P. Nicholls re GN deaths

What did McManus do wrong then? I am struggling with that bit. All I can see is he had a very well handicapped horse in a valuable handicap having previously won marathons before. In my opinion he was a sound jumper and there was nothing to cast doubt on him doing anything other than run a big race. He made an error at the 6th then galloped on a fair way after that. Drawing parallel with Alverton is not fair as S previous record suggested he needed extreme distances whereas I was not as sure Alverton was a marathon type back then.

Where did you get the stats from crystal? At first glance they seem frightening, but I suppose if you take into consideration the number of races and fences jumped over 5 years they are probably quite low, although don`t get me wrong, 1 horse dying in a race is sad no matter how good or bad it is. It would be interesting to know how many horses were killed in the GN from say 1900-1912, when the fences were straight up and a lot more difficult, compared with 2000-2012 when the course has been altered significantly and the fences made a lot lot easier. I tend to think that by making the course easier they have made the race more dangerous.

themightymac - found a site on the net
http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/

You can check out every racecourse over the last 5 years and even check the stats against going/ jockeys etc.

dont expect the bloke to say anything classy. Get a read of his autobiography where he gives out stink about one of his dead ex-owners........jaw-dropping stuff.....

I'm not suggesting McManus did anything wrong. I'm referring to the reporting of his post race comments on Synchronised and comparing it to the post race comments from Nicholls. Somebody on here wants to condemn one and not the other, presumably because they have made their mind up that one was intentionally callous and the other was unintentionally so. I'd rather take the view that both of them know and accept the risks and rewards of NH racing. Both of them have had many highs and lows over the years and have had ample opportunity to get out of the game. I'm not going to condemn either on the basis of a quote in the heat of the moment.

thanks crystal.

1900-1912 only 2 horses killed.

2000-2012 11 horses killed.

It seems that posters claiming that making the course easier has made it more dangerous are right.

The clear fact is that there is no other race in Britain like this and we show it to the world and too many horses are losing their lives in it.How can we think that was a spectacle to show the world? It's too risky, it's unfair and it will kill NH racing.

cobblaz

The comments from McManus were understandable imo - he'd just lost a Gold Cup winner and had another runner pipped a nose in the last stride. The comments fromm Nicholls immediately after the race and some hours later however, are far more difficult to understand.

I heard Nicholls say that on the radio and I thought he sounded like an idiot. He needs to grow up. He needs to wise up and smell the coffee. The non horse racing public which accounts for over 90% of the human race, do not like it when animals are mutilated, severely injured and killed for pleasure. He and others like him are too close too the industry, that they don't understand the criticism, they don't understand the public outrage when horses are massacred for pleasure. 

Nicholls was ranting and obviously didn't like it that the deaths of two horses were taking the shine off his victory. He came across like an insensitive boor.

He and Walsh are both pond life imho.

Tell the 90% to pi$s off to Africa and do something about the slaughter of elephants for ivory or China to stop them boiling cats and skinning them alive before eating them.

Alternatively send them into the countryside to prevent badgers being mutilated by their neighbours dogs.................will they do something to stop real cruelty?

1.01 Will they fook.

high-lander you really are one sad limp wristed Scottish liberal a rse.It's a Sunday so I can afford to be charitable.Some of your wilder statements have exceeded the standards needed to win a libel case.Be very careful......

Gave him the benifit of doubt yesterday not so sure now,you will only get so many chances very insentitive.

Less of the racism HFT...............he is from the highlands of Holland.

thats how much he cares about the racehorse

For Nicholls to say "A lot of people have to grow up, and realise that it (GN horse deaths) is life, and get on with it", is the sort of mindless comment that is becoming all too typical of him. Cancer, heart disease, Earthquakes, these are examples of the realities of life. The Grand National, however, is an event created by man in the name of entertainment.

I used to quite admire the guy (even bought his ghost-written 'autobiograohy') but, increasingly, the guy is revealing himself to be a a highly unpleasant, none too bright individual.

