Grand National reduced to 34 runners

Dropping the minimum rating to 130 is a non-issue. Horses that low just don't get into the race anyway.

The smaller field might mean a few of the lower weighted ones might have to show their hand slightly in order to make the cut, though.

I'm not convinced about dropping the height of a fence or two. Isn't there an argument doing the rounds that the higher the fence the more careful the horse needs to be and this itself brings the dpeed down a bit?

Shortening the distance to the first fence makes better sense and is a better option than moving the start 60y closer to the fence.

I'm not convinced reducing the numbers to 34 makes that much sense and effectively will deprive six owners of seeing their horse run in the biggest spectacle in world racing. The course can take 40 no problem.

I like the idea of the earlier start. It kind of ruined out family parties having to wait until after 6pm to get the food sorted.
 
I support Aintree and whoever else is involved in this decision.

After the neo-horse rights activists got even more involved last time and nearly ruined the entire event, this shows the powers that be are willing to adapt to make the race safer, which they have done for years now.

The public relations war is more important than a handful of runners not running, or a change to the course here or there.

The old days are gone and there's no going back.
 
Last edited:
Marb said:
I support Aintree and whoever else is involved in this decision.

After the neo-horse rights activists got even more involved last time and nearly ruined the entire event, this shows the powers that be are willing to adapt to make the race safer, which they have done for years now.

The public relations war is more important than a handful of runners not running, or a change to the course here or there.

The old days are gone and there's no going back.
Click to expand...

If the activists let it go now and see it as a fair compromise then you're probably right Martin. But they won't.
 
Yes.. point taken. But as you know The National reflects on the whole sport, Lee.

The horse community needs to do everything it can to dampen the enthusiasm of the protesters, and the affect they are having on the general public, as ultimately if they succeed the end of racing and jumps racing in particular might not be that far away.
 
Last edited:
Last season, only one horse from 35 to 40 in the National finished in the first ten home. and every horse below 32 was out of the handicap. Most of the changes in recent years have been with the aim of attracting better horses and, while they've emphasised the safety aspects of these latest changes, it will also make the race more attractive to horses just below G1 level.
 
I think doing away with the pre race parade is a massive plus. I feel horses always get het up if they are expected to do something a little different. When they normally exit the paddock, they go straight into cantering down to the start. To ask them to quietly walk up and down the course so those who haven’t bothered to go to the paddock (or cant) is a lot to ask a fit, primed thoroughbred to do. I used to hate leading up in a parade as invariably they would mess around and you’d struggle to hold onto them.
 
This is a significant event on the road to the abolition of National Hunt racing in GB.Once you make any concession to animal rights activists it will give them impetus to keep going.They are in the ascendancy -next years protests will be bigger.
 
Tend to agree Luke. Can't see that any of the changes, other than removing the parade which I agree is plus, will actually make that much difference to the rate of fatalities or injuries. I think a shorter run to the first is actually a negative. Think they get there far too quickly after the start. Fewer smaller yards will have a chance to get a horse into it. None of the changes wil stop them protesting again next year - they won, so they'll keep going.
 
Chris Cook wrote a good piece today, which is about right IMO

Courtesy of the RP:

This one really hurts. Until now, it's not been that difficult for a fan to make peace with changes to the Grand National, even though the fences are not what they were and Becher's is no longer instantly recognisable to anyone who's seen the old pictures of Red Rum soaring over.
Until now, each year's race has still basically looked like the ones from the Pathe newsreels. But the essence of the National, and a huge reason for its unique status, is the involvement of lots of runners.

Forty has been the accepted figure. Forty to choose from, 40 people in every sweepstake, 40 gorgeous animals at the start, 40 stories about how they got there, 40 sets of connections hoping they're in the middle of a tale they'll be telling for the rest of their lives.
Dry-as-dust accountant types will minimise the news; just a 15 per cent adjustment. But we're losing so much more than that, and for what? There will still be risk.

The new National will be significantly easier to dominate for the super-trainers whose stable strength has been allowed to spiral unchecked. The runners we're losing, the lowest-rated ones, so often provide the human interest angles, precisely because they don't represent people who've already won everything.

If every Grand National had 34 runners, we'd never have got Foinavon. Rachael Blackmore would still be waiting for her moment of Aintree glory. Can a change possibly be a good idea if it would have wiped out two of the best stories in the event's history? There would have been no Oscars for National Velvet if it ended with Elizabeth Taylor being told: "Sorry, love, you've missed the cut."

Change is inevitable, so they say, and necessary to placate the outside world. But you have to be careful which changes you choose. The wrong one can do irreparable harm, undermining the thing we're ostensibly seeking to protect, to the delight of our enemies.
Those animal rights protesters who broke in to Aintree in April must be ****-a-hoop. For a certainty, they will claim credit for these changes, however unjust that might be in reality.

Most likely, they'll be back in April to have another go because bullies don't just vanish when you give them what they want. They're delighted to find a soft touch, someone they can push around, and they have every reason to feel emboldened by this capitulation, not least because six months have rolled by and none of them has been charged with anything.

