Took the back to lay option -was horrified at how long my saver took to get matched.
The Road to the Grand National 2011
- Thread starter Bar the Bull
- Start date
Took the back to lay option -was horrified at how long my saver took to get matched.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
You're right Bar, they wouldn't know they'd have four and a half miles to run. However, they can and could stop at any point - we've all seen horses pulling themselves up mid-race. Point taken though, although it must be remembered that these deaths could have occurred in a three runner novice chase, or in the field, or....you get the point.
M
Marble
Guest
Imo when people say things like this it just plays into that newspapers hands. If you think there's too much illegal immigration you're mail reader yes? Thank god I've got more intellectual property than to read my political views in a newspaper like some people do.
Last edited:
M
Marble
Guest
So what are you really trying to say here, Blazing Walker? Most of us are just animalsitic, sadistic feckers who put a punt before a horses life?
I'm just a lemming like everyone else, and back a horse in the nash for the saking of backing a horse in the nash. Taking it off the schedule tomorrow wouldn't particulary bother me I am not a horsey person living in the countryside anyway. RIP to both horses.
Last edited:
I'm concerned that the National used to take place a week or so earlier, but now seems to be when the weather is getting warmer and there is more chance of the horses suffering from dehydration. I know that it was a warm day when Aldaniti won, because it only seems like yesterday to me, but it seemed extremely hot there today and, even though the race went off as it started to cool down the horses still had all the preliminaries to go through. I love the National; I grew up with it and look forward to it every year, but I feel very uncomfortable tonight. Having said that, we had a spate of horse attacks round here a few years ago [I don't know if it's still happening because I don't have a horse these days]; we were told that it wasn't publicised for fear of copy cat attacks, so, when animal rights activists make an example of the National perhaps they should look elsewhere if they want people to vilify.
Well, it's the same every year with the National, in a way it never is about any other race (even with the bollocks that was the Eider Chase this year). There are debacles, there are fatalities, there are sometimes bad jockey injuries, and there's always someone banging on about how cruel it is versus someone else saying the horses are only doing what they want to do. It's controversial: it's loved, it's hated. So, with so much division about it, it's probably best to look at objective practical possibilities, if there are any.
It's a superb spectacle, but there are a lot of fallers every year. I do think that speed will always play a part in how bad a smash you go - that's hardly Nuclear Physics, is it? Pulling the first jump closer to the start, as suggested earlier, could be quite a useful tool, as clearly the starter is always ignored, no matter how earnest his pleas pre-race.
There's always a problem with being BD, no matter how large or small the field, as Shadow says. If you're up someone's bum and they fall in front of you, the least that will happen is hampering, worse is getting BD, and worst is getting BD with a fatal injury to your horse. I don't think it's that the size of the course can't cope with a charge by 40 horses: it's a huge course and by the time they're at Canal Turn, they've sorted out most of the positioning.
Practically speaking, I'd opt for bringing the first closer to the start and the second closer to the first, so that nobody can build up a head of speed until the horses have got their eye in and positions have been sorted out a bit.
As far as Becher's is concerned, yes, you could lop another six inches off the top, but the problem with reducing jump heights is that you will get eager-beavers, equine and rider, wanting to tank it even more. The surprise this year was the Chair - previously a real brute, but now claiming very little. Valentine's - no problem. Canal Turn - impressively ridden, although one UR some way after landing.
So, in that case, the idea suggested to bring forward the first looks quite sensible to me, and for good measure, I'd bring the second in closer, too, so that accuracy, rather than just flying at them, really counted.
Food for thought, anyway.
It's a superb spectacle, but there are a lot of fallers every year. I do think that speed will always play a part in how bad a smash you go - that's hardly Nuclear Physics, is it? Pulling the first jump closer to the start, as suggested earlier, could be quite a useful tool, as clearly the starter is always ignored, no matter how earnest his pleas pre-race.