I don't make wild statements, I tell it how it is. However, I know that the truth is something fascist like yourself don't like.

There's nothing libellous in my post.

Synchronised did not want to play and told A.P. so
A.P. is at fault,He killed the horse

what about the media darling and so called good judge clare balding telling the world,that when mcoy showed synch the 1st fenced he cowered away and balding said , HE DOESNT FANCY THIS, is she now a cluless idiot or if she new it should ap,oneil,macmanus etc have known it

I think the expression "mutilated...for pleasure" would just about swing things.If I could be bothered to search the forum I am sure that I could find many more as he allies himself to any left-wing cause.You can always root out his kind when they resort to calling anyone who disagrees with them a "fascist." If he ever did meet a real life fascist he would run faster than Sean Connery when presented with a UK tax form !!

why did you take so long to answer, were you doing some online research you sad twot

I was actually backing a few horses high-lander.After all that is what Betfair is all about.Most people on here like a bet some prefer to try and force their views on others....

"90% of the human race, do not like it when animals are mutilated, severely injured and killed for pleasure."

How is that libellous? Homefortea you don't half talk some sheee!t

homefortea, I know you wish this was a fascist state like Nazi Germany, but it's not, we are allowed free speech in this country. I know it annoys you that people are allowed freedoms but there it is, we live in a democracy. Maybe you should go and live in North Korea?

Thousands of people will die this year as a result of cars being allowed on the roads. Shall we have a referendum to vote on the banning of cars?
Ok, people will say we choose to drive cars, knowing the risk.
Hundreds of children will die of cancer this year before reaching double figures. It was the sight of these kids that triggered Botham's charity walks. We can stop cancer afflicting young kids if we all agree to stop having kids. Kids don't ask to be born. They don't make that choice. Yet we still go on having kids. 
Humans make choices that involve life or deatn risks. Jobs, sports careers, leisure pursuits. Where there is money or glory to be had, humans will risk loads. It's only reasonable to assume horses would make the same choices.

You are alleging that Aintree Racecourse has organised an event so that people can watch animals(I thought that only horses could be entered !) being "mutilated ...for pleasure."

I think in general most people who work in the INDUSTRY are far less sensitive to the loss of horses than the public in general, with the possible exception of the stable lasses themselves.
I remember being at Warwick years ago and one of our trainers horses fell and got injured but i was pleased to see it get up and the trainers son leading it limping back to the horsebox. I walked up and asked if it would be all right, he said they would take it back to see if he could be saved but not to upset myself as they were only MACHINES! Also remember Henrietta Knight not appearing too upset after the death of Best Mate at Exeter, i guess they are just hardened to it being country types.

I never alleged anyhting of the sort you numpty! And anyway, a racecourse cant sue a person

Howellsy
15 Apr 12 11:39 Joined: 17 Mar 03 | Topic/replies: 245 | Blogger: Howellsy's blog
Where there is money or glory to be had, humans will risk loads. it's only reasonable to assume horses would make the same choices

Brilliant stuff

high_lander that is exactly what you have alleged, and I am sure that Jockey Club Racecourses will have teams of lawyers examining newspapers,magazines and the internet in order to minimise some of the criticism that will be coming their way in the next few weeks.

I must be away now as I have better things to do than argue with the likes of you....

What so important, do you have to go and breach some disabled people's civil rights or something?

" Paul Nicholls has told BBC Radio 5 live that spectators have to be aware of the risks inherent in horse racing."

I accept that, but what I don't accept is running a Gold Cup winner
straight after Cheltenham in the National especially when the horse
has jumping issues, unacceptable risk. Personally I don't think
a Gold Cup winner should run again that season. 

O'Neill should know that after Alverton and Dawn Run both died
in their next race, and now Synchronised. Hard race at Cheltenham
and a Gold Cup winner has done enough for that season imo.

