Grand National 2012- Carnage! What did everyone think?

[LaurenBay]

I haven't read all the replys on here, got to page 24 and gave up!! But heres my thoughts on the national. I don't like it, I didn't bet on it and never will. My family did, but thats their choice and not mine. However I do not think the GN should be banned, if that gets banned, then whats next?! I do however think there are a number of things they can change to make it safer! Such as making the jumps higher so the Horses and Jockeys are forced to slow down, keeping the ground softer and reducing the ammount of Horses in one race. If they must insist on having that many Horses in the GN they should split it into 2 races. Then say the first 10 from each race gets to go again in the final race (obv not the same month, as Horses need to recover)

 

[marmalade76]

I see, it would be interesting to see whether horses that gain the rating & then don't race for 11 months (I assume this is what's meant by a "national horse" in the papers) and rates of falls compared to those that qualify in the year before.

Is there anywhere that shows the odds just before the race for each horse? In compliance finished 4th at 100-1 but I wondered if the other outsiders where the ones that fell at early fences?
I think if this was the case then it would definitely be something to look into and a strong case for a smaller field.

Several outsiders finished.

Hello Bud 80-1 (7th)

Tharawaat 150-1 (8th)

Swing Bill 150-1 (10th)

Neptune Equester 100-1 (13th)

Midnight Haze 100-1 (15th and last to finish)

Full list of starting prices here :-

http://www.grand-national-guide.co.uk/grand-national-runners.php

 

[firm]

Some of the better horses though are not such good jumpers so less suited to the National then some of the lower rated horses. I watched Swing Bill (150-1) for example and he was really popping the fences for fun. So I don't think it is as simple to say only the better "on paper" horses should be in the race.

 

[Dab]

Some of the better horses though are not such good jumpers so less suited to the National then some of the lower rated horses. I watched Swing Bill (150-1) for example and he was really popping the fences for fun. So I don't think it is as simple to say only the better "on paper" horses should be in the race.

Agreed. The point was being discussed earlier about qualification, in that it is ratings dependent, but a horse could gain that rating 11 months prior and not run again until the National and this might be reflected in the odds. Together with a consideration that outsiders were less likey to finish, but this is not born out by the results.

Maybe they should reconsider the qualification and it be not so much ratings dependent, but based/tested on ability to jump around the National type fences, i.e qualification races. This way owners also get to see for themselves if their horse is up to the job.

Several owners with National rated horses have gone the 'test' route (and even that can be a diffcult choice) i.e. horse has jumped around the course earlier in the season, and then decided NO this is not a National horse.

There is much that can be done to improve the situation and lets hope that as many options as possible are considered.

 

[SeasonalSituation]

I'm going to join this now I think as I have read a lot of the posts from both sides and some just kind of get to me, and some actually have made me think.

I am a fan of the GN and for one hope it continues for the foreseeable future. The fatalties are a bad part of the GN, but the owners, trainers and jockeys know this race a lot better then I do, they know the risks and they still race. They try to miminsse the risks themselves, but obviously luck can get in the way to this (particularly According to Pete's fall).

The whole debate of "it's killing animals in the name of sport" is if I am honest, is really beginning to annoy me. How many who have said that support hunting? And I am 100% sure that none of the trainers will want the horse to be shot, but of course if its neck is broken, giving it a quick way out is the only way.

I know that the GN/RSPCA debate will get brought up each year, but I feel it should die down. The racecourse worked with the RSPCA on the course to try and improve it, they got it wrong. But the RSPCA did advise them. Personally to me, slam the fences higher and you'll see less fatalties.

 

[brighteyes]

I've followed this with considerable interest. On the one hand we have those who would argue that "It's only a horse", and on the other, those who hate racing, period. There also seems to be a middle road group, which I suspect holds the greatest number, and who I'd join.

Let's consider the facts, again;

The Grand National used to have a maximum of 64 starters, but because of the number of fatal falls, that was cut to 40 starters. In the view of many, that's still too many.

New safety measures have been put in place, but it seems to me having listened to the arguments of many, on here, that the situation has actually worsened.

Racing, particularly NH cannot continue, taking a careless approach to animal welfare, and that's what's actually under discussion. A poster, someway back said that they thought that 15 finishers out of 40 was quite a good result. Few, I suspect, would agree with that.

There's also some validity in the argument that for Eventing, if 2 horses out of every 40, who ran at Burghley or Badminton, lost its life, then something would be said. There'd be uproar. Racing and Eventing are two separate disciplines, I accept, but when both are run at the pinnacle of excellence, and one provides a disproportionate number of fatalities, then the world is entitled to ask questions, I feel.

