Limit on runners in major handicap

Desert Orchid said:
To be honest, I'm much more suspicious of the likes of JP McManus when he runs five and more in the big Irish handicaps. You genuinely never know which is 'the one'.
Click to expand...



I agree, you ought to be suspicious, but not genuinely never know; too many good gambles have landed for that to be the case!
 
The Grand National is very close to being an irrelevance -just another Saturday handicap that nobody cares about.This isn't the final nail in the coffin but another few tweaks will do the job.
 
LUKE said:
The Grand National is very close to being an irrelevance -just another Saturday handicap that nobody cares about.This isn't the final nail in the coffin but another few tweaks will do the job.
Click to expand...

For some maybe, Luke, but not in our household. It's the sole topic of conversation for weeks leading up to it and is still a huge family day. I reckon lots of households and workplaces up and down the country still get heavily into it.
 
Desert Orchid said:
For some maybe, Luke, but not in our household. It's the sole topic of conversation for weeks leading up to it and is still a huge family day. I reckon lots of households and workplaces up and down the country still get heavily into it.
Click to expand...

With respect -I know an incredible amount of people who take Cheltenham week as annual leave to watch the festival at home,in the pub or in Spain which has become popular in recent years.I don't think I have ever gone out to watch the National.
I can remember waiting for well over an hour to get paid out my winnings on Aldaniti in 1981. I can remember the impossible queues in betting shops from opening time to get a bet on the National.I can remember the BBC coverage starting at midday and not wanting to miss a minute of it.I can remember every friend,family member and neighbour having a bet on the race.That has all disappeared along -it was once something that stirred the soul -now it is a valuable handicap between the Lincoln and Guineas.
I'm sure lots of workplaces run sweepstakes but they might also run one for the Eurovision.
Your family party is admirable-I believe family is the most important thing in life but realistically do you know anybody else hositng a party.
Last racing related party I hosted was for Breeders Cup in 2005 or 2006.
 
Last edited:
I send a message to Facebook pals every Nash day, reminding them of the race time and compelling them to watch it, lest they be bracketed as simpletons and mincers. I consider it me "doing my bit".

There are stacks of them that still have a bet on the race, despite showing absolutely no interest in racing at any other time of the year, and whilst it's no longer the 'stop everything else' event it once was, it's still a relatively popular distraction, based on my admittedly small pool of evidence. Perhaps we're being a little too hasty in forecasting its demise?

Insofar as this new rule is concerned, it feels like a solution to a problem that doesn't really need fixing. If Gigginstown have (say) seven in the race, it probably means we have a higher quality of animal running than would otherwise be the case; which makes for a better race and possibly less likelihood of injury to and/or death of participants.

I fail to see the benefit this new rule would bring; other than perhaps to owners of high 130-rated horses getting a run. Maybe some sort of 'Silver Nash' could be run over (say) 3m4f on the Friday for horses balloted out when Nash decs are announced on the Thursday. Anything entered in the Nash but not getting a run could automatically being entered in the Silver version on the Friday, with owners choosing to run or not run?
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Maybe some sort of 'Silver Nash' could be run over (say) 3m4f on the Friday for horses balloted out when Nash decs are announced on the Thursday. Anything entered in the Nash but not getting a run could automatically being entered in the Silver version on the Friday, with owners choosing to run or not run?
Click to expand...

I like the idea but I'm sure they only run one race a day over the National fences due to the difficulty of putting the fences back together again. Currently occupied by the Topham and the Foxhunters I think.

Suppose they could do it over the Mildmay fences.
 
LUKE said:
With respect -I know an incredible amount of people who take Cheltenham week as annual leave to watch the festival at home,in the pub or in Spain which has become popular in recent years.I don't think I have ever gone out to watch the National.
I can remember waiting for well over an hour to get paid out my winnings on Aldaniti in 1981. I can remember the impossible queues in betting shops from opening time to get a bet on the National.I can remember the BBC coverage starting at midday and not wanting to miss a minute of it.I can remember every friend,family member and neighbour having a bet on the race.That has all disappeared along -it was once something that stirred the soul -now it is a valuable handicap between the Lincoln and Guineas.
I'm sure lots of workplaces run sweepstakes but they might also run one for the Eurovision.
Your family party is admirable-I believe family is the most important thing in life but realistically do you know anybody else hositng a party.
Last racing related party I hosted was for Breeders Cup in 2005 or 2006.
Click to expand...

I think it's the case generally that betting offices are only a fraction busy compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

I recall in my younger days going into the bookies any midweek afternoon and it would be busy. Now it isn't even busy on a Saturday.

To be honest, I can't really say what it's like on GN day because I do my betting online,even getting the family to text me their bets so that I can put them on at better terms than the high street offices will allow and we settle up the next time we see each other.

Would I be right in thinking most of the people you know who take Cheltenham so seriously would be Irish or of Irish extraction? If so it would be entirely understandable that they take the festival so seriously but the festival itself is a four-day championships event whereas the National meeting is more of a compensatory festival with one really big race as the focal point so understandably of less interest to the uber-enthusiast.

I honestly don't know of many families who embrace National day the way mine does but I'm sure other forumites down the years have said they do something similar?

Does that really matter?

It's still a huge national event with big TV coverage.

Long may it continue.

