petition to make the Grand National safer

[lannerch]

I didn't see the edit, what I've quoted is the same as you have written there?

Again - what do you propose is done to make the GN safer????

Halving the field would not have altered what happened to Dooney's Gate. They were spread out across Bechers. He got up underneath a landing horse, you cannot factor for that.

Disagree halving the field could well have made a difference to dooneys gate, it would have reduced the chance of the horse actually landing on him by 50%, obviously if the field was reduced there would be less congestion.
Simple probablility!

 

[lannerch]

Please note I edited re Ornais before your response. Dooney's Gate would have had half the chance of being landed on if there were half the horses in the race. Simple. You cannot make racing 100% safe, obviously, but I believe we have a duty to make it as safe as we can.

Exactly!

And to reduce the field imo would be an acceptable change that would in no way deflect the excitement and challenge of the race, infact I prefer watching it the 2nd time round because by then only the pure jumpers are left and you can see who is who. When they all start off all you see is a mass of horses you cannot follow who is who, and you watch with your breathe held waiting for the fallers, who then trip up the mass behind them!
Tighten the qualification, lesson the field as well as reducing risk you would make the race far easier to follow and far more enjoyable.

 

[Caledonia]

Disagree halfing the field could well have made a difference to dooneys gate, it would have reduced the chance of the horse actually landing on him by 50% obviously if the field was reduced there would be less congestion. Simple probablility!

But it wouldn't, in races horses run in a pack, some being held up behind other horses, they NEVER run spread out across a whole fence, except coming to the finish of a race. If there were 30 runners the same would have happened because he was in front. They don't leave gaps between runners in racing.

 

[lannerch]

But it wouldn't, in races horses run in a pack, some being held up behind other horses, they NEVER run spread out across a whole fence, except coming to the finish of a race. If there were 30 runners the same would have happened because he was in front. They don't leave gaps between runners in racing.

They would not need to spread out if there were fewer runners, it may still have happened however it would be less likely sorry but your fighting a loosing battle on that one!

 

[teagreen]

This post isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just general musings.

I think the most striking line from Down's article is that there is no tyrany greater than ignorance.

I've read a good number of forums over the past few days and the things people come out with are just astonishing.
"The horses are whipped to death"
"I have heard that they blindfold racehorses in their stables so that they run faster when they come out"
"They are force fed high energy feed like turkeys and given no hay"
"I have never heard of a racehorse being turned out"
"The jockeys don't care. They get paid a fortune for doing it. They do it for the money"
"I can't believe they race horses over jump aged 2, that's terrible."

These people should go to the Lambourn open day on 22nd April and have a look around some yards for themselves. All open to the public - then you'll see the truth with your own eyes.

 

[Caledonia]

They would not need to spread out if there were fewer runners, it may still have happened however it would be less likely sorry but your fighting a loosing battle on that one!

Show me any race where horses in front don't have runners behind them. Is it only the GN where horses get brought down? Even in 4 runner races horses run behind the front ones. I've seen plenty horses brought down in 10 runner races if a front runner falls.

I watch racing every day, I know what happens in racing and how horses run. I'm not basing this opinion on one or two races.

 

[Caledonia]

I think the most striking line from Down's article is that there is no tyrany greater than ignorance.

Agree wholeheartedly, sadly that seems to sum up the whole fluffy syndrome.

 

[Wagtail]

But it wouldn't, in races horses run in a pack, some being held up behind other horses, they NEVER run spread out across a whole fence, except coming to the finish of a race. If there were 30 runners the same would have happened because he was in front. They don't leave gaps between runners in racing.

You are making no sense. There would have been half the number of horses to land on him therefore half the chance, Anyone can see that. If you are following on behind a horse and there is plenty of space then it makes sense not to jump the same spot especially as the fence is so wide. But with overcrowding you have no choice. Also, overcrowding could well have been a factor with Ornais. You said yourself, he did not take off. Why was that? Maybe he couldn't see to judge the fence.

 

[Wagtail]

Agree wholeheartedly, sadly that seems to sum up the whole fluffy syndrome.

What is a fluffy syndrome? People who care about animals? Are you saying they are ignorant? Why is it that you always resort to personal insults? So far, those who have disagreed with you have been called badly educated, ignorant, clowns... This always seems to happen when you are starting to lose the argument.

