GRAND NATIONAL 2013

The Pardubice I did join once at a time long ago. A friend of mine had to ride a horse there. It was the old course.

What I did realize was that nearly behind every fence a man with a gun was positioned. Now we can discuss about this if we want. Was this because of an act of humanity or was it because the risk of a serious injured horse aproving calculated in?

Sometimes these games sell a bit better when they are a bit like the movie Gladiator or Rollerball.

And Tschech is not in the focus of the world, it is a country behind the curtain.

If a horse is fit and if it has space enough to sort out himself the risk of accidents is very well reduced.

But if you watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_hgbhX5gg

you realize it is not the the hight of the fence.

Most of the trouble takes place when the horse is in the middle of the scrum, locked in.

So the field is too tight, it is too packed. It is like a panic in a football stadium.

Again, I am not against the GN but reducing the risk does mean reduce the starter field to 20 horses.

It is not only the horses killed during the race, it is also the horses killed afterwords because of injuries like wracked tendons and so on.


And many, if not most of these injuries are caused by jumping out of unlucky positions as well as the landing.

Waste, no more use for racing e.g. after the GN, so put him down.

And this is what most people don`t see or also ignore or forget.
 
Fintan said:
@ alliersc1
I think you did misunderstand me. Thrill for many people is a strange thing.




How interesting would the GN be without any unpleasant accidents? No injuries, neither a horse nor a jockey? Nobody killed? All this is a massive promotion and a massive magnet for people and betting.
Click to expand...


I understood you didn't mean it literally, but replied to it as you posted. With the greatest respect, I'm finding your posts a bit hard to decipher.
I know where you are coming from, but I still have to take issue with the above which I have quoted.
How interesting would the GN be with nobody killed? VERY!
I like thrills and spills as much as the next person, but I draw the line at death, whether that be human or animal, and I suspect that most people feel the same..this side of a secure unit anyway.
Yes, falls etc can make racing interesting, but no normal human being wants to see a horse or jockey be fatally injured. It is not a massive promotion. In the last few years particularly, it has done the GN a massive disservice.

ETA. I have just read your last post Fintan. On that I totally agree with you. IMO, the field for the GN is too large, and that does not help give the horses the best chance to safely negotiate the course, particularly on the first circuit. I would far prefer to see the field reduced in priority to further altering fences etc.
 
Last edited:
If you further reduce the number of horses running and continue to lower the fences then the grand national would be no more. It's world famous because it is unique and any more changes would make it the same as any other staying handicap chase.
 
bonny said:
If you further reduce the number of horses running and continue to lower the fences then the grand national would be no more. It's world famous because it is unique and any more changes would make it the same as any other staying handicap chase.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't like to see the fences altered at all. They have already been made "safer", and I don't think any further changes will make much difference to the faller rate. I agree that they need to maintain the uniqueness of the course that makes the GN what it is, but I do still think the field should be reduced.
 
EKW said:
In regards to out crossing to eventing stock - look at what Angrove Stud did - they crossed a flat bred mare with a stocky, sports horse and they got a stocky jumping horse that was plagued with soundness issues. So it doesn't always work. The French have the right idea when crossing them with Selle Francais to give some bone and jumping ability.

As to entires jumping - mostly they become to protective of 'themselves' and jump too big and too slow and lose a lot of ground in the process. Can't really blame them to be honest!
Click to expand...

Gosh EKW you'll have those Angrove people after you......!
 
Alec Swan said:
I accept your point, but were there ever Stallions which ever "Jumped"? The odd thing, or so it seems to me, is that the bulk of the very best NH and Chasing horses, still arrive, by chance.

I don't know, and wish that I did!!

Alec.
Click to expand...

Read my post. I have identified some of the NH horses who went to the stud. I think Vulgan also ran over hurdles as did Spartan General. Kadastrof is a winner over fences & he is currently at stud.
 
