Grand National: According to Pete owner will not return

[Moomin1]

Why can't you just take my word for it that I know my own horse, and let the thread get back on topic? I don't want to talk about ME!

He is in 15 acres of hill meadow grazed by only three horses. It is six inches deep in grass and wild flowers. If I pass his stable with tack when the horses are in, then he is looking at me as if begging me to put it on him and not on anyone else.

Now, can we PLEASE stop talking about me and get back on topic.

Don't worry - I wasn't talking about you - I was talking about your horse's behaviour.

I haven't read the majority of this thread because I can't be bothered and I have conjunctivitis. But personally I wouldn't let my horse enter any high level competition that poses a higher than average risk.

That being said, I am not a competitive person and I have no aspirations of going around the GN or Badminton.

Personally I think the likes of high level XC has a lot to be improved on with regard horse and rider safety, as well as the GN.

With regard dressage etc - yes of course there are undesirable practices, as in showjumping, but we could go on for ever comparing the likes of this and that. The fact is that nearly every year horses die or become injured during the GN. You don't see that happening at your average dressage comp.

 

[Little Squirrel]

CP you asked if I'd broken and trained the horse myself with quite alot of accustaion in your tone.

Well I didn't break the lad in the picture earlier but I have done all of the training with him so far.

I did break Big Fella Thanks who was 6th, 4th and 7th in the National. I also broke a horse who ran in the Topham last Friday.

In fact if you want to play this game I could list out alot of horses who I started and then wen't on to PN to be at the top of their game so don't try and treat me like an imbecille.

 

[Dolcé]

I think this is something that a lot of people will never be able to understand because they are simply not wired that way. It would not enter my head that I would want a horse to prove anything to the world, especially not if it was at significant risk of dying trying to do it.

I can understand why people would find that idea attractive, but I couldn't do it myself, and I think that's probably what divides a lot of opinion on these GN threads.

I don't think I am wired that way, but only because I am not in that position! I have a county standard lead rein pony, he was bred for the job, he will be dragged out to all the county shows (he enjoys it). Would I do the same if he travelled badly, putting himself at risk every time - probably! Would I do the same if there was a risk of injury in the ring, a kick from another pony etc - probably! If we competed in SJ or XC then surely we would be putting our horse at risk every time out. What is showing (any species), if not to try to prove that yours is the best there, surely this is the same with racing, they own a horse that is bred for the job, how else are they supposed to show it to the 'world'. Whilst there have been (tragic) deaths in the GN in recent years most of the horses have come in safe, I can understand owners making that decision, they have confidence in the ability of their horse and believe he will come in safe.

Every rider, pro or happy hacker, put their horse's life at risk every single time they ride out on the road in this and other countries, with the mad drivers and ridiculous speeds we have. Campaigners would be better spending their energies in that direction rather than something they cannot possibly understand unless they are directly involved in that course/race - is it not since the last 'safety campaign' and changes made that the course has had even more fatalities!

 

[Wagtail]

I think what some people are missing is the LEVEL of fatalities in a SINGLE race. No one is arguing that the GN is the only time horses are put at risk. But look at it this way, do you think any bookie would give you odds that no horse would die in next year's national? Conversely, I think you could get pretty good odds that no horse would die in next year's Badminton, or the next day's hunting. Not that anyone would bet on such a thing though.

 

[Ladydragon]

I think what some people are missing is the LEVEL of fatalities in a SINGLE race. No one is arguing that the GN is the only time horses are put at risk. But look at it this way, do you think any bookie would give you odds that no horse would die in next year's national? Conversely, I think you could get pretty good odds that no horse would die in next year's Badminton, or the next day's hunting. Not that anyone would bet on such a thing though.

Or that it's nothing new...

Off the top of my head, 8 died during the 70s, 4 in the 80s, 10 in the 90s, 7 in the 2000's and 4 since 2010... Comments about new recent safety features making things worse - but the fatality level has always been too high IMO... Runner numbers in 1977 were roughly the same as this year... A few more finishers this year but not a huge difference...

Why there was a decrease in the 80's? I don't know and I've asked in the GN threads... Or if it had any statistical relevance really... Or how much of a decrease in probability in fatalities there would be if the GN was removed from any overall NH risk evaluation...

 

[pines of rome]

For those of you on FB have a look at, In memory of our racehorses, I was really shocked to see how many horses have been killed!

 

[touchstone]

I think what some people are missing is the LEVEL of fatalities in a SINGLE race. No one is arguing that the GN is the only time horses are put at risk. But look at it this way, do you think any bookie would give you odds that no horse would die in next year's national? Conversely, I think you could get pretty good odds that no horse would die in next year's Badminton, or the next day's hunting. Not that anyone would bet on such a thing though.

^^^This.

I do think that because this is such a high profile race, watched by millions it makes it pretty much irrelevant whether horses die in other activities, albeit in fewer numbers.

Ask a member of Joe Public and they'll nearly all know of the National and probably have a sweepstake on it at work, it was viewed by millions worldwide. In comparison most probably won't even know what Badminton is.

The fact is that the public aren't comfortable seeing horse deaths and the number of fallers that there are, and these are often shown in graphic detail online an elsewhere nowadays, which never used to be the case.

If the industry isn't seen to be doing anything constructive to minimise those deaths then the public will turn against the National and racing in general.

 

[fburton]

Just to say posting the same photo of you and your horse landing over a hedge every time someone asks about you as a rider isn't going to make you look like an amazing rider- it makes you look like you have one photo of you and your horse landing over a massive hedge...

Wasn't it cptrayes' intention to show that she didn't choose low fences or go around everything just to be on the safe side, not that she is an amazing rider? That's how I took it anyway.