 

[Chavhorse]

Doesn't the thread with the most replies get quoted in H&H each week. Look at the title of this thread - it will look as though the great majority are in favour of a petition which I'm sure is not the case. Somewhat ironic.

Very ironic.

It is interesting to see how other horse forums have reacted to the OP posting the initial post and petition.

One well known forum who does not have as much traffic as this one has had 150 views and only 12 responses 10 from people saying "have signed" and 2 from the OP saying thank you for signing. I can only assume that the other 138 read the post raised their eyes and clicked onto something else.

Interestingly no one has said "you are joking" or pointed out that OP's initial facts were a little bit off so the thread is no languishing near the bottom of page 2 of their forum.

Is this a lesson to be learned? maybe if we had simply read and ignored this would now be on about page 6 Naturally I love interesting debate but some of the posts on this thread ranging from wrong info to bull fighting then off on the wonderful tangent of Rabbits v human life (still needing brain bleach for that one) have not even followed the original arguments.

Kudos to those of you obviously involved in NH racing who have kept your cool and given factual responses.

Good to see that on page 1 of their Forum they have a lovely post wishing Peter Toole a quick recovery , this thread has a lot of traffic and lots of lovely replies, with the exception of the OP of this thread who has chosen to post "Hope he is all right, but there is a moral in this story" nice!

I know for sure that as a HHO member I would far rather that a post wishing Peter Toole all the best was the one to be quoted in H&H this week.

 

[Potato!]

Ornasis had a Rotational Fall the same as many Event horses. Are you saying that they cant see the fence to take off because of overcrowding as well

 

[lassiesuca]

Very ironic.

It is interesting to see how other horse forums have reacted to the OP posting the initial post and petition.

One well known forum who does not have as much traffic as this one has had 150 views and only 12 responses 10 from people saying "have signed" and 2 from the OP saying thank you for signing. I can only assume that the other 138 read the post raised their eyes and clicked onto something else.

Interestingly no one has said "you are joking" or pointed out that OP's initial facts were a little bit off so the thread is no languishing near the bottom of page 2 of their forum.

Is this a lesson to be learned? maybe if we had simply read and ignored this would now be on about page 6 Naturally I love interesting debate but some of the posts on this thread ranging from wrong info to bull fighting then off on the wonderful tangent of Rabbits v human life (still needing brain bleach for that one) have not even followed the original arguments.

Kudos to those of you obviously involved in NH racing who have kept your cool and given factual responses.

Good to see that on page 1 of their Forum they have a lovely post wishing Peter Toole a quick recovery , this thread has a lot of traffic and lots of lovely replies, with the exception of the OP of this thread who has chosen to post "Hope he is all right, but there is a moral in this story" nice!

I know for sure that as a HHO member I would far rather that a post wishing Peter Toole all the best was the one to be quoted in H&H this week.

ah but before you twist what I said entirely, on page 2 of that thread, I said it wasn't a personal attack on him. It was more of a general statement about the Grand National and how dangerous I believe it can be. Although as I stated on here, I'd be more upset if my horse died than him, for reasons which I needn't repeat.

Also with regards to the rabbit comment, that's a bit unnecessary, again, as we've established, you are not in a place to dictate how one should feel. After all, whether it's rabbits, dogs, horses or cats or humans, we are all mammals, we share 90-99.9% of our DNA with them and we form relationships with them. It's not silly, nor is it laughable.

I think some people need to establish that this isn't a personal attack on the racing industry, my thoughts on it are my own and I don't need a bunch of hormonal and frustrated women or men to condemn those of us who have a softened approach to things or perhaps, believed that we could possibly help make it a safer course. We don't need to be labelled these stupid 'fluffy bunny' hugger names or delusional because we value our pets over some humans?

Obviously we are all entitled to our opinions but now it's verging on spiteful behaviour and from some posters it's already past that. We all make cock ups and we all get mislead sometimes (unless you're all perfect and this has never happened to you), but jesus, some of you guys are so nasty, particularly to wagtail, who I think has taken a lot of the abuse pretty well.

Thank you to those who have signed or those who have been polite in not signing.

 

[Mrs B]

ah but before you twist what I said entirely, on page 2 of that thread, I said it wasn't a personal attack on him. It was more of a general statement about the Grand National and how dangerous I believe it can be. Although as I stated on here, I'd be more upset if my horse died than him, for reasons which I needn't repeat.

