Unedifying sight ?

S

Songsheet

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
3,217
Location
Somerset
I certainly think so - does NH racing no favours in my opinion.

Eider chase with just two finishers - and those two only just... positively clambering over the last two fences..
 
A dramatic finish but certainly not a glamerous one for the sport. Why run horses over extreme distances on bad ground?



.
 
Last edited:
Im no pony patter by a long chalk - but that final circuit was horrible to watch. Just have to hope that they are all ok after that slog. Measure of how bad it all was that even Comply told them to feck off at the second last!!

Mind you - the trainers and owners must have been happy to have run them in the first place,so their bad. (IMO)
 
Working at Lingers so didn't see any NH action - watched very perky higher-class and Listed Flatties instead, which was nice. I'm sorry to say I've found a lot of recent chasing miserable viewing - so many horses truly weak and desperate not to be faced with another obstacle, yet shoved at them nonetheless. The ground's been horribly sticky for ages, it seems - you only have to see how great clouts have been coming out of it everywhere, Taunton, Hereford in particular, etc., etc., etc. By the time the Bumper horses are trying to get round, they're going into pure mud as the grass has been scalped. You just look at the hooves of those returning and see the mud's right up onto their pasterns. Very few horses truly skip through it, and the last half mile sees the proverbial 'strung out like washing' - but washing that's studded with gobbets of grass and mud. As a spectacle, I personally find it dismal.
 
I am well aware that racing can sometimes be a hard game, but had to re-read the report in the RP. Watching on TV, saw a horse pull himself up exhausted before the last and believed on 2 had finished the Eider.
That horse was Morgan Be, who "stopped for a breather before the last", before clearing it to finish 3rd beaten 188l. Why on earth was that horse asked to do so? How unfair on him was that. He's obviously slogged round, nearly fallen over on the turn (I think it was him) and called it quits when he had no more to give.
Jockey should have jumped off and walked him home.
I have no problem a horse racing on heavy, especially if he is handled sympathetically enroute, but in this case, it was described as "as close to unraceable as you can get". Where is the wisdom in running a marathon chase or indeed any chase/hurdle in those conditions?
Really not pleasant viewing and something I hope I don't see again. Just pleased all returned safe, if knackered.
I'm not, to knick trudij's phrase "a pony patter", but am fair and it really wasn't nice. Rant over.
 
It was actually MINELLA BOYS who stumbled badly on the turn, S/r. MORGAN BE's jockey did pull him up but, presumably having a quick shufti around, saw nobody else was completing behind him, and shoved the horse for third place.

Just watched the ATR replay and if that trio of finishers doesn't deserve laurel wreaths all round, no horse does. Fantastic front run by COMPANERO - equally marvellous effort by GILES CROSS to give him something to think about. Otherwise, apart from the bravery of the horses, it was pretty grim viewing.
 
I too found this race unpleasant to watch in the closing stages but I find it hard to see that the course officials have done anything wrong in staging it.
Companero and Giles Cross made it very gruelling contest and those that could not cope were, or should have been pulled up. Does'nt Richie McGrath completing on Morgan Be deserve as much criticism as Jason Maguire's ride on Cool Mission in the week?
Once the race is off the safety of the horse lies with the jockey in these circumstances surely.
 
It wasn't just the Eider, though, that was unpleasant to watch, the 3m novice chase was very similar, with only two exhausted horses managing to scramble over the last and make it to the line.
 
I'll suggest that the main reason the meeting and the extreme distance races went ahead was because northern/Scottish trainers have lost so many meetings this NH season, that they're desperate to get competitive work into their animals, particularly any with a view to Cheltenham. In fact, desperate to get any competition, full stop. Owners may well be understanding that bad weather knocks out meetings, but by now even the most patient probably wants to see some action for his money.

I'm not sure how often - maybe in some cases only once - you can bottom the goodwill of brave horses like that, without them becoming sour to the trainer or jockey's attitude and thus sour to their racing. We talk about this or that horse being 'never the same since' and you don't need to ponder too long as to why. They may not have the sharp brains of chimps, but some will carry resentment about their treatment and will find a way to pay it back.
 
I agree that the race was not nice to watch, I was just praying that nothing died. :mad: But I have to hand it to the winning horse, he was so brave. As were they all.

I hear that the jockeys who finished the race have been banned for doing so. This seems very strange ...... surely it is the course who should have stopped the racing? I don't see how if the course was raceable before that race ( which in my opinion it was not) could it suddenly be deemed the fault of the jockeys that during the race it was found not to be safe?

Sad, for everybody. I know weather has played havoc with racing this season, but we must still be duty bound to prevent bringing racing into the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.
 
Where have you seen that info on the finishing jockeys getting bans, Isi? I can't find it on the RP online tonight, and it's a pretty controversial issue, I'd say. I can't see how that is logical - if the race was bad enough to warrant punishing finishing riders, then surely someone should've run out with a flag and stopped the thing?
 
A few years ago this would have been haralded as a great cavalier victory by both man and beast [think Red Marauder; even last years Midlands National was a bit of a slog to put it mildly]. Must be careful not to go too far the other way. Companero and Morgan B had been aimed at this race for a long time, I would imagine..soft ground plodders. This was their Gold Cup/ Grand National. Horses and jockeys were brave beyond belief, and it was a great training performance as well. Hasten to add that I am just thinking out loud about this.
 
