The Road To The 2013 Grand National

Grasshopper said:
I have some sympathy for your position, HW, but question exactly how much further the course has actually been emasculated this season.

The fences have been softened for a good while (they've fallen-apart for years now) and knocking a handful of inches off some of them, isn't going to make a huge amount of difference, in the overall context of the race (imo).

It's still the ultimate stamina test, making it unique anyway, and I don't really think today's spectacle was more dilute than any I've seen over the last, say, ten years.

For as long as the chattering-class w*nkers are hogging the agenda, racing needs to be seen to be doing something. The Aintree Exec have the impossible job of trying to keep them - and us - sweet. Broadly-speaking, they're making a pretty decent fist of things, imo.
Click to expand...

Broadly agree, Grassy, though no fallers until the 8th fence must be unique in the race's history.
I've no axe to grind either way - to be brutally honest, it wouldn't be the end of my world if jump racing were banned altogether - but the race becomes less and less of a jumping test, and more and more a stamina-fest. Despite the extra watering to make the National course safer, times again show they're running races on that course quicker, which can only indicate the fences are treated with less respect than those on the Mildmay.
While I wouldn't pretend to know the answer (no one wants to see horses killed or injured), it seems inevitable that all this appeasement will eventually turn the race into a parody of its true purpose, and that's disturbing, for all those who see the race as something more than a spectacle.
 
Last edited:
I think the point is being seriously missed here . The racecourse is completely unconcerned about Animal Aid and such organisations . It is the fact that it was clearly becoming unacceptable to a much wider section of the public that horses were continuing to die in such numbers over the National fences that has prompted the changes.

Moreover, HW is selectively quoting Geraghty who also said the course rode brilliantly.
 
Indeed, Ardross - and that "wider section of the public" includes a growing number of people who follow racing, as this and other threads on the forum show.
 
Oh, and McCoy's take on it from his Telegraph column:

Sport, let alone an extreme sport, can never be completely risk free and though a couple of us were wearing ice-packs last night and no doubt a few horses had the odd scrape as a memento of Aintree, 40 men and 40 horses came back safe and sound.
Aintree have put a lot of thought, time and money into the changes and I do not think there was a jockey in the weighing room afterwards who was not happy with what they had done.
It is as much in our interest as anyone’s. The ground was perfect and even those jockeys riding proper good-ground horses who felt it was a bit dead for them accept that it will never ride faster than good to soft. Roll on next year and my 19th National.
Click to expand...
 
Ardross said:
I think the point is being seriously missed here . The racecourse is completely unconcerned about Animal Aid and such organisations . It is the fact that it was clearly becoming unacceptable to a much wider section of the public that horses were continuing to die in such numbers over the National fences that has prompted the changes.

Moreover, HW is selectively quoting Geraghty who also said the course rode brilliantly.
Click to expand...

If the wider public were to start getting concerned about fatalities at Cheltenham and the stiffness of the fences where would that bring us.
 
Ardross said:
I think the point is being seriously missed here . The racecourse is completely unconcerned about Animal Aid and such organisations . It is the fact that it was clearly becoming unacceptable to a much wider section of the public that horses were continuing to die in such numbers over the National fences that has prompted the changes.

Moreover, HW is selectively quoting Geraghty who also said the course rode brilliantly.
Click to expand...

I didnt selectively quote Geraghty.
How the course rode (ground, layout, start etc) is not to do with the quality of the fences. He specifically mentioned the easier nature of the fences. It is you who is trying to selectively ignore that statement.

McCoy is making the case for the easier fences. That is fine. However, it does mean he is recognising that there have been changes. Where the traditional challenge has been sacrificed for a more sanitised version. He is in favour of them. Good for Tony.
 
HawkWing said:
Maybe you should try to move with the times and not be so set in your ways!
Click to expand...


how big are the fences on there?;)

twatter...a sad domain for self obsessives imo..but whatever floats people's boats..people are free to do what they want..i have no problem with that...but it isn't really moving with the times is it?..telling someone what you had for breakfast that day;)

some would say racing forums are for attention seeking dicks...again i have no problem what any buggar thinks

what some people think about horses jumping fences also should not make any difference to anyone

but...a sport that has caring people owning an animal ...which many will love like a family pet..should never have to face more than the average risk of horse fatality in any race...so you HW ...have to accept changes
 
agree EC1. I think that the grand national is safer than the Mildmay course now. Got to hand it to the lobbies that have forced it. Hopefully they will look to another target now and leave the sport that I love to go what it feels is best.
 