There's always a problem with being BD, no matter how large or small the field, as Shadow says. If you're up someone's bum and they fall in front of you, the least that will happen is hampering, worse is getting BD, and worst is getting BD with a fatal injury to your horse. I don't think it's that the size of the course can't cope with a charge by 40 horses: it's a huge course and by the time they're at Canal Turn, they've sorted out most of the positioning.
Practically speaking, I'd opt for bringing the first closer to the start and the second closer to the first, so that nobody can build up a head of speed until the horses have got their eye in and positions have been sorted out a bit.
As far as Becher's is concerned, yes, you could lop another six inches off the top, but the problem with reducing jump heights is that you will get eager-beavers, equine and rider, wanting to tank it even more. The surprise this year was the Chair - previously a real brute, but now claiming very little. Valentine's - no problem. Canal Turn - impressively ridden, although one UR some way after landing.
So, in that case, the idea suggested to bring forward the first looks quite sensible to me, and for good measure, I'd bring the second in closer, too, so that accuracy, rather than just flying at them, really counted.
Food for thought, anyway.
Last edited:
Is it not like this most years? There is nothing wrong with the National. Take Cheltenham a few years back when five or six horses died on the track and it was due to fast ground. Uproar. Next year, no deaths!! Fast ground means they go faster and therefore the risks increase, in any race and not just the National. No-one likes extremes, like Red Marauder's year, but that doesn't mean the race is wrong.
The only part of Bar's sentence that sounds like a criticism is 'jockeys going too quickly'. The course is large enough to accommodate the 40, sometimes it's fast ground (but when it's boggy, of course there's wailing and gnashing of teeth that the horses were exhausted and suffering, so you can't ever win on that point), we all know it's an extreme distance, that's why extreme distance horses take part, I'd hope the crowd would be roaring - deathly silence would be awfully depressing - and yes, large fences - which can still be brushed through. They're not solid like Sandown's (although KAUTO STAR minced even those), and if you make them significantly smaller, you'll just get more speed and attempts to hurdle them.
There were three fatalities at one meeting at Plumpton just two meetings ago, and yet news like that in 'Retirements and Departures' barely raises a murmur. NH horses are killed every week - at one point last year, every day. Let's get a sense of perspective on this race, please.
I find the disproportionate amount of horses killed racing each year belong to NH animals - it got so bad last year that I just about gave up watching. In fact, I restricted myself to hurdles, then watched as two or three died in rotational falls in that game, too. I don't always agree with 'if you don't like it, don't watch it' because then no progress would be made in improvements. You have to see what happens in order to discuss why and how and then, if you feel it's helpful, to write constructively to the BHA about it. Clearly, authorities have listened over the years, as there've been improvements at Aintree and Cheltenham, with much safer racing at the latter this year.
There were three fatalities at one meeting at Plumpton just two meetings ago, and yet news like that in 'Retirements and Departures' barely raises a murmur. NH horses are killed every week - at one point last year, every day. Let's get a sense of perspective on this race, please.
I find the disproportionate amount of horses killed racing each year belong to NH animals - it got so bad last year that I just about gave up watching. In fact, I restricted myself to hurdles, then watched as two or three died in rotational falls in that game, too. I don't always agree with 'if you don't like it, don't watch it' because then no progress would be made in improvements. You have to see what happens in order to discuss why and how and then, if you feel it's helpful, to write constructively to the BHA about it. Clearly, authorities have listened over the years, as there've been improvements at Aintree and Cheltenham, with much safer racing at the latter this year.
Last edited:
Cybrandian
Apprentice
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 59
Bar The Bull absolutely on the money here IMO. A bad situation made worse by terrible TV presentatiorn.
I'm definitely one of those who believes horses are horses and they do what they do. And I loved the Grand National.
Changes have been made constantly over the last 24 years. Fences smaller. Escapes routes. Much, much better horses in the race (remember the yaks who used to get in with 8-6 and 00UU-F-U against their name)?
