Grand National - will changes make a difference?

cambrica

cambrica

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 November 2011
Messages
2,145
Visit site
Apparently, following last years carnage, changes have been made to the jumps, start and landing areas.
The jumps now have softer plastic instead of a wooden frame. The landing areas are levelled and the start should allow for horses not to be bunched together.
They are still running the same amount if horses and the height of the fences remain the same.
Last year I had to turn off and swore I would never watch the GN again, that hasn't changed, but how do you feel?
 
It will depend on the ground, but I don't expect it will make much difference. I haven't watched the race for the last three years and won't be watching this time either.
 
It won't make any difference. They only bothered to do something to try and please the anti GN people.
Whatever ever happens this year, it will be luck and luck alone that either sees a fatality or not.
I enjoy the GN, and I watch it every year. I'm actually sad that 'they' keep trying to modify it, as it is losing the appeal of the depth of the challenge more now.

Obviously don't like watching any accidents, but it does/can come with it.
 
I dont think the changes will make an awful lot of difference. it all depends on the ground and the way the horse lands. last year synchronised broke his leg while running without a rider and according to pete was bought down by another faller. you get fatalities over any fences or even on the flat inbetween them.
I love the grand national, its thrilling to watch but obviously i hate seeing horses get injured or killed. 2010 was a great grand national, no horses died and it was a great race - but 2011 came and 2 horses died and suddenly people are yelling about how unsafe it is and changes should be made. What was so different about the track in 2010 to 2011? The ground.

So no, i dont think it will make a difference. I will be watching, hoping for a great race and the horses come home safe.
 
I am old and trust me, people have been making changes to the course for many years. I remember one poor horse drowning in Beechers Brook many years ago. Things like that are unacceptable and why they lead to change. I have watched it every year since I can remember, but last year was terrible. It wasn't just the horse deaths, it was the carnage in general. I am glad they have made changes,but the biggest change needed is to reduce the number of runners and they haven't.
 
Personally I think some of the changes make it more dangerous not less. They have made it easier for the horses to go faster by lowering the fences and speed is what kills along with faster ground. Also as the race has become 'better' ie higher rated horses the speed has increased too, making it riskier.

The Grand national would be safer with huge fences, steeplechasing specialist horses who weren't very fast and ground watered to be soft.

The race a few years back when all but 2 fell, none of them were seriously hurt, because it was so muddy it was a slow race and soft landing.

I do think the orange markers and softer middles and removing adverse slopes is good tho and making the ditches less deep.

I think those who have asked for lower fences are pretty much responsible for making the race more and more dangerous rather than less.
 
I don't think the horses will be any safer until they reduce the number of runners TBH. Reasonable risk in any sport is acceptable, however if you look at statistics, there's nothing reasonable about the number of horses killed in this race (not to mention the races in the GN build up). If the same number of jockeys were dying, it'd have been banned long ago. Having no horses killed one year is unusual and highlights the fact that the inevitable deaths each year have become almost acceptable. Yes, there are deaths in other sports and races, but nothing compared to this. The horses run not because "they love it" but because they're herd animals, they do as they are taught, try to jump the ridiculous amount of fences we put in their way, and some end up dead because we think it's fun. People who support this atrocity have blood on their hands, excuses or not.
 
I always watch the GN,I love it but I do hate it when I horse gets injured/killed,the same any racing I watch ( most saturdays on tv ) but I do also believe that any horse can get injured and killed in any situation,we've all seen the thread on here with the 4 horses colliding in the field. I do think however that there are too many in the race and it should be halved. It should be 20 of the very best horses in the country not ones that mite make it round or that are good enough. A lot of falls are horses tripping over each other and getting too close.
 
eatmyshorts said:
I don't think the horses will be any safer until they reduce the number of runners TBH. Reasonable risk in any sport is acceptable, however if you look at statistics, there's nothing reasonable about the number of horses killed in this race (not to mention the races in the GN build up). If the same number of jockeys were dying, it'd have been banned long ago. Having no horses killed one year is unusual and highlights the fact that the inevitable deaths each year have become almost acceptable. Yes, there are deaths in other sports and races, but nothing compared to this. The horses run not because "they love it" but because they're herd animals, they do as they are taught, try to jump the ridiculous amount of fences we put in their way, and some end up dead because we think it's fun. People who support this atrocity have blood on their hands, excuses or not.
Click to expand...

agree, its the only thing I did not agree with my grandad about as a child (many yrs ago) its the only race I would not choose a winner for him in or sit and watch with him, and I still don't and won't
 
When I was younger I refused to watch the Grand National because seeing the horses falling and being killed upset me. I was, and still am, a huge racing fan. I now watch the National with great interest. What changed how I felt about it was seeing horses fall, and get killed, at every other racetrack in the country, over fences, hurdles and on the flat. It happens. And yes, it's devastating for the owners, trainers, grooms and jockeys, but it's life.