I am by no means an expert but have listened to people who have ridden in the race and the main comment coming from them is that by lowering the fences and reducing the size differential accross the track has meant that all the horses cram to the inside and hurtle round at dangerous speeds. Before these changes were made the horses who went for the inside neede to be bold jumpers to cope with the extra height, the faster less confident jumpers aimed for the outside where the jumps were not as daunting, now there is nothing to be gained by staying on the outside hence more crowding on the inside.
Perhaps people should take note of people who know what tyhey are talking about, rather than people who just want a good headline for their (political?) organisation.
 
@ alliersv1

Yes, this is all I mean. Just reduce the field, don`t touch the fences.

If we touch the fences the horses will loose respect and then they will get in trouble.

@ Bonny

Yes it is world famous and I would ride it as well but only on my own just for the fun.

But world famous does not mean we should calculate in a colateral damage only for to keep it famous. The Kolloseum and other gladiator arenas have been world famous as well.
The inquisition was world famous as well. Would you stick with this?

I think a modern world deserves a bit more.
 
MillyMoomie said:
.......

Alec Swan the more I see of what you have read the further I am convinced that you just have a vendetta against certain welfare organisations. Aintree has worked with the RSPCA ( david Muir) extensively with the fences, not simply lowering as many people put it but the profile and the inherent frame. ........
Click to expand...

It may appear that I've such a vendetta, but that isn't the case. What amazes me is that such an inept, and from the equine, the jump aspect and the the racing perspective, that the rspca's opinion is given any credibility, is beyond me, and others too, I suspect. The opinions of jockeys and trainers would be of far greater value.

Fintan said:
.......

What I did realize was that nearly behind every fence a man with a gun was positioned.

.......
Click to expand...

And behind every race, here in the UK, a man with a gun follows. He's called a vet.

Alec.
 
I believe why there was such an outcry after last years race was due to the camera coverage. With the overhead camera you could actually see a dead horse on the track, albeit it covered by a large tarp and you could partially see behind the screens. Previously the cameras were only at ground level and you wouldn't notice any prone fallers. Those who know their racing yes would realise what had happened but Joe Public on the whole would have no idea. In days of old you wuold only be told at the end of the days coverage if a horse had been lost.
I'm another for put the fences back up - so much tinkering has made it far to fast.
 
Last edited:
Double_choc_lab said:
I believe why there was such an outcry after last years race was due to the camera coverage. With the overhead camera you could actually see a dead horse on the track, albeit it covered by a large tarp and you could partially see behind the screens. Previously the cameras were only at ground level and you wouldn't notice any prone fallers. Those who know their racing yes would realise what had happened but Joe Public on the whole would have no idea. In days of old you wuold only be told at the end of the days coverage if a horse had been lost.
I'm another for put the fences back up - so much tinkering has made it far to fast.
Click to expand...

From what I remember it wasn't the overhead cameras (I think they've been there a while). It was the fact that when horses fell and couldn't get back up instead of dragging them away to the sidelines away from the cameras they were treated where they fell, and the field was directed around the fence. This drew attention to the fallen when previously you wouldn't have seen them.

I'm not 100% where I stand on the GN. I enjoy watching it and admire the horse's and the jockeys grit and courage however i'm not sure it's right that many people, including myself I think, just accept so easily that there's likely to be a horse fatality as a direct result of the race.
 
Charem. I totally agree. It wasn't the camera angle, it was the fact that they left him out there instead of moving him. Plus the fact that they made the field go around Bechers the second time around which also highlighted that there was a horse down. I just don't understand why they did those things. (In years past they've moved any injured horses from the first circuit out of sight.) That just led to more controversy and fanning the flames of hate.
I've been watching (and loving) the GN for 30 plus years and my dream is still to ride in it myself. Unfortunately, bowing to public and media pressure has reduced it from the best and most difficult race in the world to a slightly more difficult than normal steeplechase. All the so-called safety measures (filling in the ditch and reducing the slope by Bechers, making the fences smaller, the run arounds by the fences) have just made it more appealing to owners of "lesser" horses - horses that are not bred or trained to run a 4 and a half mile steeplechase, who then fall and add to the swell of voices calling for more safety measures!!! It's a vicious circle which needs to stop.
 