On the other side of the argument, it has to be understood that owners, trainers, and jockeys, accept the risks, and do their best to mitigate the risks of death or injury to either horse or rider, and their views should be considered.

If I owned a Gold Cup winner, it certainly wouldn't have been put at such risk, unless of course, it was just a matter of money, with little thought for the animal itself. My heart goes out to the owners of A_t_P. They are, so I understand, devastated.

I'm a stout and determined fan of NH racing, but there are occasions when I find that we really do need to be looking at the way that some races are run. In short, we need to get our act together, before "authority" takes the options away from us.

Alec.

100% agree.

 

[marmalade76]

I did hear on the radio that since the safety measures were introduced over the last few years deaths have gone up not down.

So I wondered if a few factors were coming together.

Smaller fences so horses going faster.
Drier springs which mean the ground is harder and faster, horses more likely to fall at speed and more likely to do serious damage if they do. More horses get tired and pulled up in the mud.
Have the horses changed? Less old fashioned chaser types who can jump but are slower partly due to the smaller fences.

Not sure, but if the number of deaths have increased then whatever changes are being made are the wrong changes.

Ditto this.

Anyone remember the year Red Marauder won? Very wet and only four finished. IIRC, there were no deaths or serious injuries to horses or jockeys. Perhaps the National needs to be brought forward so there's less chance of fast going.

 

[The Virgin Dubble]

All those who are calling for the 'cruel' Grand National and its hideous fences to be banned, are you familiar with the following three horses?
Fox Hunt
Bronze Cannon
Grand vent

No mass public outcry over the above is there?

Sorry, but it's the same old, same old.

Every year there are calls for the National to be banned, and faffing about with it to appease the public, has created more problems than it has solved.

Raise the fences so the horses don't attack them at speed like hurdles, and reduce the runners. Got to be worth a try?

One death is one death too many, and it is unacceptable, but horses are dying all over the world, in desperately cruel circumstances, yet the National is the only one to attract so much negativity...

 

[Elf On A Shelf]

I've not read the whole thread because A. I can't be bothered and B. It would just annoy me.

The finishing time of the National isn't actually that much faster now than it was in Red Rum's era. For the last 20 years it has pretty much taken 10m30s-11m to complete the National. The main difference now from then is that the first circuit is going quicker. It always used to be that you hunted round and survived the first circuit. If you were still in the plate then you knew you had a good jumper and so you raced for the second circuit. These days they go like a bat out of hell into the first and gradually steady up as the race goes on. Thus producing the same sort of times as before just the opposite way round. This is also why I believe we have so many fallers now. Most go in the first circuit.

 

[dominobrown]

I havent comment on this thread but I have been reading it throughout,
I would say I am 'pro' racing but...
2 horses dying every year in the GN is not an acceptable number, but rather than banning it we need to find out, and a way to reduce the risk.
Firstly there will always be some risk, no matter what you do, even at the lowest levels of any horse sport. Deaths will always occur, even to a pony out in a field. And with a sport such as racing that risk will be increased. Although deaths are horrible, if occassionaly a horse fell strange or a freak accident occurs in the GN and the horse died it would be horrid but acceptable. To me if 2 horses died every 10 years in the race, instead of 2 every race would be a lot better. That kind of number is on accidental scale.
But to achieve this changes need to made to the race. I dont think anyone here is qualified to comment. I think a panel of the most experienced people in racing should be included such as P Nicholls, AP Mc Coy etc.
Also there is a lot of comments on how horses are not as tough as they used to be. I would tend to agree with this. I think an indepth study of why horses break down is needed. A study including THOUSANDS of horses, all over the world, living in different conditions, different feed, conformation, bloodlines, including scan, x rays etc. We have the science to do this, just not the money or effort, but as many said, racing is a billion pound industry. A few million pounds spent on saving thousands of horses lives for many years to come is nothing.
Finally looking at training techniques, P Nicholls schools his horses loads, about once a week, This is unusual. Intresting I dont think there were any fatalties in the Hunter chase over 2m4f which is a fairly fast race over the GN fences. To qualifly not only do these horse have to win a hunter chase, they all have (should have) hunted. Maybe this enables them quick thinking and agiligty needed to negotiate the national fences. Back in the day a lot of NH horse did hunt.
I do think if the fences were bigger it would slow them down a bit, and encourage a different style of jumping. Jockeys rode longer and jumped the fences in a much more defensive manner. There is a video of the race in in the 1930's on you tube, I think 1933 were no horses died. In fact only 4 horses died in the race during the whole decade of the 30's despite veterinary medicine obviously being basic to todays standards. With all these safety measures the race isn't getting safer. Why?
Even in the 1800's two of the deaths wer caused by a horse running back to the stables, one running through a barrier, both of which couldnt happen today. But although there were a lot fatalities, considering veterinary medicine the race is getting more dangerous, not less.