Maybe that seems harsh, but it's just my opinion. And to answer the question - with respect to horses dying, it probably won't make a difference. All it takes is a mis-timed take off, or an unbalanced landing, or the horse in front of you going down and there being nowhere else to go. Horses can die in a field of 4 let alone 40, over hurdles let alone six foot fences. It'll get chipped away at year by year until it's lost all its magic.
 
Cant quote as im on my phone but saying the horses only run because they are flight animals is not strictly true nor are they forced to do it. In 2010, king johns castle point blankly refused to race, he didnt even move an inch.
I do feel last year that synchronised should have been withdrawn, he would have if it had been any other race and he wasnt favourite, but its done now.

As for reducing numbers, it may reduce the risk of being bought down slightly and i would agree with that change but lowering fences will just make them go faster.
 
SarahThomas said:
What changed how I felt about it was seeing horses fall, and get killed, at every other racetrack in the country, over fences, hurdles and on the flat. It happens.


Horses can die in a field of 4 let alone 40, over hurdles let alone six foot fences.
Click to expand...

I agree but if there were less runners there would be more room? there are too many runners the course is too long and the jumps too big in my opinion.

if it loses its 'magic' and there are less senseless deaths great thats fine, its a bit like a rodeo (i hate them too) you expect death and thats wrong, i don't watch family entertainment to see animals die
 
Kadastorm said:
Cant quote as im on my phone but saying the horses only run because they are flight animals is not strictly true nor are they forced to do it. In 2010, king johns castle point blankly refused to race, he didnt even move an inch.
Click to expand...

and how often do you see that happen?

they do only run because they are flight animals there is no other reason for them to run as a herd if a predator was chasing the fasted most sure footed would be assured survival
 
Jools2345 said:
I agree but if there were less runners there would be more room? there are too many runners the course is too long and the jumps too big in my opinion.

if it loses its 'magic' and there are less senseless deaths great thats fine, its a bit like a rodeo (i hate them too) you expect death and thats wrong, i don't watch family entertainment to see animals die
Click to expand...

By the time According To Pete was brought down and Synchronised fell the field was massively depleted and spaced out. Even if you reduce numbers and lower fences, 'senseless' deaths will still happen. Look at Darlan a few weeks ago, all the space in the world, not knackered by a four and a half mile steeplechase, and he's no longer with us.

As for your 'course is too long' comment, I would argue that Nipper found the course the exact right length, seeing as it took poor Daryl Jacob all of the four and a half miles to get his horse from the back of the field to the front of it!

It is what it is, my original point and the one I will stick to is that the changes that will continue to be made will not stop horses dying, which is what everyone gets so upset about. The only way you can stop them dying whilst racing is to stop racing altogether. But that won't stop them dying, they do it in the field, in the stable, everywhere. Chip, chip, chip away and then what? Where do you go when all the changes are made and the horses still die?
 
They need bigger fences, the start needs to be much closer to the first fence and the field should be lowered to 20 runners (all imo).

There will always be risk with racing as there is with other horse sports but imo making the fences smaller isn't the way to make it safer.

As for horses only running because they are herd animals- I'm pretty sure dog racing is also a sport and they are predators?
Yes, horses will run in a herd but my horses also like to go for a good gallop around the field together and they aren't scared, they are having fun.
imo, horse racing is one of the most natural things we ask horses to do.
 
I love racing, and always watch the GN.

However, the fatalities always sadden me. As many have said I don't think it's the questions on the course, just the numbers running. When I see a 40 strong field hurtling towards the first fence I physically feel sick. The domino effect of one coming down and them all being so close is horrible.

But then, if they were to cut the field then the race would loose some of it's appeal. The only thing I could think of to make it safer is to put some sort of personal space thingy into it, where a horse has to be a certain length away from another. But this wouldn't work I know!

Just hope that all come home safe this year, and from all races.

Google racehorse deathwatch - just goes to prove it isn't always the jumping.
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
Personally I think some of the changes make it more dangerous not less. They have made it easier for the horses to go faster by lowering the fences and speed is what kills along with faster ground. Also as the race has become 'better' ie higher rated horses the speed has increased too, making it riskier.

The Grand national would be safer with huge fences, steeplechasing specialist horses who weren't very fast and ground watered to be soft.

The race a few years back when all but 2 fell, none of them were seriously hurt, because it was so muddy it was a slow race and soft landing.

I do think the orange markers and softer middles and removing adverse slopes is good tho and making the ditches less deep.

I think those who have asked for lower fences are pretty much responsible for making the race more and more dangerous rather than less.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with you.

The horses entering now are not a patch on the type the race was originally for and the changes made mean it's so much quicker which brings more of a danger than the height of the fences ever could.
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
Personally I think some of the changes make it more dangerous not less. They have made it easier for the horses to go faster by lowering the fences and speed is what kills along with faster ground. Also as the race has become 'better' ie higher rated horses the speed has increased too, making it riskier.