And we still have the same death rate in the race. It can't carry on, and anyone on this thread snearing at the Daily Mail as if they're the problem - well that's public opinion and if you think the sport can carry on, you're going the way of foxhunting.
I'm definitely one of those who believes horses are horses and they do what they do. And I loved the Grand National.
Changes have been made constantly over the last 24 years. Fences smaller. Escapes routes. Much, much better horses in the race (remember the yaks who used to get in with 8-6 and 00UU-F-U against their name)?
And we still have the same death rate in the race. It can't carry on, and anyone on this thread snearing at the Daily Mail as if they're the problem - well that's public opinion and if you think the sport can carry on, you're going the way of foxhunting.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
A word for State of Play. He was fooking miles back jumping the last and managed to get fourth. Great effort.
Yes, that was an amazing effort, Euro, and he's collected a very handsome pay packet for that. The horse who was really sparkling for me was MAJESTIC CONCORDE - I thought he looked utterly superb up front and it was just really bad luck that he propped after the second Canal Turn and let fly with his jockey (who, until then, had been riding exquisitely). I think he'd have stayed on to be in the very considerable money (down to 8th place) if he could've stayed on board.
Unfortunately, this is the race the man in the street will talk about if you ask him about horse racing. That fact that it's atypical is irrelevant.
Times have changed, sadly and we have instant media attention on just about everything we do. If we take the view that horse fatalities are an inevitable part of this race - and we do - then be prepared to have to defend your right to stage NH racing in the future very hard.
Remember, those of who use this site are pretty much steeped in racing as a sport and what do we all say when there's been a big race that has gone exceptionally well ? Oh yes "Fantastic race - and no casualties , either" !!
It is time we addressed this race again and, as has been suggested above, change the placings of the fences in order to slow down that initial over-enthusiastic rush and also reduce the field to 30 maximum, not only has the sport demonstrated a responsible attitude but it should actually improve the quality of this race even more.
As to the Daily Nazi - over the years this newspaper has changed to represent everything that is not only anti racing but anti countryside in a big way. They pay the waste of space that is Liz Jones for a start and have done more to damage farming and racing than any other newspaper.
What would also be really, really useful would be to try and gather support to boycott the paper throughout racing for a start!
Times have changed, sadly and we have instant media attention on just about everything we do. If we take the view that horse fatalities are an inevitable part of this race - and we do - then be prepared to have to defend your right to stage NH racing in the future very hard.
Remember, those of who use this site are pretty much steeped in racing as a sport and what do we all say when there's been a big race that has gone exceptionally well ? Oh yes "Fantastic race - and no casualties , either" !!
It is time we addressed this race again and, as has been suggested above, change the placings of the fences in order to slow down that initial over-enthusiastic rush and also reduce the field to 30 maximum, not only has the sport demonstrated a responsible attitude but it should actually improve the quality of this race even more.
As to the Daily Nazi - over the years this newspaper has changed to represent everything that is not only anti racing but anti countryside in a big way. They pay the waste of space that is Liz Jones for a start and have done more to damage farming and racing than any other newspaper.
What would also be really, really useful would be to try and gather support to boycott the paper throughout racing for a start!
Gaz's Way De Solzen
Apprentice
It seems that the Daily Mail have updated their article and more photos are within the article, in comparison to yesterday.
Miesque
At the Start
Interestingly the Irish coverage (RTE) explained exactly what was going on down to why they cool them out/use oxygen/loosen girths etc. They were very quick to pick up them coming in seperately and to explain to the public why.
Muttley
At the Start
The fundamental difference between races run over the Grand National course and those run anywhere else in the UK and Ireland is that we KNOW beforehand that we are going to see a very high number of fallers. This season, 30 runners in the Topham resulted in 11 fallers, 2 unseated riders and 1 brought down, 22 runners in the Foxhunters gave us 5 fallers, 3 unseated riders, 1 brought down and 1 pulled up and the Becher Chase in November had 17 runners of which 7 fell and 3 unseated. The GN itself had 11 fallers, 2 brought down, 3 unseats and 5 pulled up. Fallers = fatalities, in some measure.