And Synchronised clearly did not fancy it yesterday,
even Clare said that when the horse was loose,
a risk and an unacceptable risk 2 different things.

Vile man everything that's wrong with this corrupt blood sport all wrapped up in one package   Not surprised doesn't everyone already know what a stuck up man he is

Wildly insensitive thing for Nicholls to have said, whatever his feelings about the issue.

I accept that, but what I don't accept is running a Gold Cup winner
straight after Cheltenham in the National especially when the horse
has jumping issues, unacceptable risk. Personally I don't think
a Gold Cup winner should run again that season. 

O'Neill should know that after Alverton and Dawn Run both died
in their next race, and now Synchronised. Hard race at Cheltenham
and a Gold Cup winner has done enough for that season imo.

I don't accept that for a second. No reason whatsoever there should be a regulatory or even self imposed bar on Gold Cup winners running again.

The winner could easily have had an easier race than many of those that finished behind him. Horses have had very tough races in the Gold Cup and run absolute crackers in the Grand National - the two that spring immediately to mind are Rough Quest and Garrison Savannah. It simply depends how the horse has come out of the race.

Whether or not Synchronized looked ready to run in the days before the race, nobody except the connections know, and there would have been an absolute uproar from the papers, betting industry and public if the ante-post favourite had been pulled out on the grounds that he'd cantered loose for a bit, and looked like he didn't fancy the fences much.

All the above having been said, if I owned a Gold Cup winner, I don't think I'd be inclined to run him in any race over the National fences unless he was already proven over them.

So far the Paul Nicholls Award for crass brainlessness has to go to this guy Howellsy, who says:

1) "Thousands of people will die this year as a result of cars being allowed on the roads. Shall we have a referendum to vote on the banning of cars?"

If there was a 1 in 20 chance of being killed every time we used our cars you're darn right there should be a referendum.

2)"Hundreds of children will die of cancer this year before reaching double figures. We can stop cancer afflicting young kids if we all agree to stop having kids."

Cancer is a highly unpleasant reality of life for which, at present, there is no known cure, unlike Grand National fatalities which are a consequence of an event created by man for the purposes of entertainment, and which can easily be prevented by not staging the race.

3)"Humans make choices that involve life or deatn risks. Jobs, sports careers, leisure pursuits. Where there is money or glory to be had, humans will risk loads. It's only reasonable to assume horses would make the same choices."

Laughably mindless and not worthy of a response.

some poor analogies on here using cancer and heart disease.
Both of these terrible illnesses are almost certainly man-made

bornunlucky     15 Apr 12 12:56 

If there was a 1 in 20 chance of being killed every time we used our cars you're darn right there should be a referendum.


what is the 1 in 20 chance a reference to, bornunlucky?

pedrobob

You clearly haven't understood a word I've written. I'm saying the complete opposite - cancer and heart disease are NOT analogous with GN fatalities, and are not easily and immediately preventable in the way GN fatalities are.

@pedrobob

"what is the 1 in 20 chance a reference to, bornunlucky?"

I can see this is going to be hard work, but I'll try and keep it V-E-R-Y simple for you.

There were 40 runners in yesterday's GN. 2 of those runners are now dead. Expressed as a fraction, this is 2/40 or, in its simplest form, 1/20, ie, 1 in 20. You may prefer 5%.

so you want to use a single running of an event as representative of what happens in the long term?
Even idiots like me can see the inherent flaw in such thinking

its quiet clear to me that Nicholls comments are typical of the people involved in the sport.They claim to care so much about their horses yet they allow them to run in a race that a lot of them cannot bare to watch in case something happens to them!!
The connections of Acc to Pete were saying how much they loved their horse last week on TV,and were worried about him in the GN.
So why run the horse then??
i would say that they put personal glory ahead of their feelings for the horse,seems that way to me,and i bet they regret that now.
By entering a horse in a race connections have to take responsibility for the outcome,and those that decided the GC winner should run in the GN after a shorter break than they normally give him,need imo to explain their decision.