lcsd114 said:
Charem. I totally agree. It wasn't the camera angle, it was the fact that they left him out there instead of moving him. Plus the fact that they made the field go around Bechers the second time around which also highlighted that there was a horse down. I just don't understand why they did those things. (In years past they've moved any injured horses from the first circuit out of sight.) That just led to more controversy and fanning the flames of hate.
I've been watching (and loving) the GN for 30 plus years and my dream is still to ride in it myself. Unfortunately, bowing to public and media pressure has reduced it from the best and most difficult race in the world to a slightly more difficult than normal steeplechase. All the so-called safety measures (filling in the ditch and reducing the slope by Bechers, making the fences smaller, the run arounds by the fences) have just made it more appealing to owners of "lesser" horses - horses that are not bred or trained to run a 4 and a half mile steeplechase, who then fall and add to the swell of voices calling for more safety measures!!! It's a vicious circle which needs to stop.
Click to expand...

I have been watching it since Foinavon won after the pile up. I agree with your excellent post. All the meddling has resulted in a much more dangerous race. No one would have asked Synchronised to jump around in the 1950s, he would have been dwarfed by horses like Freebooter. Although all shapes & sizes have won, there was more of a "National" type in the past.
I agree the jumps should be raised, it should be run in March not April or heavily watered.....or done away with all together.
It is highly likely that a horse will lose it's life over the GN fences at the meeting, lying under the tarp for all to see & then where will we be? It cannot be made 100% safe, no race can.
 
Also by changing every year you are making it harder to prepare for, because every year it is not the same race... i.e moved start, different fences etc. They need to make a decision and stick to it for a few years so the jockeys can get used to riding it, the horses used to the course and the trainers knowing what they are training for. Basically what I am saying every year it is an unknown quantity.
Also people making the decisions on how to make the race safer should be experts in their field... i.e trainers/ jockeys etc who have ridden in the race or work with racehorse who know what they are talking about.

I am sorry but the British general public don't really know much/ anything about horses/ racehorses so Joe Bloggs opinion isn't any use.
Also the Great British Public live in a culture that distances itself from death. People will happily eat chicken nuggets but couldn't kill a chicken, or buy a cheap ready meal and never think about where the meat comes from, or go to the races and put on a bet on a horse. I think we have lost a sense of reality and don't like to face facts.
 
@ dominobrown

somehow your right. Facing the reality is for many people not comfortable. Some also have their own reality.

The confusing and many times repellent thing in this game is a mix out of many things.

My horses don`t start when I find that the ground is not save.

As well the rule with my horses is allways go from the front or from behind and the side so that you don`t come in trouble when a horse does go down.

Avoid any unnecessary risk.

And then I have to deal sometimes with owners and they are very special.

You tell them your horse is not sound, there is no point to run him.

They tell you the horse has to run because they have some friends comming to the race. A nice day out ......

You tell them that this is not good they should give the horse a chance to recover or what ever, they ignore it.

Some are more connected to their car or mobil phone than to the horse.

These people don`t do well for the sport as well.

It is hard to find the middle way.
 
lcsd114 said:
All the so-called safety measures (filling in the ditch and reducing the slope by Bechers, making the fences smaller, the run arounds by the fences) have just made it more appealing to owners of "lesser" horses - horses that are not bred or trained to run a 4 and a half mile steeplechase, who then fall and add to the swell of voices calling for more safety measures!!! It's a vicious circle which needs to stop.
Click to expand...

Actually this is the exact opposite of the current situation. The race attracts better quality horses nowadays, such as the likes of Synchronised, Imperial Commander, Neptunes Collonges - all winners of or placed in the Gold Cup - to the point that the old situation of the bottom 3 or 4 horses being out of the handicap has gone. These days you have to be allocated around 10-3 to have a chance of getting in.

Ironically, this may be contributing to the accident rate, along with the lowered fences as already noted. The better and fitter the horse, the faster it will run from an earlier point in the race. The historic 'hunt round the first circuit and start to race on the second circuit' days are over, so horses are going pretty much flat out from the outset before they and their riders have properly 'got their eye in', so to speak.