Whilst I appreciate Shadow Leader's point that you can't make a horse do something it doesn't want to do, I'd suggest that horses have a limited understanding of "choice". I suspect that in a race situation, given the choice between stopping and going with the rest of the field the herd instinct often prevails, even over fear and discomfort.
Last edited:
Muttley, I don't disagree with your statement that we expect to see fallers throughout the Aintree meeting, but the objective now should be, surely, to examine the reasons as was done regarding the very unacceptable number of fatal falls at Cheltenham, and try to reduce them?
Overall, NH needs to look very carefully at its stats. The Eider Chase was an abomination to watch, as I'm sure you'll agree. That wasn't run in anything like yesterday's heat or over the same challenging obstacles, but it was a disgraceful display of man forcing beast to the extremes of its willpower.
However, when I say perspective, I mean put it into the perspective of a single field of 40 and two fatal falls. There were barely that number of runners in an entire meeting at Plumpton, and there were three fatalities.
It's more a question of the ratio than the number of fatalities. In fact, to be brutal, I'd say that 'just' two horses dead out of 40 horses over more than 4 miles is a good statistic. That's the equivalent of a more average 10-runner chase in the UK over 2m 2f running FOUR TIMES and losing 'only' two horses. I want to ask you if you wouldn't consider that a bit of a miracle? I would!
And to add to those thoughts, I'd say that a high number of Fs and BDs doesn't always mean 'fatal'. Falls, BDs and SUs are going to occur as long as you place obstacles in front of horses - fact. If you don't want any of these to result in fatalities, then you have to ban NH racing. You cannot soften the fences as they did in Australia, since, as we know from footage there, they encouraged much more speed and devastating rotational falls.
If you go hunting, where once again horses are caught up in a scenario similar to a chase (in that it's a herd, rather than a singleton against the clock like eventing), both you and your horse stand a chance of falling and either of you suffering a serious injury or fatality. There are probably as many human fatalities or resultant paraplegics out of the hunting field as there are in eventing, but NH has nowhere near those sort of figures. I'd say that more work riders suffer devastating injuries than NH's professional jockeys. BUT - dicker around making the fences 'easier' and you know they're going to tank them, with the chance of hitting the ground much harder and incurring much worse injuries than now. So I'd say don't fool around with the fences themselves at all. What you could do in the National, if you really don't like the race, is to reduce the level of drops, although they're still nothing like the Taxis in Velka Pardubice, and many of the runners there amazingly don't fall at that.
Overall, NH needs to look very carefully at its stats. The Eider Chase was an abomination to watch, as I'm sure you'll agree. That wasn't run in anything like yesterday's heat or over the same challenging obstacles, but it was a disgraceful display of man forcing beast to the extremes of its willpower.
However, when I say perspective, I mean put it into the perspective of a single field of 40 and two fatal falls. There were barely that number of runners in an entire meeting at Plumpton, and there were three fatalities.
It's more a question of the ratio than the number of fatalities. In fact, to be brutal, I'd say that 'just' two horses dead out of 40 horses over more than 4 miles is a good statistic. That's the equivalent of a more average 10-runner chase in the UK over 2m 2f running FOUR TIMES and losing 'only' two horses. I want to ask you if you wouldn't consider that a bit of a miracle? I would!
And to add to those thoughts, I'd say that a high number of Fs and BDs doesn't always mean 'fatal'. Falls, BDs and SUs are going to occur as long as you place obstacles in front of horses - fact. If you don't want any of these to result in fatalities, then you have to ban NH racing. You cannot soften the fences as they did in Australia, since, as we know from footage there, they encouraged much more speed and devastating rotational falls.