@pedrobob:

"so you want to use a single running of an event as representative of what happens in the long term?
Even idiots like me can see the inherent flaw in such thinking"

2 fatalities last year aswell. If you take a greater number of races the average will be less than 2 deaths per race, but, in percentage terms, still way higher then any of the activities others have mentioned on this thread in which humans partake.

I don't think they need to explain their decision both sets were desperately unfortunate. We could have been saying the same about the winner as the Hales family were split in their decision to run.

As for Comparisons to road accidents, well in the past some on here will have driven home over the drink limit and in fact I think it was acceptable in the 70's, yet now people have to get a taxi, just because some people killed others, most people who drove home over the limit got home safe, yet laws were changed and we grew to see that it was unacceptable. The National as it stands is an unacceptable risk. It is like no other race and that to me is wrong.

agreed, bornunlucky, even 1 in 40 is a high mortality rate, let alone 2 in 40.
If I owned a horse, I personally would not let one participate in the race at odds of even 1 in 40 unless he/she was nigh on 18 hands (something like Party Politics, the ground was good to soft or slower etc).
My main objection is that I don't think many horses have much to offer after running in a National and it takes a lot out of them mentally. What the connections did with the winner yesterday, to retire it come what may at the age of 11, I would possibly consider as maybe an acceptable risk, subject to knowing the horse would again be suited by the race conditions.

Does that mean I think the race should be abandoned? Don't know if that is what you are suggesting, but I would say no to that. Others can have different views on whether they should run or not and the conditions that are acceptable. That is life, we all make different choices given the same circumstances, it would be wrong (in principle) to take away people's freedom to enjoy that.

I can see this is going to be hard work, but I'll try and keep it V-E-R-Y simple for you.

There were 40 runners in yesterday's GN. 2 of those runners are now dead. Expressed as a fraction, this is 2/40 or, in its simplest form, 1/20, ie, 1 in 20. You may prefer 5%.

Dear me.

Steamship,
I am referring to the fact that they have said the horse needs a good break between his races,yet they then ran him only 3-4 weeks after the Gold Cup.i would like them to explain their changing his routine.
Dont see a problem with that myself,and it would maybe satisfy a lot of us who are wondering.
I suspect they,like most connections of horses,put personal glory ahead of whats best for their horses.

Acc to Pete was a classic case of that imo,saying last week how they loved the horse,and could not bare to watch the race in case anything should happen,and running him anyway.
Simple solution,if you are concerned about a horse running in a race to that extent,dont bl00dy enter him!!!

Bornunlucky, when it comes to brains, you certainly live up to your user name.

My first analogy, regarding cars, may not be directly analogous in percentage terms, but where do you draw the line as to what percentage risk is acceptable? And I'm afraid the truth is likely to be that the average anti-grand national type would be exponentially more upset by the death of a loved one in a car crash than a horse in the race, so the percentage risk doesn't have to be anywhere near as high for my point to be valid.

My second analogy, which may be too emotive to be appropriate, is equally valid in theory. If we all agreed to stop having children, then we would preclude the horrors of cancer befalling any future being. Do you not agree that we have a choice when it comes to procreating? However, in continuing to have children, we are subscribing to the basic notion that 'it is worth the risk.' Of course, these children are not choosing to be born, any more than horses are choosing to run in the GN. But that's ok though.

My third point I see you have no specific answer to. These horses are born and bred to race. They spend their whole lives, from day one, being geared for events like this. If jockeys make the choice that the risk is worthwhile, it is incredibly patronising and illogical to argue that horses would not take the same risks under the circumstances, and make the same choices. To say a horse does not choose to run in the GN is to be risibly literal minded.

Sorry budd, yeah fair enough about the break between races.

Re Acc To Pete, I agree but when I had horses I was always a bit of a wreck beforehand.

