• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

The 2025 Grand National

Outsider said:
Hewick is only 12/1.i can't believe that he's been backed with all bookies to make him that price.
Click to expand...
That hurdle race he won was not a good race by any stretch of the imagination

Shark Hanlon says he a stone better horse this year someone needs to tell him he's now a 10 year old and he's no Sea Pigeon

Should be 50/1 for the National
 
archie said:
Also, the firmer the ground the more it may affect tendons and joints in NH types.
Click to expand...
Is there statistical evidence to support this?

It may be that some say it's not needed and common sense dictates it must be so, but I've never seen the numerical evidence.

Moreover, horses racing in and out of false patches of overwatered ground isn't exactly risk free to my way of thinking.

The UK racing industry has fallen for the softer is safer line of thinking hook, line and sinker and seems Hell bent on delivering racing surfaces infirm horses can win on and then go to stud and breed (for both codes) more infirm horses - creating a spiral of declining soundness generation on generation.

All of that said, I accept the modern reality and my trio - your moral laydown tricast combo banker - of Intense Raffles (if you have backed anything else that ran in the Bobbyjo, check out the revised weights at Aintree, then try not to cry too loudly as it might disturb your neighbours), Stumptown and Iroko will all thrive on the inevitable easy surface.
 
Last edited:
Might And Power said:
'' Good '' safe jumping ground is not dangerous, tacky going hinders jumping and is potentially worse ..... as I've said they will aim for G/S on Thursday, will most likely water that even to hopefully maintain G/S but with NO rain forecast it will be close to Good come Saturday. The Going certainly won't be Quick.
Click to expand...
Having had 2 horses do a tendon on 'good' ground, I beg to differ. The word 'safe' never appears in the going description.
 
Ian_Davies said:
Is there statistical evidence to support this?

It may be that some say it's not needed and common sense dictates it must be so, but I've never seen the numerical evidence.

Moreover, horses racing in and out of false patches of overwatered ground isn't exactly risk free to my way of thinking.

The UK racing industry has fallen for the softer is safer line of thinking hook, line and sinker and seems Hell bent on delivering racing surfaces infirm horses can win on and then go to stud and breed (for both codes) more infirm horses.

All of that said, I accept the modern reality and my trio - your moral laydown tricast combo banker - of Intense Raffles (if you have backed anything else that ran in the Bobbyjo, check out the revised weights at Aintree then try not to cry too loudly as it might disturb the neighbours), Stumptown and Iroko will all thrive on the inevitable easy surface.
Click to expand...
You only need to look t the size of fields when the going is good to firm or firm and that all the evidence you need.

Some horses could gallop on tarmac and get away with it but they are few and far between.

They don't water for no good reason. If they didn't the likes of Cheltenham fields would be decimated
 
I was thinking more studies of all races on all surfaces, watered or not watered, and resulting injury rates over a decent time frame - I haven't seen the BHA publish anything like that and, without it, it's all supposition and anecdotal IMO.
 
I think one thing that is overlooked by some, is the fact that since the race distance has been shortened along with the modification of the fences is that the race is generally run at a quicker tempo. I don't know the stats ( maybe someone has the figures ) but how do the injury & death rates compare pre modification and after modification of the fences ?
The reduction in the number of runners appeared to be well received last year, but has that took some of the gloss off the race ? I'm sure everyone has their own views on that.
 
Shorter race, but more stamina needed to win it.

I doubt specialist 2m4f Chaser Gay Trip could have won a modern Grand National.

In his day, they hunted round the first circuit and only raced the second - if you settled, you could be an intermediate trip chaser and get home.

Now they race both circuits, any 2m4f chaser would be done by Valentines second time round, or maybe even by second Becher's.
 
Last edited:
Ian_Davies said:
I was thinking more studies of all races on all surfaces, watered or not watered, and resulting injury rates over a decent time frame - I haven't seen the BHA publish anything like that and, without it, it's all supposition and anecdotal IMO.
Click to expand...

This may link into a report in the Equine Veterinary Journal titled Risk factors for fatality in jump racing Thoroughbreds in GB ( 2010 - 23 ) which was published on 12 December 2024. It concluded that reducing the risk of falling and racing on softer ground could substantially reduce fatalities in jump racing.

It includes an analysis of fatalities linked to the official going.

starts/ fatalities per 1000 starts
Firm and good to firm 7830/55 7
good 53827/366 6.8
good to soft 33558/200 6
soft 32637/163 5
heavy 14070/52 3.7

In steeplechase racing, starts made in summer and by non-GB trained horses experienced higher fatality rates. In hurdling, maiden races were at higher odds of fatality.
 