If you go hunting, where once again horses are caught up in a scenario similar to a chase (in that it's a herd, rather than a singleton against the clock like eventing), both you and your horse stand a chance of falling and either of you suffering a serious injury or fatality. There are probably as many human fatalities or resultant paraplegics out of the hunting field as there are in eventing, but NH has nowhere near those sort of figures. I'd say that more work riders suffer devastating injuries than NH's professional jockeys. BUT - dicker around making the fences 'easier' and you know they're going to tank them, with the chance of hitting the ground much harder and incurring much worse injuries than now. So I'd say don't fool around with the fences themselves at all. What you could do in the National, if you really don't like the race, is to reduce the level of drops, although they're still nothing like the Taxis in Velka Pardubice, and many of the runners there amazingly don't fall at that.
Last edited:
Would agree with Mutley's take on this.
As the race is a handicap, surely there are additonal conditions of entry that might be brought in ? No horses with F in their previous two seasons, maybe (excluding brought downs, of course), or P ? Horses to have raced at least three or four time each of last three seasons ? To have won once in those three seasons over an extended distance of more than 3m4f ? Max 30 runners as already mentioned and move first three fences closer to start, maybe ?
I wouldn't want to see the fences altered - I don't think they're the problem at all - it's speed, sheer numbers and over-excited jockeys with a few slightly sub standard horses as well that are the root cause of problems with this race.
As the race is a handicap, surely there are additonal conditions of entry that might be brought in ? No horses with F in their previous two seasons, maybe (excluding brought downs, of course), or P ? Horses to have raced at least three or four time each of last three seasons ? To have won once in those three seasons over an extended distance of more than 3m4f ? Max 30 runners as already mentioned and move first three fences closer to start, maybe ?
I wouldn't want to see the fences altered - I don't think they're the problem at all - it's speed, sheer numbers and over-excited jockeys with a few slightly sub standard horses as well that are the root cause of problems with this race.
I don't know the stats, but I'd guess that the slower the ground at Aintree the fewer finishers, but the faster the ground the more casualties. They might need to review their watering policy for the National course.
The suggestions about moving certain of the fences also sound sensible to me.
The suggestions about moving certain of the fences also sound sensible to me.
Songy, have you looked at horses' form stats? There can't be one chaser - and that includes the likes of DENMAN and KAUTO STAR - who haven't got an 'F' in their past two seasons' form! Blimey, it's beginning to sound a bit like an equine variation on the Aryan superman!
Once again, if you introduced such a rule, you'd have to look at why those falls occurred - sometimes nothing more errant than being cut up on take-off or landing by a loose horse or a careless other rider, or the ground slipping, or getting caught up in his own brushing boot.
I'm sorry if I sound unusually cold about this issue, but two fatals out of 40 horses over 30 jumps (technically this year) over four miles is, in ratio, something you see repeated again and again throughout jumps racing's now much-extended period of activity (I can't bring myself to use the term 'season' any more). If you're going to be unhappy about this, then you really ought to be deeply unhappy for all of the other NH horses killed in action throughout every year.
So, you reduce numbers, you fiddle about with the fences again, and you still get fatalities. What next? Just do away with the race and then start fussing about the amount of fatalities still incurred in the rest of jumps racing? So, ab reductio ad absurdem, just finish with it altogether. Stop it, full stop. Never mind the false stat of offing 5,000 TBs a year - you can start by the mass 'cull' of thousands more, and thousands of people out of jobs forever. Never mind, the yards can be turned into very nice housing estates or theme parks.
It is a dangerous myth to think that any jumps race can be 'relatively' safe, or any Flat race, or any activity on horseback. No horsey activity is without danger, which I know Songsheet knows very well from the amount of times she's been barged and bashed even by sweet little foals! By the time I was 13, I knew of three young people in my town or nearby killed by one gallops fall, and two with their ponies. True, one was dragged to death after stupidly tying herself to the pony's headcollar rope, but it just all adds up to the dangers of being around equines. Tony McCoy said in a recent interview that he never trusts any horse he's on, and he's right. Complacency is a great killer in any sphere. To complement that, I'd say I wouldn't trust any track, either. There's always a bit the divoters have missed, or a part that's overwatered, or even a bit where the grubs have eaten the grass roots - think of the surprise fatality at Chepstow. It's not ever going to be a safe activity, any more than abseiling or caving.
