GRAND NATIONAL 2013

One swallow doesn't make a summer. Think we will have to wait a few more years to see if it has worked.
I thought it lacked any excitement, maybe to do with the change in coverage, the camera work was appalling & I couldn't see what was going on at all. The fences did look tiny, just hurdles covered in clippings from a leylandii.
 
Clodagh said:
I can see it had to happen as the RSPCA seem to run Aintree but what a shame.
Click to expand...

Sadly, Gavin bloody Grant still isn't happy.
'23 "failures to complete" should mean a smaller field next year' he put on Twitter.
He also complained in the Guardian that 'that a number of horses appeared very tired towards the end of the race'.

There's no pleasing some, is there? :mad:
 
The fences down the back straight by Valentines etc looked huge but the first few didn't look quite as big but that may have just been the camera angle and probably still something I wouldn't want to have to jump unless riding something like a v good hunter!

Did any one see the horse catchers? To me it looked like they were outside the course where the ambulances etc go so how were they meant to catch horses?! Sorry if I'm being dense!

Main thing is they were all safe.
 
Clodagh said:
particulary if everyone else had gone first so the jumps were only 2' high.
Click to expand...

I am fairly sure that I saw one horse on the second circuit gallop straight through a fence like it was a flattened hurdle. There were a few others that took no jumping at all.
Not necessarily saying it's a good or bad thing, but some of the fences were so lacking in substance that they were literally demolished.
 
Horse catchers were either side of every fence plus mounted horse catchers which very very well throughout the three days dotted around.
I'm not really sure what everyone is going on about saying the fences look small. Nothing major has happened at all to the fences in regard to the size and outward appearance. It's the inner solid core of SOME not ALL that has changed. This was in addition to other changes such as the start, horse catchers. Numbers of vets were doubled. Plus horse run offs were vastly different.
 
Lots of horses were pulled up towards the end of the race, do you think they have been told new 'rules' and when to pull up?

Im sure having more of those horses (that where pulled up) continued to race then there would have been a lot more 'carnage'

I hate the grand national with a passion, I see it as a death run, and for what? Financial gain!

Horse love to race, if thats all they know, I have an ex racer and know that all too well, but the GN is one race I hate, well after this years, I may actually watch it live next year!

Horses fall, riders fall, it happens in sj/eventing well... anything really, Ive had a fall on my girl on a flat straight we both rolled a number of times, but its not nice to watch that as a public sport!
 
Two further observations about the race, apart from the fact that it's been rather lessened, in my view;

Firstly, it was good to see exhausted animals pulled up, when they patently hadn't a chance of a place,

......and secondly, more by way of a pondering, and I may well be wrong now, but "generally, it seems to me", the bulk of the fatalities, with the bypassed fences occurred when the race was still on its first lap. Now that may be because the first lap weeded out those which were less than ideal, or it maybe that horses need to tire a little, before they settle and concentrate on the job in hand.

Just musings really. Anyone with experience, any thoughts?

Alec.
 
Zero00000 said:
Lots of horses were pulled up towards the end of the race, do you think they have been told new 'rules' and when to pull up?

Im sure having more of those horses (that where pulled up) continued to race then there would have been a lot more 'carnage'

I hate the grand national with a passion, I see it as a death run, and for what? Financial gain!

Horse love to race, if thats all they know, I have an ex racer and know that all too well, but the GN is one race I hate, well after this years, I may actually watch it live next year!

Horses fall, riders fall, it happens in sj/eventing well... anything really, Ive had a fall on my girl on a flat straight we both rolled a number of times, but its not nice to watch that as a public sport!
Click to expand...

personally i dont think horses 'love to race', they are a flight animal when a group of them run flat out until pulled up i think it its more out of fear/survival instinct than fun. yes they play about in the field but they rarely run flat out as a group as fast as they can leaping over hurdles/jumps they seem to leap and jump and spin with tails and heads up on alert instead.

so for those of you that dont like the GN but ar ok with other horse racing i am confused and dont understand where you are coming from cos making a flight animal act out its flight instinct is surely cruelty?
 
Have just watched the GN again on RUK's channel on YouTube, and I know realise why the race felt so flat during this year's coverage. Largely, it's because Channel 4 didn't pick up the sounds of the crowd, and that makes a big difference to the feel and atmosphere of the race. Commentary on there was also far superior, as were the camera shots. It was the sound that made the difference though, the sound of the crowd and the sound of the horses. Watching it on that footage, it felt exciting, whereas on Channel 4 it was just a bit dull. I didn't fell the thrill I've felt in past years

Channel 4-you can do a LOT better :(
 
I must have some sort of masochistic nature. I keep reading the comments about the fences , mostly along the lines of the spruce all came off this year so the fence was only tiny, this made it easier etc etc. People you only need watch footage of old Nationals or even the brilliant ' how to win the National' by mark Evans to see this has always been the case. The first horses always bring down the spruce. It's put back on for the 2nd circuit.
 