When will racing give its own fans something to cheer about? This was the time to stand firm and show some pride in the game. On days like this, I despair.
 
The racing population is getting older, by that I mean the day to day fan.
36 would have been a fine number, not that there was anything wrong with 40.
What are the chances of a Silver Grand National , or a "Not So Grand National" for those that do not make the cut ?
 
In the same way that I know my dog enjoys chasing a ball, I like to think that horses enjoy racing. If I thought they were being bullied and forced to do something they didn’t want to do just for my pleasure it would give me no enjoyment at all. It’s why I don’t like seeing horses forced into the stalls or whippers-in cracking a bloody great whip to get them going at the start.

So far as the Grand National is concerned I welcome the easings since I’ve always thought that it’s something where it’s pretty easy to argue that the spectacle had become more important than the horses, many of whom I think were over-faced. It’s all very well to talk about standing firm, but you cannot defend yesterday’s practices against today’s acceptabilities.
 
wilsonl said:
Chris Cook wrote a good piece today, which is about right IMO

Courtesy of the RP:

This one really hurts. Until now, it's not been that difficult for a fan to make peace with changes to the Grand National, even though the fences are not what they were and Becher's is no longer instantly recognisable to anyone who's seen the old pictures of Red Rum soaring over.
Until now, each year's race has still basically looked like the ones from the Pathe newsreels. But the essence of the National, and a huge reason for its unique status, is the involvement of lots of runners.

Forty has been the accepted figure. Forty to choose from, 40 people in every sweepstake, 40 gorgeous animals at the start, 40 stories about how they got there, 40 sets of connections hoping they're in the middle of a tale they'll be telling for the rest of their lives.
Dry-as-dust accountant types will minimise the news; just a 15 per cent adjustment. But we're losing so much more than that, and for what? There will still be risk.

The new National will be significantly easier to dominate for the super-trainers whose stable strength has been allowed to spiral unchecked. The runners we're losing, the lowest-rated ones, so often provide the human interest angles, precisely because they don't represent people who've already won everything.

If every Grand National had 34 runners, we'd never have got Foinavon. Rachael Blackmore would still be waiting for her moment of Aintree glory. Can a change possibly be a good idea if it would have wiped out two of the best stories in the event's history? There would have been no Oscars for National Velvet if it ended with Elizabeth Taylor being told: "Sorry, love, you've missed the cut."

Change is inevitable, so they say, and necessary to placate the outside world. But you have to be careful which changes you choose. The wrong one can do irreparable harm, undermining the thing we're ostensibly seeking to protect, to the delight of our enemies.
Those animal rights protesters who broke in to Aintree in April must be ****-a-hoop. For a certainty, they will claim credit for these changes, however unjust that might be in reality.

Most likely, they'll be back in April to have another go because bullies don't just vanish when you give them what they want. They're delighted to find a soft touch, someone they can push around, and they have every reason to feel emboldened by this capitulation, not least because six months have rolled by and none of them has been charged with anything.

When will racing give its own fans something to cheer about? This was the time to stand firm and show some pride in the game. On days like this, I despair.
Click to expand...

Time for racegoers on GN day to turn up with baseball bats and give those AR w@nkers something to make them think twice. Racing has tried engaging with them and 'educating' them. They need another kind of learning process.
 
The AR guy got a £10k fine for his stunt at Epsom...guess that will have put a bit of a dent in their funds. They haven’t been active on Reddit for a long while.
 
Thinking about this a bit more, I have to say it goes against the grain with me but I think they do need to think about limiting owners/trainers to a max of three runners in the race.

It isn't too difficult to envisage a scenario in which Mullins, Elliott and De Bromhead each have ten in the race. They could actively pursue that approach with a view to eliminating the rest of the competition.
 
I've seen a suggestion elsewhere that they should consider "win and you're in" qualifying races. This would encourage competition amongst horses who might otherwise miss the cut. Suggested races include the previous season's Irish and Scottish Nationals, the Coral (Hennessey) Gold Cup, Welsh National, Eider, Becher and one in Ireland (the Troytown?).

I'm sure there are downsides but it works for races like the Melbourne Cup.
 
archie said:
Have you considered that the dog might only be chasing and fetching the ball because he thinks that you enjoy throwing it?
Click to expand...

:D Well, he finds and brings the ball, drops it a the foot of my armchair and sits there wagging his tail. Then if I don’t pick it up after a bit he picks it up, clambers up and drops it in my lap. Rinse and repeat until I cave in and take him out to throw it for him. Possibly, he might be doing it for my benefit, but his exuberance in the fetching and carrying is something to behold :).
 
barjon said:
:D Well, he finds and brings the ball, drops it a the foot of my armchair and sits there wagging his tail. Then if I don’t pick it up after a bit he picks it up, clambers up and drops it in my lap. Rinse and repeat until I cave in and take him out to throw it for him. Possibly, he might be doing it for my benefit, but his exuberance in the fetching and carrying is something to behold :).
Click to expand...

Collie?
 
Back
Top