Not sure RED MARAUDER's National was anything to rave about although I do very much accept that the horse was exceptionally tough and brave. Not sure that 4+ miles over some stiff fences is necessary to prove that point, though - bearing in mind how many horses die in the race.

Remember DARK IVY ? I do.... :(

Yes, I know it's what they're bred for etc etc - but I reckon abandoning the race wasn't an option not because of horse welfare issues but because of the racecourse's economic issues and crossing that line brings equine welfare very much into the spotlight.
 
The last thing we need, as racing fans, is to see accusations of the Coliseum raised, where animals are pitted against man-made difficulties to see whether they're 'brave' enough to survive. And what of the horses that can't complete? Does that make them cowards? I don't like the gladiatorial tone that race analyses often take, although I'm guilty of falling into those cosy cliches myself. Yes, they're brave - or perhaps just stupid - to keep going when their natural instinct would be to stop. Why do they? I've no idea. But if an animal is at the point of exhaustion when it gets to the line, I think we've gone too far in exploiting it for our pleasure or gain, just like spectators at the Roman circus.

We can drive ourselves to exhaustion all we want - we have the brains to make that choice. Driving any animal, not gifted with human intellectual notions of choice, to exhaustion is plain wrong, whether it's a brutalized Cairo carthorse, a brickfield donkey in India, or a well-maintained racehorse in the UK. Any animal used by us deserves humane treatment, and I think we're close to losing that in the rush to stage races at any cost, so as not to lose income.

Racehorses are bred to race, of course, but that doesn't mean that we should force that issue when commonsense and human decency should indicate otherwise.

(And before someone rushes in with "they stop if they can't go on" - that's not borne out by the number which need rehydrating offstage, or which grind to a walk to get home. They're supposed to gallop, not wobble, across the finish line. DEANO'S BEENO got smart long before his connections did - he began his own revolt against being hauled out again and again, and even the "he loves it" doughty KINKEEL drew the line yesterday. So, fine, eventually - after a vast amount of mileage on the clock - some will stop themselves. And is that something that adds to the pride or lustre of the sport?)
 
Songsheet said:
Not sure RED MARAUDER's National was anything to rave about although I do very much accept that the horse was exceptionally tough and brave. Not sure that 4+ miles over some stiff fences is necessary to prove that point, though - bearing in mind how many horses die in the race.

Remember DARK IVY ? I do.... :(

Yes, I know it's what they're bred for etc etc - but I reckon abandoning the race wasn't an option not because of horse welfare issues but because of the racecourse's economic issues and crossing that line brings equine welfare very much into the spotlight.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine insurance firms wouldn't pay out or something similar meant they had to go ahead.

Tbh the COC is far too involved in the business of running the racecourse, costs associated etc. to make an unbiased call and I'd prefer a team of say 10-12 people from the BHA make a decision in regards to the going and whether it's safe to race or not (note these should not be ex-jockeys or trainers but experts on ground and going).
 
krizon said:
The last thing we need, as racing fans, is to see accusations of the Coliseum raised, where animals are pitted against man-made difficulties to see whether they're 'brave' enough to survive. And what of the horses that can't complete? Does that make them cowards? I don't like the gladiatorial tone that race analyses often take, although I'm guilty of falling into those cosy cliches myself. Yes, they're brave - or perhaps just stupid - to keep going when their natural instinct would be to stop. Why do they? I've no idea. But if an animal is at the point of exhaustion when it gets to the line, I think we've gone too far in exploiting it for our pleasure or gain, just like spectators at the Roman circus.

We can drive ourselves to exhaustion all we want - we have the brains to make that choice. Driving any animal, not gifted with human intellectual notions of choice, to exhaustion is plain wrong, whether it's a brutalized Cairo carthorse, a brickfield donkey in India, or a well-maintained racehorse in the UK. Any animal used by us deserves humane treatment, and I think we're close to losing that in the rush to stage races at any cost, so as not to lose income.

Racehorses are bred to race, of course, but that doesn't mean that we should force that issue when commonsense and human decency should indicate otherwise.

(And before someone rushes in with "they stop if they can't go on" - that's not borne out by the number which need rehydrating offstage, or which grind to a walk to get home. They're supposed to gallop, not wobble, across the finish line. DEANO'S BEENO got smart long before his connections did - he began his own revolt against being hauled out again and again, and even the "he loves it" doughty KINKEEL drew the line yesterday. So, fine, eventually - after a vast amount of mileage on the clock - some will stop themselves. And is that something that adds to the pride or lustre of the sport?)
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, very eloquently put.

Kinkeel seemed unnerved by the responsibility of carrying my fiver yesterday.
 
Isinglass said:
I hear that the jockeys who finished the race have been banned for doing so. This seems very strange ...... surely it is the course who should have stopped the racing? I don't see how if the course was raceable before that race ( which in my opinion it was not) could it suddenly be deemed the fault of the jockeys that during the race it was found not to be safe?
Click to expand...

I said at the time that they were possibly in for a banning - even if they did win and come second and third, respectively. If a horse is tiring to the point of exhaustion it is in the rules that they must pull up and jockeys do get banned for continuing on horses that can barely clamber over the obstacles, as they should.
 
Back
Top