I'll preface this by saying that I am a bit of a traditionalist, I think that many of the earlier changes may have contributed to the fatalities of the previous couple of years rather than prevented them (i.e lowering fences = increased speed), that I abhor the hypocrisy of people who scream and shout and stamp their feet about the "cruelty" of the Grand National but who don't give the same amount of thought and attention to some 45-rated handicapper who unluckily shatters a leg on the AW at Wolverhampton on a wet Tuesday night in November when the cameras aren't there - or who, more importantly, isn't bothered to get off their ar$e to combat REAL cruelty - AND (deep breath) that one fatality-free year is a bit premature to start rejoicing and assuming all the problems are solved.

Having said all that, I think that we traditionalists need to accept that the Grand National is not a purist's race. It is the public's race. It will only continue if it is allowed to do so by the public, who don't understand or care about tradition or the finer points of racing, who accept unthinkingly what they are told by a predominantly biased media. Governments run scared of public opinion even when it is based on flawed logic (cf foxhunting, the demonisation of benefit claimants etc) and if the tide of public opinion turns unequivocally against the Grand National, it is doomed.

So if the race has had to change and evolve so that it is slightly less of a jumping test, "just another long-distance handicap", the public don't care. They don't notice that the spruce is knocked off slightly more easily or the horses at the back of the field have to make less of a jumping effort. They only care that they still have their office sweepstake, their one chance a year to remind themselves who AP McCoy is, their annual bet on a horse named after their uncle - and they care that there are no green screens, no lumps under tarpaulins.

It won't necessarily be the thin end of the wedge and if by sacrificing a little of the 'tradition' of the Grand National we safeguard the rest of racing for future generations, then to my mind that's a sacrifice worth making. There are thousands of other races for the serious fans to concentrate on.
 
BigBucks: am I going to have to repeat myself until I blue in the face.
Ok here goes; THE GRAND NATIONAL FENCES WERE THE SAME BLOODY HEIGHT AS PREVIOUS YEARS.
As I have said it is ONLY the timber frames that have been replaced with a plastic structure.
Find someone with a Grand National program to read all about it yourself. Complete with diagram.
This is annoying me now, I'm sure people just watched the race looking for reasons to criticise.
I havnt heard anyone say that the changes are a brilliant success because of one year with no fatalities.
And as for ' the people who stamp their feet at the GN but don't care about the other races' the RSPCA David Muir goes to nearly every single race, gets sent video footage and constantly works with every race course. He is responsible for the type of whip used. The new style water jumps, etc etc.
some of this thread has convinced me further that people just love an arguement with having any knowledge.
 
MillyMoomie said:
BigBucks: am I going to have to repeat myself until I blue in the face.
Ok here goes; THE GRAND NATIONAL FENCES WERE THE SAME BLOODY HEIGHT AS PREVIOUS YEARS.
As I have said it is ONLY the timber frames that have been replaced with a plastic structure.
Find someone with a Grand National program to read all about it yourself. Complete with diagram.
This is annoying me now, I'm sure people just watched the race looking for reasons to criticise.
I havnt heard anyone say that the changes are a brilliant success because of one year with no fatalities.
And as for ' the people who stamp their feet at the GN but don't care about the other races' the RSPCA David Muir goes to nearly every single race, gets sent video footage and constantly works with every race course. He is responsible for the type of whip used. The new style water jumps, etc etc.
some of this thread has convinced me further that people just love an arguement with having any knowledge.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any need to be quite so rude, do you?

If you had read my post properly, you will see that I referred to "earlier" changes re height. The fourth fence was lowered between the 2011 and 2012 runnings of the race. Drops have been levelled off at a number of fences, including Becher's Brook, on a gradual basis over previous years - which effectively has the result of reducing the height of the fence from the landing perspective. Nowhere did I say that I thought the fences had been lowered again before this year's race.

Equally, I'm fairly sure I didn't refer to anyone by name, including David Muir, nor implied in any way that I was referring to the RSPCA. As it happens, we had an example of the exact mentality to which I WAS referring on the 'Fatality' thread from another HHO member.

If you think I'm a GN critic, read back through some of my previous posts on the subject and you'll see that you are very much mistaken.
 
MillyMoomie said:
I havnt heard anyone say that the changes are a brilliant success because of one year with no fatalities.
Click to expand...

Ok-here you go then. They were a brilliant success, and I, for one am really pleased. It's a shame the the actual coverage of the race wasn't a little better, IMO it didn't feel like the normal National for that reason.

This is annoying me now, I'm sure people just watched the race looking for reasons to criticise
Click to expand...

Yes, for example Gavin Grant, who still doesn't seem to be satisfied.