Synchronised had a prior record of 1,1,6 (of 16), F, 3 (of 27), 1 with a max break of 29 days (same as yesterday) from previous race. You would not have dismissed his chances yesterday based on this 6 race record.

Connections overplayed the "needs a break between races", which is a given for any staying horse like Synchronised.

Pedro,by saying what they did and going against that leaves them open to criticism.

We had a horse that was quoted as needing a good break between his races,a lot of experts in the game saying hes a small horse that will struggle jumping round,and he ran loose and to many appeared to not relish the challenge.

Its no wonder people are wondering about whose responsible for the Gold Cup winner now being dead.

When AP took Synchronised up to the first fence after recapture to view the challenge the horse was still spooked as they have a brain and know what is about to happen, to me the horses and jockey were not happy and both knew the worse but its their job and they have to do as they are ordered, bad fences are the problem always were and it seems until the death list hits the hundreds then maybe things will change.

RIP both horses

Champion trainer with a conveyor belt of big race winners sees losing a horse as a blip.

Hunt Ball's trainer was in tears before the race on Thursday just at the thought of it getting hurt.

"The connections of Acc to Pete were saying how much they loved their horse last week on TV,and were worried about him in the GN.
So why run the horse then??"

That's what puzzles me more than anything. How a virtual family Pet who had been raised on the families smallholding could be allowed to race over National fences. I'm sure they were worried every time it raced, and relieved when it came back safe, with any winning or placing a bonus, and I'm sure in retrospect they regret it today. I feel for them.

I think that it probably is the case that bigger owners and trainers do get inured to some degree about the prospect of losing horses. I'm sure that JP McManus must have lost in excess of 50 horses over the years, if you include both the racecourse, training and even things like laminitis and colic. It must inevitably make you more phlegmatic about things.

Smaller owners and connenctions have more invested emotionally in each horse.

How a virtual family Pet who had been raised on the families smallholding could be allowed to race over National fences. I'm sure they were worried every time it raced, and relieved when it came back safe, with any winning or placing a bonus, and I'm sure in retrospect they regret it today.

That's why these horses get bred, far ropier horses from a similar background that can't jump for toffee run in the Foxhunter's each year.

Smallholdings also raise stock that can become similarly loved, knowing full well that the day will come for them to be slaughtered.

Very sad about the deaths yesterday. Been looking at that http://www.horsedeathwatch.com site and if you look at "by course" where some courses are split beftween NH and flat, there are (as probably expected) many more killed over NH races which leads me to wonder if NH races are really something that we need in these supposed-modern times?

A phrase I have heard since my youth is ' As long as you have livestock you will have dead stock'  and as I get older I realise its so true .  Nobody wants it to happen but you can be sure it will sometime.

looking at the replay, Synchronised seemed to jump the early fences well enough for a small horse.
He jumped Bechers well, stumbled a stride after the fence where the fracture probably occurred.
To say connections shouldn't have run him in the race is ridiculous and all done with hindsight

@Howeslly

"My third point I see you have no specific answer to. If jockeys make the choice that the risk is worthwhile, it is incredibly patronising and illogical to argue that horses would not take the same risks under the circumstances, and make the same choices".

Such mindless nonsense really doesn't deserve an answer, but if you insist you can have one.

The point is, jockeys are NOT taking the same risks as the horses. The risk is infinitely greater for horses. In addition to the high risk of a horse being killed outright, just ask yourself if a jockey, horse, hamster, you name it, would willingly compete in a race knowing that, if they broke an arm, leg, collar bone etc., they would be shot through the head.

Many sportsmen embark on events which could kill them or severely disable them. Jockeys are examples of such sportsmen.

Eight event riders died in a five year period a few years back.  It's still an Olympic sport.  Senna and Ratzenberger died at the same Grand Prix.  F1 is still a multi-million pound industry.

There are worse fates for a horse than a quick humane death in the midst of doing what it was bred and trained for.