 

[dominobrown]

Race started in 1839, 18 deaths of horses between then and 1901. 2 of those deaths occurd when a horse ran through barrier, which were metal and wood then, plastic now, so that is a freak accident. Another happened when a horse an unseated horse fell on a road galloping back to the stables. That wouldn't happen today, so 16 deaths during the 1800's, 60 years of racing. Its a lot but bearing in mind the veterinary science and technology available then, as well there being NO whip rules etc.
11 horse's died since 2002. Somethings up here, bearing in mind we have less runners, smaller fences, etc etc,

 

[marmalade76]

I've not read the whole thread because A. I can't be bothered and B. It would just annoy me.

The finishing time of the National isn't actually that much faster now than it was in Red Rum's era. For the last 20 years it has pretty much taken 10m30s-11m to complete the National. The main difference now from then is that the first circuit is going quicker. It always used to be that you hunted round and survived the first circuit. If you were still in the plate then you knew you had a good jumper and so you raced for the second circuit. These days they go like a bat out of hell into the first and gradually steady up as the race goes on. Thus producing the same sort of times as before just the opposite way round. This is also why I believe we have so many fallers now. Most go in the first circuit.

I agree.

 

[Honeylight]

I have seen this happening (increase in fatalities) & I blame the RSPCA a lot, I don't give to them any more. It is clear something is badly wrong & a lot of it is to do with the alterations, the type of horse & the date of the race.

1. Bring it forward run it a week after Cheltenham or even the week or 2 weeks before. This will also prevent a dual winner.
2. Raise the fences again, I know this will not be popular with the RSPCA.
3. Put some bends in the course to slow the runners down
4. Provide more trials over the course. Why is it so little used any way, just 5 races a year?
5. Make sure the going is good to soft at least.
6. Have a panel of breeders, trainers, owners & jockeys to discuss issues.

A problem is the guy from the BHB seems to think the statistics are good; I must say I & most people on here don't agree.
A horrid thought & hopefully completely wrong is the RSPCA want more deaths so they can finish the race for good?

 

[Maesfen]

A horrid thought & hopefully completely wrong is the RSPCA want more deaths so they can finish the race for good?

That's exactly what I said earlier; it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

[lachlanandmarcus]

All those who are calling for the 'cruel' Grand National and its hideous fences to be banned, are you familiar with the following three horses?
Fox Hunt
Bronze Cannon
Grand vent

No mass public outcry over the above is there?

Sorry, but it's the same old, same old.

Every year there are calls for the National to be banned, and faffing about with it to appease the public, has created more problems than it has solved.

Raise the fences so the horses don't attack them at speed like hurdles, and reduce the runners. Got to be worth a try?

One death is one death too many, and it is unacceptable, but horses are dying all over the world, in desperately cruel circumstances, yet the National is the only one to attract so much negativity...

Those are the three horses who died in the one (FLAT turf) race in Dubai last week arent they? Fox Hunt in the first running and then they abandoned due to him being in the 'way' and then 2 more died in the re-run they decided to tack onto the end of the programme.

I watched the initial race and thought the track looked waaay too fast and dangerous, couldnt believe it when I heard they re-ran it and felt sick (having seen what happened to FoxHunt when I heard about the other two).

To lose three horses in one flat (!) race, thats going some in terms of bad decision making by the authorities, when two were avoidable at least.

Unlike the National (tho I think they need to beef up fences and slow the thing down and run it earlier in the year), the Foxhunt race was for me an example of unacceptable risk taking in the pursuit of money

 

[Miss L Toe]

Very interesting, and it would be good to see the stats on that one. What is also interesting, is that they were supposed to have narrowed some of the fences to allow 'run-off' areas? If so thats not working!!!!! Just less jumping room and more chance of being bought down!!!

Bring back the 'old-fashion' breed chasers.

The run off areas are there for safety, to help prevent a Foinhaven catastrophe.
There is no going back when it comes to breeding, there may be old fasioned chaser types around, but they won't win modern races.

 

[Wagtail]

That's exactly what I said earlier; it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Conspiracy theories eh?

 

[Miss L Toe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equine_fatalities_in_the_Grand_National
This indicates that more recent races have the worst fatalities.