And as for ' the people who stamp their feet at the GN but don't care about the other races' the RSPCA David Muir goes to nearly every single race, gets sent video footage and constantly works with every race course. He is responsible for the type of whip used. The new style water jumps, etc etc.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't class him as 'one of those people' at all, I think BigBucks meant some of the members of the public. Mr Muir seems sensible and rational enough, and probaby knows his stuff, unlike his boss
 
Alec Swan said:
The greater the scare-mongering, the greater the interest in the race.

The tragedy is that the Jockey Club invited the opinions of those equine authorities, the rspca, and acquiesced to the whipped up public demand, lowered the fences, made the race faster, and guess what? You've got it, the accident rate rose. ;)

Such good sense, don't you think? :D

Alec.
Click to expand...

I have decided to post a message about the Grand National of 2013.There has been a lot of fors and against through various media outlets about the safety changes made to the Grand National course.The changes that have been inforced in my opinion are due to the general changes in National Hunt courses throughout Great Britain.Horses are not used to jumping the big obstacles that Haydock once had before moderations at the course.All birch fences are assessed for movement when jumped on every course.
More horses are now needed for speed rather then jumping ability and the style of winning high quality Grade One races and top class handicaps have changed dramatically within the last ten years.It is true that stamina over three miles is essential but the smaller horse is now more likely to have as much chance as old style 'bigger horse' over chase courses.
So with all of this,experience is not available for horses to jump bigger fences.
There has been 'tinkering' with the Aintree fences throughout the years,but has it gone too far?
These are the facts:
The fences before and after the second world war were upright with no judgement for the horses to take off,these were considered not suitable at the start of the 1960s so a slope was engulfed in the take-off side of all of the plain fences,including Bechers and Valentines,ditches excluded.The inner core of the fences were wooden logged construction and were not altered.A lot of 'packing' to fences help them from not folding under pressure from the horses jumping the obstacles.Further alterations to the take-off side of the plain fences with the slope being greater a few years ago has now made the fences more likely to collapse when jumped,the spruce is much narrower on the top of the fence and with the culmination of all that has been altered throughout the years it is now more likely that horses will glide through the fences rather then having to jump then totally clean.The inner core of the fences that was altered in the 1990s from a wooden log construction to a parellel solid wooden structure was a factor why horses fell.(The height of these were not uniformed throughout all of the fences),these have now been taken away and replaced with a plastic inner core structure.
The trickery of the landing side of the fences putting Bechers and Valentines aside has been altered also throughout the years also,with the landing side of the tenth fence being levelled in the 1950s and the first and fourth (also lowered to 4'10") being altered last year.Bechers has had changes on a number of occasions throughout the years with the landing side now a few inches lower then the take-off side,the difference between Bechers and Valentines is now very minimal.
In recent years course fence attendants replace spruce to the fences that have been removed from the first circuit.
Fences 1-6,9-13 have available exit points for loose horses to run away from the fences and also allows for fences to be omitted on second circuit (what would happen in the case of similar problems to fence 7 and fence 8 canal turn is unknown)

Possible Facts:
A lot of talking about the fences in general:i.e. Fences 9-12 always have appeared to be built with less residence from around mid 1980s with the danger of horses being more tired when jumping them on the second circuit.Fence 1 made easier in recent years before levelling of the landing side.
Other changes to fences made on the 'Q.T.'
The claim culture which has engulfed the nations mind set with health and safety issues has had possible implications with the course layout.(there has been great pressure on the authorities from various sectors to try and stay away from life threatening injuries to horse and jockey)
When the Save The Grand National campaign was inserted in one of the Nations major newspapers in the era when the race was vulnerable to extinction,were the contributions from supporters who wanted to keep the race under any circumstances or were the donations with the thought that the race would not be altered in any way or form.
Media attention has for a number of years evaluated the race to the bare bones,has this helped keep the race for the purist?


The likelyhood of the race being run on soft/heavy ground is now less likely with the race being allocated a slot in early April rather then the last week of March,this is due to the meeting in general being now a mini-Cheltenham Festival meeting.

The Grand National will never get to the stage when it will never be run in one form or another,the gross amount of money that is staked and lost (as in this year) is just too great.The bookmakers love this race in general and is a big factor why they exist.The loss of income from the void race in the 1990s was far from good,so they do not care in what form the race is run.They cover themselves as any worthy business would do by pricing up the number of finishes/fallers and the horses odds to the climate the race is set.The public interest has a big say with how much money is laid down on the Grand National,a good proportion of them are only once a year backers and value for money on horses being backed is a big factor.A horse still in with a chance with two fences to go is a lot more encouraging then falling at the first fence.

Final Thought:
With everything considered has this taken away the art of specialist race riding for the Grand National?
Is it now considered that a safe Grand National is more important then a race with drama's?
 
redrumisthebest said:
.......