The horses are bred to do this. Like pigs bred for the slaughter, it is their one purpose. If they are one of the many who come home safe and sound they get a second life doing something else. They are destroyed humanely if they don't.

I accept the truth in what you say. How does this relate to depriving a horse that has qualified to run in the GN of the chance to do so just because the owner has decided against it for sentimental reasons? In what way does the horse suffer because of a owner's choice not to enter? I guess this is at the heart of what divides the people who believe that the GN is at present unacceptably risky for horses and those who believe that not only is the risk acceptable but they are somehow obliged to run their horse in the race so as not to deprive the horse of its 'birthright' (if that's an appropriate term).

 

[fburton]

I do think that because this is such a high profile race, watched by millions it makes it pretty much irrelevant whether horses die in other activities, albeit in fewer numbers.

I'm sure you are right about that.

Ask a member of Joe Public and they'll nearly all know of the National and probably have a sweepstake on it at work, it was viewed by millions worldwide. In comparison most probably won't even know what Badminton is.

The fact is that the public aren't comfortable seeing horse deaths and the number of fallers that there are, and these are often shown in graphic detail online an elsewhere nowadays, which never used to be the case.

If the industry isn't seen to be doing anything constructive to minimise those deaths then the public will turn against the National and racing in general.

Is it better for the public to know or not know? Would it be better if they were a little less uncomfortable seeing horse deaths?

 

[fburton]

For those of you on FB have a look at, In memory of our racehorses, I was really shocked to see how many horses have been killed!

Still, it is miniscule compared to the number of horses that have died, unpleasantly or not.

 

[AMH]

The only way to make the GN safer - take at least 10 horses, if not 15 out of the race.

Job done.

 

[YasandCrystal]

Wasn't it cptrayes' intention to show that she didn't choose low fences or go around everything just to be on the safe side, not that she is an amazing rider? That's how I took it anyway.

Yes me too, but as an aside actually if I rode and jumped as well as cptrayes I would be sticking those pics up at every opportunity -they are great!

 

[Flame_]

The only way to make the GN safer - take at least 10 horses, if not 15 out of the race.

Job done.

The problem being that the horses cut would be the wrong horses. The finishers lower down the placings were the real outsiders. I think removing the handicap would be better. Instead of trying to make things as even as possible and keep them all bunched together in a big pack, see them spread straight out. Less spectacle and drama certainly, but safer and they wouldn't then need to cut the number of runners.

 

[AMH]

The problem being that the horses cut would be the wrong horses. The finishers lower down the placings were the real outsiders. I think removing the handicap would be better. Instead of trying to make things as even as possible and keep them all bunched together in a big pack, see them spread straight out. Less spectacle and drama certainly, but safer and they wouldn't then need to cut the number of runners.

It's tricky, itsn't it? My main reason for reducing the field would be to cut out the stragglers and reduce the potential for loose horses - there simply couldn't be as many with less horses in the race. The first fence is a cavalry charge - the reason the start is such a farce is that, with so many horses, ALL the jocks want to be in the front line heading to the first. The fences are so wide that only 25 horses could easily find position.

Interestingly, I also heard someone say after the race that one of the jocks had mentioned he would be taking a tighter line at Becher's than usual 'because they've flattened it out'. Reducing the size of the fences etc seems to be encouraging the jockeys to take risks and allowing the horses to travel more quickly.

Reduce the field and put the fences up seems to the only solution, in my mind. We've seen that 'safety measures' haven't reduced the number of fatalities one iota.

 

[touchstone]

I'm sure you are right about that.


Is it better for the public to know or not know? Would it be better if they were a little less uncomfortable seeing horse deaths?

IMO they are perfectly right to feel uncomfortable about the deaths and so call to get the deaths reduced. Far better for people to know the realities of any sport. It never does anyone any harm to question why/how they are doing something and whether they can improve things and sadly deaths are a reality of the sport, but I personally feel that they should be the exception rather than the rule at every GN.

 

[suestowford]

Or that it's nothing new...

Off the top of my head, 8 died during the 70s, 4 in the 80s, 10 in the 90s, 7 in the 2000's and 4 since 2010... Comments about new recent safety features making things worse - but the fatality level has always been too high IMO... Runner numbers in 1977 were roughly the same as this year... A few more finishers this year but not a huge difference...

Why there was a decrease in the 80's? I don't know and I've asked in the GN threads... Or if it had any statistical relevance really... Or how much of a decrease in probability in fatalities there would be if the GN was removed from any overall NH risk evaluation...

Being old I probably watched these races in the 80s, but also due to being old I can't remember why there were fewer fatalities. I'd suspect it could be down to the weather though. Very wet weather makes the ground softer so the fallers don't hit it so hard.

 

[Ladydragon]

If the industry isn't seen to be doing anything constructive to minimise those deaths then the public will turn against the National and racing in general.

I read somewhere recently that the GN was on the verge of being scrapped because of public support going downhill... Then Red Rum's triple win kinda flipped public opinion and sensationalised the race again... I could be completely wrong but there was something about the increase in support and RR's trainer helping secure the future of the game and a change in ownership of the ground...

Being old I probably watched these races in the 80s, but also due to being old I can't remember why there were fewer fatalities. I'd suspect it could be down to the weather though. Very wet weather makes the ground softer so the fallers don't hit it so hard.

Pretty old here too... I managed to watch one in the 80s where a horse broke its neck at a jump, skipped a year or two in dismay and tuned in to one where there was another fatality... Cue this dragon losing all heart about the race and just not wanting to watch it... You could be right, maybe the weather was a factor, although these days if you bring it forward I suppose you run the risk they might skate their way around the course instead... I was just curious if there was something tangible that could be identified that gave some protective factor in those times... Since 1990, about 21 horses have died in 23 GN races plus any that might have sustained injuries not identified until after the event... Pretty dire odds...