The Grand national would be safer with huge fences, steeplechasing specialist horses who weren't very fast and ground watered to be soft.
Click to expand...

When this last came up I found a link to number of fatalities year by year and it seemed to bear out the above.

Found it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equine_fatalities_in_the_Grand_National
 
fburton said:
Isn't the danger part of what makes the GN special?
Click to expand...

Yep, and what makes humans so sick and selfish. Fatalities do occur in racing in general, it's a tough sport, even out of the public eye, however it's the number and odds in the GN meet that makes it worse than usual. The course is so long,because we want to test the horses, even when the numbers have dwindled, horses fall because they are tired. These horses are trained to keep trying, which bless their bold brave hearts, try they do. Does anyone think if they could way up the risks between any enjoyment they get and their survival, they'd run? Don't kid yourselves. A huge part of why the GN still exists is down to greed and selfishness. Agree that making the fences smaller probably hadn't helped - the course needs shortened, and the numbers of runners decreased dramatically. It's never going to happen tho, is it, because then it wouldn't be so exciting. Quite honestly, it makes me sick.
 
We were there on Saturday watching show jumping & had a nosy at the "new" chair. I have pictures but they're on my phone and I don't know how to get them off. It now looks like a giant steeplechase fence when it isn't dressed, the brush (or whatever it is) starts almost at the top of the takeoff board so there's not really anything solid for them to hit, on that fence at least.

It's no smaller or less intimidating to look at & I don't think there'll be any visual differences once the fence is dressed but it did look a hell of a lot more horse friendly from the point of going through rather than tipping up if anything does hit it.
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
Personally I think some of the changes make it more dangerous not less. They have made it easier for the horses to go faster by lowering the fences and speed is what kills along with faster ground. Also as the race has become 'better' ie higher rated horses the speed has increased too, making it riskier.

The Grand national would be safer with huge fences, steeplechasing specialist horses who weren't very fast and ground watered to be soft.

The race a few years back when all but 2 fell, none of them were seriously hurt, because it was so muddy it was a slow race and soft landing.

I do think the orange markers and softer middles and removing adverse slopes is good tho and making the ditches less deep.

I think those who have asked for lower fences are pretty much responsible for making the race more and more dangerous rather than less.
Click to expand...

Agree with this 110%.
 
Those changes are good but don't sound very helpful really, there are just too many horses running for the width of the track I think. Safer jumps would help but its the crowding together that makes it so hazardous.
 
rainer said:
I always watch the GN,I love it but I do hate it when I horse gets injured/killed,the same any racing I watch ( most Saturdays on TV ) but I do also believe that any horse can get injured and killed in any situation,we've all seen the thread on here with the 4 horses colliding in the field.
Click to expand...

I was watching the show jumping from Verona on TV, when Hickstead died due to an aortic rupture whilst he was calmly walking out of the arena. Which as far as I understand it, could(/would?) have happened that day, regardless if he had been at home turned out in a pasture or as it was, after having finished a show jumping course.

I have also seen a few Harness Racing Trotters die on TV through the years, for instance, one that was in the middle of the field choked herself to death and another time it was a mare that had some sort of accident, where a broken sulky shaft penetrated her body and damaging a big artery so that she died.

I don't know enough about it, to be able to say whether I think that the changes in Grand National will make any positive difference or not, so I will end with saying that in general, race horses are bred, owned and trained for racing, if there was no racing, they wouldn't be alive. But being alive is risky for everyone.
 
noodle_ said:
nope.

i think half the number of horses and we will get somewhere.....
Click to expand...


I agree. I'm not the biggest fan of the Grand National. But I'm in no way an anti of racing. However it is crystal clear that there are far to many horses jumping all together, getting crowded and causing accident. Especially at the first few jumps. I understand that during the course of the race they spread out and a horse can have an accident whether its alone on the field, leaving the race or walking into the winners space but why tempt fate by squeezing them all together, running on fast ground over smaller jumps?

Keep the large fences to stop rushing.
Halve the Field.
and use proven, specialized hurdlers.
 
Jessi&Magic said:
I agree. I'm not the biggest fan of the Grand National. But I'm in no way an anti of racing. However it is crystal clear that there are far to many horses jumping all together, getting crowded and causing accident. Especially at the first few jumps. I understand that during the course of the race they spread out and a horse can have an accident whether its alone on the field, leaving the race or walking into the winners space but why tempt fate by squeezing them all together, running on fast ground over smaller jumps?

Keep the large fences to stop rushing.
Halve the Field.
and use proven, specialized hurdlers.
Click to expand...

absolutely.


i personally love racing and do watch it. i know they do die in all sports and its very sad but i think preventative measures wouldnt go a miss...
 
I also think they run far too fast and would be voting for bigger fences to stop this.

However what really really gets me is the start. Its 4 1/2 miles ffs. The starter always pisses around and really he should just let them come first time. It loses the focus of the riders and unsettles the horses. And its so unnecessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top