 

[Miss L Toe]

Modern national horses are classier, fitter than in previous years, and are better schooled over fences, so maybe we need to run moderate horses from moderate trainers, would this work?

 

[mbf938]

Having read through lots of comments and views on the Grand National, the arguments from one end to the other appear to be:

Ban all horse sports, ban racing, ban the Grand National, remove the most dangerous fences, lower the fences, level out the drop fences, reduce the number of runners, leave the race as it is (to wait and see whether these two deaths were freak accidents) or increase the fence height to slow the horses down.

I personally love horse sports and racing, including the GN, so would not be too keen on either of the first three options. I think that reducing the number of starters would help as it would give horses more room to land and they wouldn't bunch up so much. Further modifying the fences may make things worse as the race was run faster according to some commentators this year because of previous modifications. The biggest fence on the course (the Chair) did not claim any horses as they jumped it slower.

However, even with fewer runners, there will still be horse fatalities. The other horse that died at Aintree 2012 broke its leg whilst racing on the flat, 5 horses died at Cheltenham this year, and at least 3 died in a flat race abroad this month. Horses also sustain life threatening injuries whilst show jumping, eventing, and numerous other horse sports so the key is to minimise the risk whilst appreciating that there will be accidents. I still remember the outcry over the two horses that died during the cross country phase at Badmintion a few years ago - happily, that hasn't happened since.

 

[Dab]

Modern national horses are classier, fitter than in previous years, and are better schooled over fences, so maybe we need to run moderate horses from moderate trainers, would this work?

How do you classify 'classier'?, faster, more stamina, better jumpers? Are they breed to jump or breed for speed? What is the essence for a good National horses?

Interested to know why you would question if moderate horses from moderate trainers would work?

 

[alsxx]

Not read the whole thread so sorry if I am repeating anything here. I too have looked through the stats on fatalities in the national and can't help but notice how since the mid nineties it seems to have got worse. Could this be because the course has been 'improved' in response to concerns over safety - better ground conditions, lowering of the fences and added take off boards/ground lines? Surely this all leads to horses coming into the fences faster, rather than backing off and taking a more cautious jump? I know some say the field should be reduced, but the field has been reduced compared to years gone by, where statistically there appears to be less fatalities. Why is that, given the field racing was generally larger and the fences 'harder'? I also wonder if modern training techniques play a part; now I know nothing about training a racehorse, but surely most horses train on excellent surfaces these days, over typical steeplechase fences - possibly leading to less careful technique? I'm sure I read somewhere that gone are the days a steeplechaser would be taken hunting, effectively teaching it to be an effective and useful jumper?

I don't like hearing a horse has been destroyed, but I do like racing and would hate for the national to go.

 

[Elf On A Shelf]

An interesting article that explains just why horses are put down on the track due to broken bones.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/sep/23/claims-five-broken-leg-horse?CMP=twt_gu

 

[Honeylight]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equine_fatalities_in_the_Grand_National
This indicates that more recent races have the worst fatalities.

There are some deaths missing on that list, a horse died in 1969 & in 1970 so there maybe more missing than that. Certainly though there have been more since the fences were lowered in the early 1960s & again in 1990.

 

[Dab]

An interesting article that explains just why horses are put down on the track due to broken bones.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/sep/23/claims-five-broken-leg-horse?CMP=twt_gu

Thanks for sharing. Good article.

 

[Miss L Toe]

How do you classify 'classier'?, faster, more stamina, better jumpers? Are they breed to jump or breed for speed? What is the essence for a good National horses?

Interested to know why you would question if moderate horses from moderate trainers would work?

Class horses: good horses often bred by top stallions and out of good mares, with a record of racing in top races.
.......... All racehorses will be allocated a handicap, in fact one for flat racing [if they run on the flat] and one for hurdles and one for fences.
The average horses will be 100 or more, and the top horses will be up to 165. In handicap races a top horse will have to carry more weight than a moderate horse, but in Group races all horses will [usually] carry the same weight. In theory a horse of handicap 130 will carry 30lbs more than a horse of 100.
I was rather joking about running moderate horses in a race with a pot of £250K, but in the past, moderate horses which were good jumpers could do well in the National, and in those days the race was more about kudos than cash.
The essence of a National Horse [not guaranteed to win!] able to travel well [gallop for four miles] and still have a bit left at the end, capable of jumping well, and brave enough to jump these fences. Some horse are good over standard birch fences as used in the UK, but only win when the course suits them [CD winners]

 

[Dab]