archie said:
Sorry, I have to take issue with that. Every safety review that I remember has concluded that speed kills which is why they recommend:
- limiting field sizes. The bigger the field the faster the herd tries to go.
- requiring a certain level of experience in jockeys. Young bloods go for it with potentially catastrophic consequences.
- watering to produce good to soft. The quicker the going the quicker the horses can go.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with this, but I think in relation to the going, their recommendations are predetermined and not necessarily reflective of the evidence. As an example: After one of the worst days of Cheltenham ever in 2018 (on the Friday 4 horses died and 7 across the meeting) the BHA, not surprisingly, announced a review. I think somewhere along the line this expanded into a wider review into safety in NH racing. Although this wider review was a good thing overall, it didn’t appear to look sufficiently at the specifics of what went wrong at Cheltenham that year. An enquiry was needed into that. Watering took place before the event and then it rained. The entire meeting was run on a combination of soft/heavy. I still recall Jessie Harrington being interviewed before the final race (Grand Annual) that year and being asked about the state of the ground. She almost spat out a response that it was in a disgraceful state. I had a feeling of dread about the race and 3 horses were fatally injured in it. Curiously, the time of the race wasn’t that bad though. What I’m saying is the 7 deaths that year (and other horses never ran again after) were nothing to do with fast going (there was none) and reasons for the 7 deaths were never satisfactorily explained.

So my view is, that the solutions to making racing ground safer, may not be as simple as a one size fits all approach may suggest. For instance, trying to water for 3 and 4 day meetings is different proposition to doing so for a 1 or 2 day meeting. I think some courses require less watering for safety than others. Sandown is one of the worst for producing terrible ground, with rain following their liberal watering, yet it’s stiff uphill finish makes it ideal for slowing horses and limiting risk of injury.

If anyone is interested, I have attached (or at least tried to) the said review and the 19 recommendations it produced.
 

Attachments

Tanlic said:
That hurdle race he won was not a good race by any stretch of the imagination

Shark Hanlon says he a stone better horse this year someone needs to tell him he's now a 10 year old and he's no Sea Pigeon

Should be 50/1 for the National
Click to expand...
I've got 50/1 boosted to 55/1
 
pawras said:
Some extra gumpf on past Grand National winners

View attachment 24045
Click to expand...
Interesting that since they made changes in 2013 :-
- all the winners from 2015 onwards have never fallen previously.
- only 2 winners had run over a 4 mile chase previously
- all the winners from 2015 onwards have been no more than 9yr old
 
Last edited:
pawras said:
Interesting that since they made changes in 2013 :-
- all the winners from 2015 onwards have never fallen previously.
- only 2 winners had run over a 4 mile chase previously
- all the winners from 2015 onwards have been no more than 9yr old
Click to expand...
Looking at the winners age stat recently is interesting. It definitely helps to have a bit more spring in your legs if you want to win 😃. Although last year you could argue that experience was essential in order to be placed.
 
Alex said:
Looking at the winners age stat recently is interesting. It definitely helps to have a bit more spring in your legs if you want to win 😃. Although last year you could argue that experience was essential in order to be placed.
Click to expand...

I just checked and the age range for place only over the years is 7 to 13
 
I do genuinely worry that the two hugely fanciable ones this year, Intense Raffles and Iroko, are both just seven. Even though Noble Yeats busted a long-standing trend when he won at that age I just wonder if they have the physical strength to cope with the demands of the race.

Horses well known for their exploits in the big staying races have weakened noticeable in the GN at age 7, including Coko Beach and Vieux Lion Rouge.

I'd rather have them onside than not but it's eyes-wide-open stuff and they're not the types I'd actively encourage people to back.
 
I think it's time to bin once and for all any outdated notion this much-changed race is any different from any other staying Jumps contest nowadays.

It's a high-quality 4m2f Fixed Brush (dressed with Spruce) Handicap Hurdle.

The fences on the Mildmay Course, at Cheltenham and numerous other venues are more formidable.

Is it really any tougher nowadays than the Irish National (which Intense Raffles has already won)?

I stand by the notion it's a race for 7yos to 9yos nowadays - preferably trained in Ireland.

It's been more a race for 8yos and 9yos than 7yos the last ten years, but I'd rather be on a 7yo than one aged ten or more.
 
I get that, Ian, but it's such a tough test I think older horses, especially the ones with back class, have the physical robustness for it.

But I repeat, the race is only ever, bar Red Marauder's year, won by something that is very well handicapped.
 
I think from a betting prospective, the national is not just about finding the winner, a good return can also be made on placed horses.
 
I always used to back 9 year olds with a good weight for the race ( less than 11 st) , preferably running in it for the first time. I remember when Hedgehunter fell at the last as an 8 year old thinking he’ll be stronger next year and made a point of backing him. It’ll take me a long time to get used to the idea of 7 year olds winning and it does worry me what the race will take out of them, mentally and physically. But I guess, because of their age, they will be more likely to be well handicapped.
 
moehat said:
I always used to back 9 year olds with a good weight for the race ( less than 11 st) , preferably running in it for the first time. I remember when Hedgehunter fell at the last as an 8 year old thinking he’ll be stronger next year and made a point of backing him. It’ll take me a long time to get used to the idea of 7 year olds winning and it does worry me what the race will take out of them, mentally and physically. But I guess, because of their age, they will be more likely to be well handicapped.
Click to expand...
I had a similar view point, but increasing I am thinking weight may not be as important as it once was. I maybe again, focusing too much on last year's result.
 
Anything over 155lb is a negative for me, I wouldn't outright draw a line through but would have to have a lot of other points in it's a favour
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top