Also with regards to the rabbit comment, that's a bit unnecessary, again, as we've established, you are not in a place to dictate how one should feel. After all, whether it's rabbits, dogs, horses or cats or humans, we are all mammals, we share 90-99.9% of our DNA with them and we form relationships with them. It's not silly, nor is it laughable.

I think some people need to establish that this isn't a personal attack on the racing industry, my thoughts on it are my own and I don't need a bunch of hormonal and frustrated women or men to condemn those of us who have a softened approach to things or perhaps, believed that we could possibly help make it a safer course. We don't need to be labelled these stupid 'fluffy bunny' hugger names or delusional because we value our pets over some humans?

Obviously we are all entitled to our opinions but now it's verging on spiteful behaviour and from some posters it's already past that. We all make cock ups and we all get mislead sometimes (unless you're all perfect and this has never happened to you), but jesus, some of you guys are so nasty, particularly to wagtail, who I think has taken a lot of the abuse pretty well.

Thank you to those who have signed or those who have been polite in not signing.

Well, you see you really don't help yourself much, do you? You complain that other posters have been rude, and then you not only (in a previous post) refer to your approach (and that of those who agree with you) as 'enlightened' which rather suggests that you feel you take the moral high ground and the rest of us live in the dark ages and then you call those who don't take your view as 'hormonal and frustrated' which you have to admit is not exactly polite in itself.

 

[Chavhorse]

ah but before you twist what I said entirely, on page 2 of that thread, I said it wasn't a personal attack on him. It was more of a general statement about the Grand National and how dangerous I believe it can be. Although as I stated on here, I'd be more upset if my horse died than him, for reasons which I needn't repeat.

Not Twisting your words at all I have cut and pasted them from the other Forum)))

You Said "Hope he's alright... but there's a moral in that story..."

It was only when someone picked you up on it and said

"I'm afraid I find your comment difficult to stomach. I appreciate emotions are running high but he's a 22 year old kid who happened to be riding on the same day as the GN. I just hope he makes a good recovery"

That you then said "Oh I didn't aim it at him personally sorry! I meant that the moral of the story is that this race course is deadly!"

I am assuming that had you not been picked up your original comment would have stood.

As I said before Nice!

 

[lassiesuca]

Well, you see you really don't help yourself much, do you? You complain that other posters have been rude, and then you not only (in a previous post) refer to your approach (and that of those who agree with you) as 'enlightened' which rather suggests that you feel you take the moral high ground and the rest of us live in the dark ages and then you call those who don't take your view as 'hormonal and frustrated' which you have to admit is not exactly polite in itself.

I called some of you hormonal and frustrated because that is the vibe given off and after a lot of spiteful comments, I'm retaliating, and think I am allowed to be slightly mean back.

What makes you think that I think I'm above everyone because I jokingly said about my debate with Linda Parelli? It was a joke that I could handle this, but that's very hard to read over a computer screen just as I'm sure some of the comments at me were aimed. I believe many posters on here think that they are above everyone, dictating how one should feel about certain things

 

[lassiesuca]

Not Twisting your words at all I have cut and pasted them from the other Forum)))

You Said "Hope he's alright... but there's a moral in that story..."

It was only when someone picked you up on it and said

"I'm afraid I find your comment difficult to stomach. I appreciate emotions are running high but he's a 22 year old kid who happened to be riding on the same day as the GN. I just hope he makes a good recovery"

That you then said "Oh I didn't aim it at him personally sorry! I meant that the moral of the story is that this race course is deadly!"

I am assuming that had you not been picked up your original comment would have stood.

As I said before Nice!

Yes, because my post got misinterpreted, just because someone picked me up on it doesn't mean I changed my view on things?

I said I hope he was alright, but again, he's not really my concern, if I'm honest, it's no more blunt than some of the posts aimed at the death of an animal and laughing that someone got more upset over their rabbit dying than a human?

 

[Mrs B]

It was nothing to do with Linda P. It was the following:

"It's just the same, just because someone stands for something, or perhaps disagrees and takes a more ''enlightened'' view on something, we're called a bunny hugger"

 

[lassiesuca]

It was nothing to do with Linda P. It was the following:

"It's just the same, just because someone stands for something, or perhaps disagrees and takes a more ''enlightened'' view on something, we're called a bunny hugger"

Note, the '' '', I struggled to find the right words. Also you stated I was above myself before that comment. Apologies if that came across very pig headed, but I feel that is no worse than some of the other comments, which were aimed at myself and others, but because you agreed with them, naturally they weren't pig headed.

