is a liability for jump racing as a whole because it causes so many injuries and is in the public eye, for the sake of only 5 races per season. If the National course can't be made much safer I'd give serious consideration to running the race over the park fences. I realise that puts me in a small minority on this forum and perhaps in the country, but there you go.

But what happens if they do change the National to park fences and then there is all the media attention because of that fact and it still ends up being well watched and bet on.........and unfortunately we lose a couple of horses in the race?

Attention would then turn to jump racing full stop

That's a fair point Roobuck but it's much less likely. Over the last 20 years there is a 2% chance that a horse will be killed if it runs in the National (5% in the last 2 renewals but that's probably a freak). On the other hand there were 3 horses killed in 26 races at the Festival (excluding the cross country, which has problems of its own because of the lack of irrigation) and 1 in 20 races at Aintree. I'm also not sure that saying we should do something very dangerous to divert attention from something quite dangerous is a persuasive or sustainable argument.

I do realise though that scrapping the National fences will automatically make park steeplechases the next target of the activists - though it's my belief that "normal" NH racing (3000 races per year) is safe enough to be justified by the industry it supports, but racing on the National course (5 races per year) is not.

What to do with the National is a very tough question for the industry - 20 reasonable people could come up with 20 reasonable, but different, answers.

Stront, but what other races over park fences are 4.5 miles, compressed handicap and 40 runners?

They'd have to reduce the field to whatever the saftey limit is for the Mildmay at Aintree, and there'd be no reason to compress the handicap.

I'm not arguing that the race should be run over the Mildmay, but that it should be considered if the National course can't be made significantly safer. In that situation another option would be to scrap the race altogether (name and all). I'm not in favour of that but I firmly believe everything should be up for discussion. If there were any easy, or right, answers they'd have been done already.

But surely you would just erect Park fences on the National course - why would the numbers need to reduce?

Sorry, I hadn't realised that's what you were thinking about. I was assuming the race would be switiched to the existing park course. They could do what you suggest - but now we're just discussing possible details of the race following a hypothetical radical change.

In that circumstance I agree with the point you made at 14.48 that horses could still be in significant danger. No one would know until the race had been run a few times, which may make it a particularly undesirable approach to the problem.

All said, we're a very long way from what we're talking about actually happening. I assume there'll be several more years of tinkering with the National course/fences/regulations before anything more dramatic (like a new course or park fences) is tried.

What about move The Gold Cup to Saturday (which is inevitable anyway)make that the showcase event of the year. Put the National over the normal fences 25 runners. I emailed RUK last night said Ive been following racing 37 years and after this National I don't think I can bare another. I have owned horses,bred a horse and basically put thousands into this sport one way or another. I said it is a cruel race and unacceptable. The response from Hannity was "maybe you're in the wrong sport and 3 horses died in Dubai 2 at Sedgefield where do you draw the line"? So he justified death with death. It is that sort of attitude that is  turning me off this sport. I've not had one NH bet since Saturday.

What about move The Gold Cup to Saturday (which is inevitable anyway)make that the showcase event of the year. Put the National over the normal fences 25 runners. I emailed RUK last night said Ive been following racing 37 years and after this National I don't think I can bare another. I have owned horses,bred a horse and basically put thousands into this sport one way or another. I said it is a cruel race and unacceptable. The response from Hannity was "maybe you're in the wrong sport and 3 horses died in Dubai 2 at Sedgefield where do you draw the line"? So he justified death with death. It is that sort of attitude that is  turning me off this sport. I've not had one NH bet since Saturday.

What a clever response from Hannity-pr&t!!

Horses died elsewhere so thats that-unbelievable.

Dont surprise me though.Just one of many people who earn money from the game that cant see the bigger picture.

Chapman last Sunday was nothing short of a disgrace.