Class horses: good horses often bred by top stallions and out of good mares, with a record of racing in top races.
.......... All racehorses will be allocated a handicap, in fact one for flat racing [if they run on the flat] and one for hurdles and one for fences.
The average horses will be 100 or more, and the top horses will be up to 165. In handicap races a top horse will have to carry more weight than a moderate horse, but in Group races all horses will [usually] carry the same weight. In theory a horse of handicap 130 will carry 30lbs more than a horse of 100.
I was rather joking about running moderate horses in a race with a pot of £250K, but in the past, moderate horses which were good jumpers could do well in the National, and in those days the race was more about kudos than cash.
The essence of a National Horse [not guaranteed to win!] able to travel well [gallop for four miles] and still have a bit left at the end, capable of jumping well, and brave enough to jump these fences. Some horse are good over standard birch fences as used in the UK, but only win when the course suits them [CD winners]

Brilliant, thanks

But when it comes to Class, is it type specific? i.e. Can you classify a horse entered into the National as 'class' , if it only or many has 'class' flat parentage? *This is probably a very silly question, just interested*

 

[criso]

But what strikes me is whether you talk about class or flat or NH horses, there is definitely a 'type' that does well round Grand National course.

A few people mentioned Red Rum who was bred for the flat but wasn't very good at it, in fact was only really any good at Aintree.

Which makes me wonder, if the course is out of step with the type of horses we breed now, the way we train (e.g. taken hunting to learn to look after themselves) and the type of race that is run, then maybe sadly it is no longer valid.

Trainers and owners are not going to breed and train horses just for this race.

 

[Maesfen]

Which makes me wonder, if the course is out of step with the type of horses we breed now, the way we train (e.g. taken hunting to learn to look after themselves) and the type of race that is run, then maybe sadly it is no longer valid.

Trainers and owners are not going to breed and train horses just for this race.

The course has remained the same appearance and almost construction wise since it first started; it was always different which made it the unique challenge it is.
As has been stated time and time again, the horses that take part now are in the main, an entirely different kettle of fish to those that used to race in it. Those were always NH bred with bone and substance, many of them wouldn't have been out of place hunting and in some cases had enough bone to be a police horse type, I kid you not. Now, they are predominantly flat bred with the corresponding lack of bone and could get away with doing a riding horse class. If you look at the H&H article which gives the breeding, you'll see what I mean; years ago you'd never get the likes of Sadlers Wells and his ilk siring a National horse, it would have been a laughable notion as it wouldn't have been suitable for the course as it stood but now, with all the so called improvements plus the later in the year date so virtually guaranteeing good rather than heavy ground the lighter built animals have made an appearance which has altered a lot of things.

But and this is a big but, there are still many breeders, owners and trainers all striving to breed a future National type horse/winner but the more of a park type competition it gets the further away from its roots it gets which is a crying shame. There are still some decent NH stallions around and hopefully there always will be for the people that still have this dream.

 

[turkana]

The course has remained the same appearance and almost construction wise since it first started; it was always different which made it the unique challenge it is.
As has been stated time and time again, the horses that take part now are in the main, an entirely different kettle of fish to those that used to race in it. Those were always NH bred with bone and substance, many of them wouldn't have been out of place hunting and in some cases had enough bone to be a police horse type, I kid you not. Now, they are predominantly flat bred with the corresponding lack of bone and could get away with doing a riding horse class. If you look at the H&H article which gives the breeding, you'll see what I mean; years ago you'd never get the likes of Sadlers Wells and his ilk siring a National horse, it would have been a laughable notion as it wouldn't have been suitable for the course as it stood but now, with all the so called improvements plus the later in the year date so virtually guaranteeing good rather than heavy ground the lighter built animals have made an appearance which has altered a lot of things.

But and this is a big but, there are still many breeders, owners and trainers all striving to breed a future National type horse/winner but the more of a park type competition it gets the further away from its roots it gets which is a crying shame. There are still some decent NH stallions around and hopefully there always will be for the people that still have this dream.

Thanks you that Maesfen, I'm not a racing expert at all but I have noticed that you don't see many of the old fashioned chasers anymore, I do wonder if these lighter types simply aren't the right sort to be tackling the GN, maybe the race has had it's day, which I think is a shame.
I don't have an issue with a tough, challenging race but I do have a problem when it becomes unfair.
Many years ago somebody I know who was a big showing man bought an ex-racer & had much success in middle weight hunter classes - I can't imagine that happening now.
I had no idea that many NH horses now have flat racing blood in them, which explains a lot.