EH???!!! What's that got to do with anything? Noone's denying that, but there is NO voluntary human pastime (unless you can provide the name of one) that carries with it anywhere near a 1 in 40 risk of death every time one partakes in it, as the GN does for horses.

My previous post was in response to Howellsy, but as you have posted Jezebel, perhaps you could tell me how many F1 drivers have been killed since Senna, or even name any sport that has anywhere near a 1 in 40 risk of death per event. Even in F1's darkest days from the 50s to 70s, it was unacceptably dangerous, but nowhere near this figure.

You raised the topic of participant attitudes to risk to humans; Howellsy and I simply refuted it with actual evidence.

And it's actually 1 in 55, based on a meaningful statistical sample.  If you can't get basic statistics right, I don't think there's much point engaging in a debate predicated mainly on opinion.

Too many fatalities are linked with one race. The National frequently kills horses. No other race can boast such a terrible statistic. That is the problem here. Horses do get killed at other tracks, but no other single race does it with such regularity.

Jezebel

"You raised the topic of participant attitudes to risk to humans; Howellsy and I simply refuted it with actual evidence."


You've done nothing of the sort. I responded to Howellsy's assertion that, if jockeys are prepared to take risks, then it is "patronising and illogical" to argue horses wouldn't do likewise. I then made the point that the risks to horses is far greater, and asked for an example, which I'm still waiting for, of any human pastime that comes anywhere near the 1 in 40 risk of death per event figure or, if you're desperate enough to feel the need to quibble about the percentage, let's take your figure of 1 in 55.

PS - Whilst you're here, for the second time of asking, you can also let me know just how many drivers have been killed in F1 in the last 18 years.

the percentage argument doesnt hold water.without horse racing the percentage of these animals being born are nil as they are bred purely for the sport

I am interested to know how many of you would think the GN is a great race if it had been McCoy killed at Beechers yesterday?

Steamship, logically, the same argument applies. If one is happy to bet and embrace the race at 4.10, one must be equally happy to have embraced it at 4.30 (or whenever) no matter what has happened in it. That is logical. It doesn't sound very humane, but that's what is meant by embracing the national. The problem seems to be that people are reacting after the event rather than beforehand. Nothing would have changed in the mean time even if a jockey had died. I embraced the race knowing a horse or jockey could die. McCoy, more than you or I, was also aware of this, and also embraced it.

No need for the callous way in which he said this. Maybe if he didnt run numerous horses in races all year he would have more affinity for them and understanding for all the people that get closer to them. Very poor from Nicholls and I have less respect for him after this. I agree with the earlier comment that he further damages the reputation of the sport that has made him his money with these type of comments. Maybe Nicholls is getting a bit too big for his boots.

The fact that the vast majority of people commenting on this on a betting forum on a site for which Nicholls writes are disgusted by these comments suggests that his views are at odds with not just the general public but a lot of others involved in horse racing too.

@duffyg:

"without horse racing the percentage of these animals being born are nil as they are bred purely for the sport"

Urh??!! What's that got to do with anything? This thread is about the merits, or otherwise, of the Grand National, not whether horseracing should be banned completely.

Your silence is deafening Jezebel. For the third time of asking, let's have examples of sports where the risk to human life comes anywhere near that posed to horses in the GN. Your 2 feeble offerings so far, F1 and Eventing, come nowhere near.

There are a lot reacting after thebrace, but there were some on Friday saying the Topham and the fences were not a true test. I came on here and said I thought the Topham was a great race and we needed the same in the National.

If they made the fences the same size as Nicholls Ego.....there would be no finishers.....

any human pastime that comes anywhere near the 1 in 40 risk of death per event figure

Russian Roulette has a far higher "accident" rate, and probably takes place more than once a year imo

More drivelling sentiment for the National. The greatest race on earth always seems to attract the simpering classes who affect more pain from an occasional horse getting injured than hundreds of innocent civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan being bombed to death.