EC1 said:
how big are the fences on there?;)

twatter...a sad domain for self obsessives imo..but whatever floats people's boats..people are free to do what they want..i have no problem with that...but it isn't really moving with the times is it?..telling someone what you had for breakfast that day;)

some would say racing forums are for attention seeking dicks...again i have no problem what any buggar thinks

what some people think about horses jumping fences also should not make any difference to anyone

but...a sport that has caring people owning an animal ...which many will love like a family pet..should never have to face more than the average risk of horse fatality in any race...so you HW ...have to accept changes
Click to expand...
it's just a tool for communicating about things you like. like this forum. about 50% of the stuff on my timeline tends to be about horse racing.

if i followed someone on there that went on about what they had for breakfast and nothing else there's an unfollow button that can be easily used.
 
just watched it

tbh Hawk Wing..if the national had carried on as it was i think these people would have eventually used it to get NH racing banned completely

you can see the way they argue that in their world everyone should be eating veggy burgers...no alchohol..no smokes...no fun..sex just to procreate...they would bow down to any challenge against the country and let us be invaded as it conlicted with their principles

if dumbing down a few fences gets these saddo's off the backs of NH racing then its a good thing
 
Grand. That is my argument.

McCririck was saying why shouldn't the birch fences at park courses be replaced by those with plastic cores. I think its a fair point. Alastair Down made the point that it has already happened. Well Refreshed at Haydock showed what the birch fences are made of these days.

But those who are saying that it is the same as it ever was, are wrong. I think it has gone too far and lost a key essence, others dont.
 
Last edited:
HawkWing said:
Grand. That is my argument.

McCririck was saying why shouldn't the birch fences at park courses be replaced by those with plastic cores. I think its a fair point. Alastair Down made the point that it has already happened. Well Refreshed at Haydock showed what the birch fences are made of these days.

But those who are saying that it is the same as it ever was, are wrong. I think it has gone too far and lost a key essence, others dont.
Click to expand...

i think cosmetic change hasn't ruined the race at all..but i do think that if nothing had been then NH racing would be gone in the next ten years...gone to far ..imo would mean the end of NH...as it is nothing much is different.

lets not forget that away from the straight the ground was probably Good..so horses weren't slipping about and what have you..that has coincided with the jockeys not going hell for leather..which imo has made more difference than anything to what happened early in yesterdays race.
 
EC1 said:
i think cosmetic change hasn't ruined the race at all..but i do think that if nothing had been then NH racing would be gone in the next ten years...gone to far ..imo would mean the end of NH...as it is nothing much is different.

lets not forget that away from the straight the ground was probably Good..so horses weren't slipping about and what have you..that has coincided with the jockeys not going hell for leather..which imo has made more difference than anything to what happened early in yesterdays race.
Click to expand...

I thought one of the main arguement against the Grand National having changed theory was the fact that Balthazar King gave an exhibition going down to Bechers first time. He seemed to be the only one going hell for leather. I do think the jockeys made a big difference and I think like encouraging them to pull up when in with no chance would have been the next measure I would have tried. Three horses went at the last when Mumbles Head refused yesterday. Just pull up.
 
HawkWing said:
Three horses went at the last when Mumbles Head refused yesterday. Just pull up.
Click to expand...

There were no fallers at the last. There were only two fallers in the entire race. I'm sure that's a record.

If you mean they jumped the last when in your opinion they should have been pulled up, that's just your opinion. Getting round is a big thing for some jockeys, owners or trainers. If the jockey feels the horse has at least one more jump in it at that stage why not go for it? I reckon a sizeable majority of jockeys would pull up if they felt it was the right thing to do.
 
Desert Orchid said:
There were no fallers at the last. There were only two fallers in the entire race. I'm sure that's a record.

If you mean they jumped the last when in your opinion they should have been pulled up, that's just your opinion. Getting round is a big thing for some jockeys, owners or trainers. If the jockey feels the horse has at least one more jump in it at that stage why not go for it? I reckon a sizeable majority of jockeys would pull up if they felt it was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Imagine if you were to read what I said and not jump in feet first. Assume that I know only two horses fell. Its a large part of my argument.

Mumbles head refused at the last, Geraghty fell off Roberto Goldback and landed on top of the fence and interfered with a third horse.

Refusals where the horses are so tired that they cant lift off to jump are the ugliest thing in racing in my mind.

Sunnyhillboy was the third horse who was interfered with by Mumbles Head refusal.
 
Last edited:
HawkWing said:
Imagine if you were to read what I said and not jump in feet first. Assume that I know only two horses fell. Its a large part of my argument.
Click to expand...

That kind of tone won't help you to be taken seriously on here.

You said three horses went at the last. That's not true.

In the first place, 'went' in racing terms tends to be a euphemism for 'fell'. In the second place, one pulled up, one refused and two unseated. So taking the widest possible interpretation of 'went' means that four 'went'.

The RP race report makes no mention of any interference to the two that unseated but that they did make mistakes.

Perhaps if you got your facts right before posting the argument could focus on the important issues.
 
What the unplaced jockeys said

Mark Grant - Soll (seventh): "That was brilliant. He's given me a great spin. He missed the Chair but recovered nicely from that. I thought going over the Melling Road we might get placed but it's great to get round."

