Thanks Alan
The stats still prove that it's possible to carry a big weight and win.
The reality is that these are handicaps and when horses get to the top of handicaps in whatever band they are always going to be more vulnerable to those that are less exposed. History tells us that.
In my opinion the Nationals are handicaps just the same as any other handicap and should be treated as such.
Realistically a horse stepping up from 3 miles to 4 miles is no different to a horse stepping up from 2 miles to 3 miles. If it's good enough and it get's the trip it can win. I'm not saying it's not difficult, but that's the point of a handicapping system that pushes horses beyond them and into graded races. If connections choose to take on a handicap off a big weight for the lure of half a million pounds they should do so on the same basis as every other horse.
The reality with The National though is that the vast majority don't get the trip and never would irrespective of what the handicapper does. Those classy types that do see it out have as good a chance as those off lighter weights that are attempting to do the very same. Connections are taking the chance that there horse gets round, sees the trip out and is good enough.
Nicholls tells us every year his horses will get the trip, and from countless entries he's only ever been right once! Yet Sherwood thought his horse wasn't ready for the race, wasn't sure about the trip and the ground, and even whether he had enough experience. As it turns out he was tailor made for the race! So why did Phil Smith gave him an unnecessary helping hand? How can he possibly know whether he's advantaged a horse or whether its made no difference, particularly when the trainers themselves have no idea!!! Is he Mystic Meg, because he's taking the crystal ball approach and it's just wrong.
The reason I introduced the other Nationals into the debate is that Phil Smith conveniently overlooks them, and only regards Aintree as different. Why would that be? It suggests the motive for doing so is to actively advantage higher rated horses to attract them to the race, rather than to level the playing field as he asserts. And that is precisely what I take issue with, particularly as there is no way he can prove the future impact of his approach in handicapping terms.