I wouldn't run a horse of mine in the race, even if I had one good enough! It matters NOT how good the horse is. According to Pete was brought down and died as a result. I love the race , but the racing on Saturday was about Simonsig, Oscar Whisky, Sprinter Sacre etc. the national is a cavalry charge that resmbles a battlefield. I am certainly no do gooder, and have loved racing for fifty years or more. It is the National that gives ammunition to those who would like to see jump racing banned. One race! Is it worth keeping the race? I wonder.

Well said slade.
  I'm far from PC and have always liked horse racing   But not the nicholls type that really don't give a s hyte about the horses and wouldn't pi ss on the working class man if he was on fire
It's not rocket science to make it safer is it. But at least if a horse is injured you could look a bit bothered Clare balding was nicholls wasn't
No wonder the beeb are through with the race

I read what Paul Nicholls said, but this is the way a lot of
the general public will see it from the Daily Mail:
headline was 'Terrified horse should NEVER have started'

And also in the same paper the view from a vet,
"If, in the Olympic Games, several athletes broke bones during, for example, the 3,000 metres steeplechase the event would either be dropped or the course drastically altered."

I'm afraid more people outside racing are more likely to be
taking that view than Mr Nicholls.  People see things differently.

The ridiculous hand-wringing over the last 20 years or so has led to 'improvements' of the course that has actually made it much more dangerous - lower fences (race run faster), better drainage (race run faster), better drainage II (falls more dangerous). The other problem is that the increase in prize money has attracted far better horses (race run faster). It used to be contested by plodding out and out stayers, most of whom could hunt round.

Personally, I'd totally revamp the thing and run it off level weights. Ridiculous that the most valuable jumps race in the world is a fricking handicap.

I've posted a couple of other comments on this thread, and can't remember whether I've responded to the thread title. Nicholls's comments, whether he believes them or not, were insensitive and naive in the extreme. How does he think that people will react? Fool.

Unfortunately his comments were a bit insensitive,
and a lot of people - especially outside racing - will see things differently. Horses being killed in the National should not be the inconvenient consequences of the race.

"' As long as you have livestock you will have dead stock'  and as I get older I realise its so true .  Nobody wants it to happen but you can be sure it will sometime."

I would be prepared to wager that it would happen a lot less if you didn't make horses jump huge life-threatening obstacles.

The thing i have troubles with most are the "trick" fences, if i jumped over a wall id expect the landing side to be the same height as the take off side.

The next step is 'let's do away with national hunt racing' because that is where it leads.

The thing i have troubles with most are the "trick" fences, if i jumped over a wall id expect the landing side to be the same height as the take off side.

Haydock had drop fences for years without significantly more casualties than your average course. Admittedly the drop was only about 4-5".

The first three sites I've looked at to try to find the drop at Bechers range from 5" to 2'.

Horses are livestock we accept that. So don't give them names allow camera crews into the stables telling them we all love the horse, we cannot have it both ways.

The National is a Handicap and nothing more than a lottery. The Gold Cup at Cheltenham is the supreme test of which horse is the best in the land. I shall look forward to this years hero returning or maybe not.

This race alone will kill NH racing, look at all the popular press we got after The Gold Cup.

Why doesn't Mr Nicholls grow up and accept that not all people find it exciting as it is, what major difference would losing this race make to him or any of us?

As for theincreased viewing figures, how many cars slow down to have a look when there has been an accident on the other side of a motorway? More viewing figures means nothing.

Will be interesting to see if Betfair put his face/so called tips up on the main screen as they were doing pre GN. His smug face and egocentric smile used to turn me off my breakfast.

Nicholls spot on imo

When he first started training I thought he was abreath of fresh air I loved See More Indians. I was so pleased when he became champion trainer, but now he believes his own hype. He should learn a few lessons of trainers such as King and Pipe. In my opinion our 2 top trainers bring the game into disrepute.