Think we're going nowhere with this.

 

[padarco]

Riders, trainers know the risks they take - sadly the horses have no choice!!!

 

[Mrs B]

Lassiesuca, absolutely agree with the last bit

 

[Flame_]

I'd just like to congratulate the members of HHO for managing a 17 page (the way my thingy's set up) pointless, going round in circles, highly etertaining, ding-dong/discussion without finding or making up some petty excuse to get it deleted.

 

[kickonchaps]

49 pages on my computer!!!

 

[lannerch]

So where do you get the ex-racers from - the yards? Are they flat or NH?

But you are being anti GN.

I think the ground was too quick, and they need to address that if it ever happens in future. The difficulty is the inconsistent UK weather. There would have been an equal outcry if the ground had been similar to when Red Marauder won. Ground conditions can change so fast, and sometimes it has to be accepted that there are limits to what can feasibly done without seeing into the future.

So - what would you have done/change to prevent Ornais fall, specifically? The trip, ground, field numbers had nothing to do with his demise.

What would you have done to prevent Dooney's Gate fall? Given you cannot avoid where a horse gets up once it has fallen.

I can answer that if qualification was tightened up and numbers reduced neither dooneys gate or ormais would have made the field as going by the starting odds which are ususually related to recent form and experinace both were high odd outsiders!
I also question whether handicapping is necessary in the national, surely the best horse should win!

I do not think most on here are pro the petitition in its current form, I certainly am not and certainly as it stands would not sign!
Now if it was just for the above then that would be a different matter.

 

[lassiesuca]

 

[DJ]

Wow ... this ones still going !!!! ??

Tea and biscuits anyone ? ? ? ....

 

[Wagtail]

Doesn't the thread with the most replies get quoted in H&H each week. Look at the title of this thread - it will look as though the great majority are in favour of a petition which I'm sure is not the case. Somewhat ironic.

On the contrary. I conducted a poll a few days ago which showed that 60% of respondants on here think the GN should either be made safer or banned. I have spoken to many horsey friends including my racehorse owning friend, and they would like to see at least a reduction of runners and some assurance that those running are at least capable of getting round. At the start of the race a couple of the jockeys said they did not expect their mounts to get round. Horses entered for the race should at the very least be more than capable of completing the race baring misfortune. One horse, I believe had not run over two miles before? There are a lot of things that need addressing.

 

[Wagtail]

Ornasis had a Rotational Fall the same as many Event horses. Are you saying that they cant see the fence to take off because of overcrowding as well

Completely different fences. There is nothing on a NH fence to cause a rotational fall. These types of falls are almost always caused by getting a leg caught in the solid jump. The only thing Ornasis could have got his leg caught on was another horse. He would have had to get a leg very far into the fence to cause such a fall. Again the most likely cause of this would be obstruction from another horse.

 

[Caledonia]

Completely different fences. There is nothing on a NH fence to cause a rotational fall. These types of falls are almost always caused by getting a leg caught in the solid jump. The only thing Ornasis could have got his leg caught on was another horse. He would have had to get a leg very far into the fence to cause such a fall. Again the most likely cause of this would be obstruction from another horse.

Absolute nonsense. It is nothing to do with getting a 'leg caught ' that causes a rotational.

And he did virtually have a rotational fall, because, he chested it because something had happened to him on the approach, I believe.

 

[Wagtail]

Absolute nonsense. It is nothing to do with getting a 'leg caught ' that causes a rotational.

And he did virtually have a rotational fall, because, he chested it because something had happened to him on the approach, I believe.

I've had a couple of rotational falls myself in the past. One was caused by leaving a leg behind, the other by not making the ditch. If something happened to him on the approach, then it seems to me likely it was due to overcrowding.

 

[Caledonia]

I've had a couple of rotational falls myself in the past. One was caused by leaving a leg behind, the other by not making the ditch. If something happened to him on the approach, then it seems to me likely it was due to overcrowding.

You seem to have no idea what a rotational fall is. It would be impossible to have one from a ditch.