Wilson Renwick - Tarquinius (eighth): "He got ground but he's a four-miler on slow ground and that was a bit quick for him."

Dougie Costello - Saint Are (ninth): "Beautiful. I think the experience will do him good. The ground just felt a bit dead and patchy on him and he has probably lost a bit of speed from last year."

Tom Scudamore - Major Malarkey (11th): "It was the thrill of a lifetime, I just couldn't go the pace but have never ridden a horse who has gone round Liverpool like that. He was superb. I just had to point him in the right direction."

Katie Walsh - Seabass (13th): "I had a good spin. He jumped super and crossing the Melling Road I thought I had a squeak but wasn't going as well as last year. He got very tired."

Henry Brooke - Across The Bay (14th): "It was brilliant - I loved every minute of it. The trip might have found him out - he might have lasted longer if we'd saved a bit more energy - but he was great."

Richard Johnson - Balthazar King (15th): "He didn't quite get home on the ground. It's still slow in places round there otherwise he jumped well and gave me a nice ride."

David Casey - Quiscover Fontaine (16th): "I got a great run but got a bad bump at the Canal Turn first time. He bottled it for a couple of fences which left me out of the race and I struggled from there on."

Ian Popham - Any Currency (17th): "I'm happy to get round though he was a bit tired at the end. I was badly hampered at the Canal Turn first time around and he got a bit detached but galloped on nicely."

Sam Twiston-Davies Imperial Commander (pulled up): "It was a great ride but he just stopped very quick."

Paul Townend - Quel Esprit (pulled up): "I got a good spin off him,."

Jason Maguire - Ballabriggs (pulled up): "He was probably just rushed off his feet early on. He's a National winner and you can't take that away from him."

Ruby Walsh - On His Own (fell 25th): "I don't know if we had any cahnce as we were too far out when I fell at Valentine's."

Mark Walsh - Lost Glory (pulled up): "My lad was never going so I looked after him and pulled up."

Paul Carberry - Chicago Grey (pulled up): "He's jumped very slowly. He's just a bit careful at these big fences which meant I got detached quite early. He just took too much out of himself with his jumping."

Martin Ferris - Becauseicouldntsee (pulled up): "I had a great ride round. He jumped well and travelled beatifully. I just got left behind as he tired."

Peter Buchanan - Mr Moonshine (pulled up): "I have got a great ride off him and he has jumped fantastic. He just hasn't got the trip."

Adam Wedge - Viking Blond (pulled up): "He was fantastic. He jumped well but just got a bit detached and a bit tired."

Aidan Coleman - The Rainbow Hunter (unseated rider): "I came down at the Canal Turn but I was getting a great spin until then. I had nowhere to go, there was bunching, and I came off him."

Andrew Thornton - Tatenen (fell): "I've got a bit of whiplash. I had a great ride over the first 11 but then a disagreement at the 12th."

Barry Geraghty - Roberto Goldback (unseated rider): "I had a good ride. He just struggled a bit on the ground but jumped well. I was going to complete but then Mumbles Head refused at the last and I ended up on the fence."

Robbie Power - Joncol (pulled up): "He jumped okay but the ground was a bit quick for him. He couldn't go the pace."

Niall Madden - Ninetieth Minute (pulled up): "He was never really going to be honest. He made a couple of mistakes and we had to call it a day."

Ryan Mahon - Harry The Viking (pulled up): "He gave me a nice enough spin."
 
Desert Orchid said:
That kind of tone won't help you to be taken seriously on here.

You said three horses went at the last. That's not true.

In the first place, 'went' in racing terms tends to be a euphemism for 'fell'. In the second place, one pulled up, one refused and two unseated. So taking the widest possible interpretation of 'went' means that four 'went'.

The RP race report makes no mention of any interference to the two that unseated but that they did make mistakes.

Perhaps if you got your facts right before posting the argument could focus on the important issues.
Click to expand...

Went doesnt mean fell. If I had wanted to say that three horses fell at the last, I would have used the word fell.

That you want to make a point of it, you assumed that I said fell, when I mentioned refused in the post. Keep digging though. Nor does it mean pulled up. Three went in the process of jumping the fence (fell, UR, Refused, or BD)

As for being taken seriously on here. Do you distribute notes with your aftertiming lectures?
 
I think Hawk should be commended for putting up their thoughts and trying to substantiate them which he/she has taken a lot of time to do.

Some people won't pick their nose unless there's a fee involved these days....

I don't know whether he/she is right or wrong myself but that's not the point.

I reckon what it all boils down to, is that more deaths would have lead to more pressure to stop the national.

And the question is whether in any event Aintree racecourse would have had to bow down to that public pressure in the end.???

If the answer is that they could continue to keep the old course regardless of whether Pope Francis wanted it changed then this pressure has called their bluff in a sense.

Making it a piece of cake to jump now is political correctness in every sense of the word.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top