Reply to thread

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.