On the breeding front, while I don't necessarily agree with the way the breed is going, soundness-wise, I have to correct a few inaccuracies being presented as facts on this thread. There has never been a National 'type' in terms of shape, size or breeding. The greatest National horse ever was bred to be a Flat racer and won a selling race as a 2yo in 1967. Historically, a National 'type' was considered to be a 2.5 mile chaser (because of the old tradition of only starting to race properly on the second circuit mentioned above) who was a careful jumper. Battleship, the 1938 winner, stood 15 hands. Also, Neptunes Collonges is not a 'half-bred' or a Selle Francais. He is an AQPS, or Autre Que Pur-Sang. AQPS horses are, on average, about 80% Thoroughbred these days. The non-TB in NC's pedigree comes from his great-great-great grandam, making him 31/32 Thoroughbred.
 
Fintan said:
@ dominobrown

.....

Some are more connected to their car or mobil phone than to the horse.

These people don`t do well for the sport as well.

It is hard to find the middle way.
Click to expand...

Well said.

There is a chasm between those who "Wear A horse", as a trinket, and those who "Wear the horse". I hope that makes sense.

Alec.
 
My opinion is that if a horse makes a bad mistake and dies as a result in the GN then this is extremely sad but at least it made the mistake. What I HATE is seeing horses killed by being brought down by other horses and the pile ups that happen fill me with horror. Yet I love watching "normal" racing. It is simply not fair for this to happen through no fault of the horse. All that needs to happen us to reduce the number of starters. And I can see that raising the fences may also help, and could also be used to increase public interest. New "tougher" Grand National that you need to be one of the best to qualify for.....
 
@ Alec

yes that`s it. Id did meet some owners at the trac, they did ask where is my horse. I did say up there, They did ask which one? I think it was a bay one wasn`t it? Yes the one n the middle.

Answer ah, yes allright. Looking nice.

@ Mavis

exactly. They can also have an accident in the field. Three weeks ago we had to put one down.

5 years old, unraced, just in the pretraining. He did rear on the ramp of the lorry, did tip over and did break his wither.

The hight of the fences, well a horse can do a puicance. So the hight can`t be a argument because there not really high.

It is just to tight with so many horses, so they can`t sort their bones.

This is causing the problems, the straight problems at the track and the unseen problems later on.

How many horses will be put down at home because of injuries caused by a jump like this?

More than will die on the track.

And there is no need for. But if you count them and pass the numbers on to the press with the real reason for it, what will happen?

It is not only what some see it is also nearly more what they don`t see. Or even don`t want to see.
 
pec said:
I am by no means an expert but have listened to people who have ridden in the race and the main comment coming from them is that by lowering the fences and reducing the size differential accross the track has meant that all the horses cram to the inside and hurtle round at dangerous speeds. Before these changes were made the horses who went for the inside neede to be bold jumpers to cope with the extra height, the faster less confident jumpers aimed for the outside where the jumps were not as daunting, now there is nothing to be gained by staying on the outside hence more crowding on the inside.
Perhaps people should take note of people who know what tyhey are talking about, rather than people who just want a good headline for their (political?) organisation.
Click to expand...
Walked the course in the 60s and walked it again last year. hardly recognisable in comparison to how it used to be. The course is extremely flat so with the jumps/drops being dramatically reduced, going usually better than years ago all increases the chances of horses going too fast in the early stages of the race. More speed, less horses taking the outside and all bunched together,to my mind equals a far greater risk of horses making mistakes and others being brought down. The course management has done everything it can to allow horses escape routes when running loose which has reduced the numbers which continue in the race, a huge improvement. The PC changes have in some ways made the course more not less dangerous IMO. Let's hope the 2013 race is a great spectacle with no injuries to horses or jockeys.
 
Very pleased to see on BBC sport that the GN will in future be watered so it is minimum good to soft or softer.means a slower race and a softer landing. Good news.