What I can't square up is this "love" of the horses that the owners and trainers profess to having.
I've no doubt that they do care for them very much but if you loved something would you risk it's life in such a way by entering it in the national?
I would be very surprised indeed if the owners or trainers would enter their children into a competition where the winner would win lots of money but 2 out of the 40 would be shot dead.

Horses are livestock we accept that. So don't give them names allow camera crews into the stables telling them we all love the horse, we cannot have it both ways.

My godfather is a farmer. He only farms arable and beef now, but a few years ago he farmed dairy too. I can assure you that of 200 head of cattle, he had, and knew the names of every single one of them, and for the dairy ones, when they were due to calve. He had the cameras in a couple of times for regional news articles on farming, and whilst I didn't see them, if he showed anything like the affection for his cattle on-screen as he did off-screen, then you can have it both ways.

Funnily enough, I far prefer the Gold Cup too, and think that the National is a bit of a lottery. I said somewhere, maybe on this thread in fact, that it should be run off level weights as a Grade 1. It's a travesty that the world's most valuable jumps race is a handicap. I don't tend to bet very much on it (a housewife's bet from someone who bets heavily), but I'm always happy to see the horses with higher weights do well.

Shut up ya fool ya.....what a knobbend.....from someone who bets heavily......what a load of bollloxxx....he knew the name of all his herd.....ya thats likely isnt it....what did he say on the way to the slaughter house.....hey gerry its time for your head to be cut off.....

Someone made a comment earlier about PN celebrating winning the trainers title far more than the GN. I think that was spot on and his tactless comments about the deaths originates from there. He was so smug about having won the trainers title after watching Henderson win race after race, he could hardly believe his luck. He's a brilliant trainer, but he's far from a likeable character and this just demonstrates it further.

When he first started training I thought he was abreath of fresh air I loved See More Indians. I was so pleased when he became champion trainer, but now he believes his own hype. He should learn a few lessons of trainers such as King and Pipe. In my opinion our 2 top trainers bring the game into disrepute.

Funnily enough, notwithstanding issues with vets, press releases et al, the thing that annoys me most about Henderson is his nauseating tendency to say about a horse - "oh, well, you know, he's a lovely person". He's not a person, he's a horse ffs. The increasing tendency of the public to anthropomorphize animals, and particularly racehorses, is over-sentimental claptrap. By all means say you love them if you do, but don't call them a person for Christ's sake. From someone like Henderson, it's a loverly little soundbite for the uninitiated, but it can backfire badly.

Oddly enough, 3 years ago, when the BBC followed McKelvey in the run-up to the race, I had a feeling that it would all end in tears, and now it's happened again re According To Pete. I understand the instinct to focus the microscope on one or two horses, but in the context of a statistically dangerous race, it's pretty reckless from a PR point of view.

Lookingforthewildman strikes again with his articulate use of the English language and intellectual, meaningful response. Thank you for your contribution to the thread,  Lookingforthewildman.

Shut up ya fool ya.....what a knobbend.....from someone who bets heavily......what a load of bollloxxx....he knew the name of all his herd.....ya thats likely isnt it....what did he say on the way to the slaughter house.....hey gerry its time for your head to be cut off.....

OK, I may or may not bet heavily by your standards - I don't know, and I don't really care.

With respect to my Godfather, I can tell you that he did know the names of every one of his herd, and if you don't believe me, then you know nothing about people who farm for a living.

Could you name every album you own by being shown the record cover (without identifying words)?
I could, and I have 200ish.

Could you name every NFL and FBS (college) football team, just from their helmet logo?
I could, and there are 155 of them.

It's his job. He spends his life with them. It's actually pretty ignorant to think that he couldn't recognize them all.

He didn't take them to the slaughterhouse by the way - he got his farmhands to do it. Some of them he and his team had to hand-rear, for a short-while, so they got quite attached to them.

What do you actually know about farming? How many farmers do you know well?

Effectively a week late but Nicholls ripped to shreds in today's Patrick Collins column. It is time the Racing press woke up.

What's he say differentdrum?