Final Thought:
.......

Is it now considered that a safe Grand National is more important then a race with drama's?
Click to expand...

An interesting and informative post. I suspect that your final question, is missing the point though, and to ask a question which balances around the trade off between safety and drama, is mistaken.

For some, it isn't quite that simple. In many elitist sporting events, there is risk to life and limb, when the human is travelling at a greater speed than he's designed for, motor racing being an example. Do you suppose that the world wide band of F1 fans watch the racing to see drivers die? Of course you don't, and the same applies to the National. Those who are true NH fans watch the race to see the victor overcome the odds, the obstacles, his fellow competitors, and to achieve his Wimbledon! It isn't about "Drama", per se, though with the implied risk, there must be heart stopping moments.

The fatalities are always regretted, and all would wish that they didn't happen. I'd also point out, and though I've no idea of the percentage figure to quote, the fatalities, as a percentage of the fallers in the National, must be very small. Most horses are back up on their feet and continue, or when nearing the end of the race, and exhausted, stand to be caught quite easily.

If it was your point, then I'd agree with you that in many previous races, loose horses brought down so many others, and the introduction of "Drafting" systems have meant that it's rare for horses now to continue to the finish. How these drafting systems work, when a fence needs to be bypassed, because of a fallen horse or rider, I'm not too sure.

I also agree that the old fashioned NH horse is becoming ever more scarce, with flat bred horses becoming ever more successful. Whether this is because of a lesser need for an ability to jump, and greater emphasis upon a gallop, again, I'm none too sure! Is there a correlation between the lowering of fences and a lesser need for skilled and precise jumping?

Of course there is risk, but then when the day arrives, which it will, when the obstacles over the National course are cavalletties, there will still be horses which fall. In my mind, though I hate the falls, to reduce the risk is to reduce the race.

Down many of life's roads, it's the overcoming of risk which makes the prize so prized.

A final question for you, if you will; is it your opinion that the lowering of fences, has rendered the National a "Safer" race?

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
An interesting and informative post. I suspect that your final question, is missing the point though, and to ask a question which balances around the trade off between safety and drama, is mistaken.

For some, it isn't quite that simple. In many elitist sporting events, there is risk to life and limb, when the human is travelling at a greater speed than he's designed for, motor racing being an example. Do you suppose that the world wide band of F1 fans watch the racing to see drivers die? Of course you don't, and the same applies to the National. Those who are true NH fans watch the race to see the victor overcome the odds, the obstacles, his fellow competitors, and to achieve his Wimbledon! It isn't about "Drama", per se, though with the implied risk, there must be heart stopping moments.

The fatalities are always regretted, and all would wish that they didn't happen. I'd also point out, and though I've no idea of the percentage figure to quote, the fatalities, as a percentage of the fallers in the National, must be very small. Most horses are back up on their feet and continue, or when nearing the end of the race, and exhausted, stand to be caught quite easily.

If it was your point, then I'd agree with you that in many previous races, loose horses brought down so many others, and the introduction of "Drafting" systems have meant that it's rare for horses now to continue to the finish. How these drafting systems work, when a fence needs to be bypassed, because of a fallen horse or rider, I'm not too sure.

I also agree that the old fashioned NH horse is becoming ever more scarce, with flat bred horses becoming ever more successful. Whether this is because of a lesser need for an ability to jump, and greater emphasis upon a gallop, again, I'm none too sure! Is there a correlation between the lowering of fences and a lesser need for skilled and precise jumping?

Of course there is risk, but then when the day arrives, which it will, when the obstacles over the National course are cavalletties, there will still be horses which fall. In my mind, though I hate the falls, to reduce the risk is to reduce the race.

Down many of life's roads, it's the overcoming of risk which makes the prize so prized.

A final question for you, if you will; is it your opinion that the lowering of fences, has rendered the National a "Safer" race?

Alec.
Click to expand...

Maybe divorcing from the subject in question,I would like to add this.If everyone knew the dangers from the upset as in years gone by,would the owners and trainers enter possible unsuitable horses in the race.Another way to look at it is as follows,if you treated your child along the same route and you knew the dangers of sending him/her on a pertential dangerous holiday would the parents allow them to go?

So why is the blame aimed as much at the authorities and not aimed at the owners and trainers?

(1) The Grand National has always been a challenge of horse jumping/stamina,race riding ability and in some ways luck also.These abilities to win the race are being subdued to create a more controlled race,a similar path to how life is in general.

(2) The ratio of horse fatalities in the race has increased since 1990,this appears since alterations were made to the course from that period.

(3) So on basis (2) the answer to your question is that since 1990 the race is not 'safer'.

However the 'powers that be' will judge it from this year and will not take into consideration the facts from (2) so (1) is the way that the race is now heading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top