Now they need to put the fences back up to a proper height to reduce speed further and increase horses respect for them but sadly the ignorant but well intentioned won't let that happen....:-(
 
BigBuck's said:
Actually this is the exact opposite of the current situation. The race attracts better quality horses nowadays, such as the likes of Synchronised, Imperial Commander, Neptunes Collonges - all winners of or placed in the Gold Cup - to the point that the old situation of the bottom 3 or 4 horses being out of the handicap has gone. These days you have to be allocated around 10-3 to have a chance of getting in.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that there are no runners in the race that are suited. I'm just saying that the "safety changes" have made it more attractive to owners with horses who have less experience and less form.
 
Its pointless even debating this. Because if you say you don't like horse racing and think that the National is a 'cruel' race you will get shot down in flames anyway.

I dislike racing, the figures from RaceHorse Deathwatch say it all and will not be watching the National this year. And that is all I have to say on this. Sometimes its safer (boring, but safer) to sit on the fence. And this is one of those times me thinks :(
 
I see that according the Daily Torygraph today, the course will be watered and the race will never be run on anything better than soft in the future. The year when it was firm and Mr Frisk won it - how many horses were killed that year?
I do seem to recall that a year when it was bottomless - and I think that there were only a couple of finishers - did Red Maureder (sic) win it? and were a couple re-mounted - Blowing Wind? Jenny Pitman lost one? Smiths something?
I am pro NH racing (love it) but is tinkering with the course really going to make a difference to possible fatalities?
How many runners at Cheltenham 2013 - how many losses - one that I know of, odds on 150+ to one? How many fatalities have their been at points this season to date?
No owner / trainer / jockey wants a fatality - sadly it happens, just as a horse in a field can be fatally injured - I would hate to see the demise of NH racing and pointing et al - but as long as the media triumphs the losses, and we all 'try to mitigate' then we might as well stop all racing over fences now. Sadly I cannot see a solution that is going to keep the pro and anti lobby comfortable.
 
the ground has been watered since Mr Frisk won, he has the course record and the authorities said it would never be firm again so he'll always hold it.
 
dressedkez said:
I see that according the Daily Torygraph today, the course will be watered and the race will never be run on anything better than soft in the future. The year when it was firm and Mr Frisk won it - how many horses were killed that year?
I do seem to recall that a year when it was bottomless - and I think that there were only a couple of finishers - did Red Maureder (sic) win it? and were a couple re-mounted - Blowing Wind? Jenny Pitman lost one? Smiths something?
I am pro NH racing (love it) but is tinkering with the course really going to make a difference to possible fatalities?
How many runners at Cheltenham 2013 - how many losses - one that I know of, odds on 150+ to one? How many fatalities have their been at points this season to date?
No owner / trainer / jockey wants a fatality - sadly it happens, just as a horse in a field can be fatally injured - I would hate to see the demise of NH racing and pointing et al - but as long as the media triumphs the losses, and we all 'try to mitigate' then we might as well stop all racing over fences now. Sadly I cannot see a solution that is going to keep the pro and anti lobby comfortable.
Click to expand...

The reason they are doing the watering is that numerically yes it does make a difference to the number of serious injuries and fatalities. That is exactly why it is being done. I think that should be supported, because it is one thing they can do which will not ruin the spectacle but may well help with safety - not with stopping horses falling (there might even be more) but making sure when they do it is at lower speed and onto a giving surface.

From memory the bottomless GN year only two finished (plus two remounted which I think wouldnt be allowed now) but none was seriously hurt that year. Stand to be corrected.
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
The reason they are doing the watering is that numerically yes it does make a difference to the number of serious injuries and fatalities. That is exactly why it is being done. I think that should be supported, because it is one thing they can do which will not ruin the spectacle but may well help with safety - not with stopping horses falling (there might even be more) but making sure when they do it is at lower speed and onto a giving surface.

From memory the bottomless GN year only two finished (plus two remounted which I think wouldnt be allowed now) but none was seriously hurt that year. Stand to be corrected.
Click to expand...
You are correct there were no fatalities that year, just tired muddy horses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top