Once again, if you introduced such a rule, you'd have to look at why those falls occurred - sometimes nothing more errant than being cut up on take-off or landing by a loose horse or a careless other rider, or the ground slipping, or getting caught up in his own brushing boot.
I'm sorry if I sound unusually cold about this issue, but two fatals out of 40 horses over 30 jumps (technically this year) over four miles is, in ratio, something you see repeated again and again throughout jumps racing's now much-extended period of activity (I can't bring myself to use the term 'season' any more). If you're going to be unhappy about this, then you really ought to be deeply unhappy for all of the other NH horses killed in action throughout every year.
So, you reduce numbers, you fiddle about with the fences again, and you still get fatalities. What next? Just do away with the race and then start fussing about the amount of fatalities still incurred in the rest of jumps racing? So, ab reductio ad absurdem, just finish with it altogether. Stop it, full stop. Never mind the false stat of offing 5,000 TBs a year - you can start by the mass 'cull' of thousands more, and thousands of people out of jobs forever. Never mind, the yards can be turned into very nice housing estates or theme parks.
It is a dangerous myth to think that any jumps race can be 'relatively' safe, or any Flat race, or any activity on horseback. No horsey activity is without danger, which I know Songsheet knows very well from the amount of times she's been barged and bashed even by sweet little foals! By the time I was 13, I knew of three young people in my town or nearby killed by one gallops fall, and two with their ponies. True, one was dragged to death after stupidly tying herself to the pony's headcollar rope, but it just all adds up to the dangers of being around equines. Tony McCoy said in a recent interview that he never trusts any horse he's on, and he's right. Complacency is a great killer in any sphere. To complement that, I'd say I wouldn't trust any track, either. There's always a bit the divoters have missed, or a part that's overwatered, or even a bit where the grubs have eaten the grass roots - think of the surprise fatality at Chepstow. It's not ever going to be a safe activity, any more than abseiling or caving.
Last edited:
Whoa, hang on - my mistake for not specifying a specific amount and I should have put two or more 'F's or 'P's but in addition - I am only referring to this race, not any other NH race. This isn't like any other NH race, is it, so maybe there should be far more stringent entry requirements than there are.
Oh, but hang on a minute - that would take several mill off the betting revenues, wouldn't it, making the race less of a bleeding lottery, so maybe that's another welfare consideration that won't make it.
As I said in my very first post, each to their own. There are some farming issues I am involved in that many folk wouldn't agree with too - it's all down to what your own conscience is happy accepting.
I agree with that. whether on the road or in race, speed kills!
Last edited:
chroniclandlord
Senior Jockey
No self respecting cat would use it.
You say that, but then in the softest ground national of recent years - 1998 - three horses died. All by the sixth. Pashto, Do Rightly [at the killer 4th fence...I'll keep banging this drum] - and then Griffins Bar at the fifth [although that horse had run in the Topham 48 hours earlier - mad decision to run him again]...
Whatever the ground, the general theme is that the cavalry charge at the start is where the danger is.
Although, in Mr Frisk's record breaking National, the two casualties came at the Canal Turn [Roll-A-Joint] and then poor old Hungary Hur broke his leg at the start of the second circuit, which seemed a freak incident as much as anything.
40 horses over the first six fences is always going to be dangerous. People are talking about the 1st and 2nd - but it's generally the 4th, 5th, 6th where the issues are. Maybe they need spacing out after the ditch to give horses a little mini mini mini breather before the 4th. I've been trying to figure out why that fence causes so much trouble, and one thing I noticed is that the spectator area on the banks - with all the noise etc - ends after the 3rd fence. The 4th is the first one 'in the country' as such so maybe at the same pace, without as much crowd noise, the horses switch off or something. Doesn't make sense, but that's always the problem fence.