GH, for the 'Silver' event to work I think they'd need to remove the restrictions at the lower end but it's maybe something worth considering. I think in the last couple of years only a dozen or so were eliminated.
 
Desert Orchid said:
GH, for the 'Silver' event to work I think they'd need to remove the restrictions at the lower end but it's maybe something worth considering. I think in the last couple of years only a dozen or so were eliminated.
Click to expand...

If those numbers are accurate in terms of the volume of horses being allotted out of the Nash, DO, then the proposal really does start to look like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
 
barjon said:
For me it’s both protecting the integrity of the sport in the eye of the beholder and encouraging a wider distribution of good horse.

For the first, the big trainers who swamp races like this might be as honest as the day is long, but the suspicion is always there that they have set out who of their number is to win with the others there as backup or to facilitate their chosen one. Even when a trainer runs just two horses, how often is it that the unfancied one comes in despite the trainer talking the other one up, or the winner down, beforehand? Maybe I’m too cynical, maybe not.

So far as the wider distribution is concerned it might be a little unfair on the big trainers, but a monopoly in any field rarely turns out to be a good thing.
Click to expand...



Every trainer that has a horse in the National, tries to get it there with its true handicap either, protected or hidden. Even the top weights get relief from the handicapper. This idea and that's all it is, has come about because they have reduced the participating number! An Elliott 10-horse qualification would mean almost a third of the field..

They are touting the idea of restricting the Trainers because no individual owner, McManus included, could field 10 that would meet all the criteria of qualifying, but you can bet they have thought it over with regard to culling the owner's entries. Restricting owner's entry surely brings them into the realm of reimbursing entry fees..
 
Grasshopper said:
If those numbers are accurate in terms of the volume of horses being allotted out of the Nash, DO, then the proposal really does start to look like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
Click to expand...

It's the equivalent of the Rwanda policy for the increasingly inept and fearful insititution that is the BHA. Policy by soundbite, designed to give an hours gratification to someone from Wiltshire that wrote a strongly worded letter to the Racing Post.

To borrow from the Bard.....

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.
 
an capall said:
It's the equivalent of the Rwanda policy for the increasingly inept and fearful insititution that is the BHA. Policy by soundbite, designed to give an hours gratification to someone from Wiltshire that wrote a strongly worded letter to the Racing Post.
Click to expand...

Or a trainer from Worcestershire who it sems would like to close the borders completely to Irish trained horses.
 
Chris Cook in the RP today says it is about fairness -that's the kind of argument I would expect from an 8 year old girl -not a writer from the industry paper.
 
If the rule applied to both trainers and owners I'd understand it. And if it was done in cooperation with the IRB moreso. Elliott, Mullins, JP, Giggi frequently school in public while denying other owners and trainers a run. They use these races to get half a dozen or more handicap marks down at the same time, and in some cases just run no-hopers to keep other horses out that the better chances might be vulnerable to. And if the rules let you do that then why not. The problem other owners suffer, and I know of at least one owner that this was a part-consideration when he pulled out of the game.

Ireland won't follow suit though because JP and Giggi put too much into the game, and the former is a God. The same with Coolmore on the Flat. And as has been pointed out Pipe used to do it. But that was 25 years ago, and while they should have acted then, it's no reason not to now.

Domination by one trainer or one owner in valuable races isn't good for racing, and we all know it. The problem here is the BHA have done their usual half-arsed effort at addressing the issue, and just look a bit foolish doing it.
 
At the end of the day, the horses risk their lives to qualify. They've earned their right to run in the race, irrespective of who trains them and how many they have in the race...
 
Maxbet said:
At the end of the day, the horses risk their lives to qualify. They've earned their right to run in the race, irrespective of who trains them and how many they have in the race...
Click to expand...

I think that misses the point Paul. I seem to remember everyone being fervently against Fergus Wilson running horses that were patently past their best in graded races. And as has previously been mentioned there was general uproar when Pipe did it in the Festival handicaps, including on here. The problem is the botched effort at fixing it from the BHA, who will look foolish when Elliott and O'Leary stitch them up.
 
The tide will turn again re stable strength as sure as night follows day.
Paul Nicholls referred to it on Luck On Sunday when Pipe blocked his horse running in a big handicap season finale at Sandown when championship was close.

Many years ago Grimes was entered in the Galway Hurdle , a race where the top weight carried 12 stone.
Had Grimes been set to carry 12 stone all the other entries would have been out of the handicap.
The possibility of the horse set to carry 12-7 was strongly muted.
JP went to meet every steward to stop them "breaking their own rules ", as he succinctly put it.
When the weights were published 12-4 was top weight.
Grimes did not run but one year later got into the Galway Plate with 10 stone and his rivals only saw dust.
Years later Captain Cee Bee had his rating dropped from 167 to 164 when entered for Galway Plate.
Eddie Harty was furious at this denigration of his stable star, arguing the original rating would discourage some from running out of the handicap.
We hadn't the heart to tell him his owner JP had caused the problem with Grimes all those years previously.
 
Nicholls isn't exactly squeaky clean -when Sporazene won the County Hurdle he had the top weight who was a non runner after running in the Champion Hurdle 2days previously.That race lead to the rules being changed.
He is no stranger to having multiple runners in big handicap chases.
 
Back
Top