Saturday at Aintree

P

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
6,833
Visit site
sakura said:
Saying “I’m sorry but the situation has escalated and it’s too dangerous to run these horses” would be “playing into” the protestors hands? The protestors were there to demonstrate how horses are unnecessarily put at risk, so yes, Aintree did prove their point by allowing the race to go ahead despite safety concerns.
Click to expand...

That may have been one strategy but the outcry from racing fans and the implications for all manner of other things are, I think, pretty untenable tbh. Aintree organisation would have identified previously at what point it was, in their view, dangerous or impossible to run the race; they presumably had to go with that planning and decision making as well as advice from the police, security and other people involved.
 
B

bluehorse

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 January 2008
Messages
368
Visit site
sakura said:
Blaming the protesters seems a bit scapegoating to me. It was up to the organisers to delay or call of the race in order to protect the horses and jockeys if the situation had become too chaotic.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. Everyone knew there was going to be a protest but those horses were still put on the track. It’s risk acceptance. The responsibility falls on those that put the horses on the track, accepting the risk that there could be disruption. They decided the risk was worth taking. That’s not the fault of the protesters for being there in what was a well publicised protest.
 
Gamebird

Gamebird

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 April 2007
Messages
8,505
Visit site
This is getting to be quite a tricky thread for me. There is no denying that the events of the day worked against racing's social licence, and that the sport will have some recovering to do. I think I will make some comments about the prelims and the stats and leave it at that. I have watched the race now (from which I now know that Recite A Prayer suffered no injury when unseating at the first, so his injury must have occurred when loose), but not much of the accompanying footage.

I will state my credentials - I was there with horses in the race yesterday, and have led up in the Grand National also on several previous occasions.

It was very warm yesterday. Perhaps it was OK in places where there was a breeze, but the bowl that is the parade ring got very warm indeed - a combination of the warm sun, the surrounding buildings preventing air movement, the sheer number of people, and the heat being reflected off artificial surfaces. We had the sheets off ours as soon as they had done one circuit, which is almost unheard of for us. The previous day we had led up in two thick wool sheets. Even 'naked' many horses were sweating. Leading up in the GN isn't like any other race. The parade ring is very tight with 40 horses in it, and as soon as one horse stops (eg. to let another horse feed in from the chute from the pre-parade ring) then it triggers a domino effect like one of those multi-mile long motorway tailbacks you get purely because one person braked sharply. You are also in the parade ring for much longer than any other race. Being asked to stop start, and stand still in a small space is difficult for these horses, and they are used to going in a parade ring and keeping walking. Some take to it better than others, some get quite wound up. As the delay progressed horses (and probably people) got a bit tetchy and I saw a couple of incidents where horses very nearly got kicked by the one in front. At this point (and we had already been in the parade ring by then for quite a lot longer than usual, even for the GN) we were told that the start time of the race was unknown and to expect the delay to continue for some time. About a half to two-thirds of the horses left the parade ring for safety and heat reasons, and we took all of ours back to the pre-parade to stand them in the shade of the saddling boxes. Some horses were taken back to the stables. Some had their girths undone, some were sponged off. The instruction to return to the parade ring was quite sudden when it came, and when we got back down the jockeys were all out, and we'd done less than half a circuit before the bell was rung. Obviously the parade was cancelled, and I think this might have worked in favour of some horses, and against others. I do feel with the layout of the start it's very close to where the horses come out onto the track. Unless they cantered down to the first fence (and not all did), they don't get much chance to have a canter and settle a little, as they might if the start was further round the course, so already wound up horses probably went off with a bit more buzz than they might in a normal race, or even in the GN in other years.

With regards to statistics, I think that there were 17 finishers and 4 fallers. Last year there were 15 finishers and 7 fallers, in 2021 it was 15 finishers and 5 fallers. Arguably on those statistics 2023 was a much more 'successful' year. However I would agree that the previous 2 years' races have been a much more pleasant spectacle. There will always be a high number of horses pulled up, and this is in general a good thing. Horses that are tired, and there will be a large percentage of horses in a 4+ mile staying chase that do get tired, should be pulled up. The number of fallers is more important to look at than the number PU.

I don't think that arguments about buckets of water are helpful to either the pro or anti GN camp. Unplaced horses go straight out into a massive cooling area and get buckets of water thrown over them too, plus there are fans and hoses. Nobody can deny the importance or science of rapid cooling, and having worked in the finish box at Burghley I have seen horses finish in a worse state than some GN finishers, and the cooling efforts (and fans) would be very similar at both events. The only difference is that they come in one at a time in eventing. It is not all about stopping horses dying of heatstroke - this is a very rare event - but about promoting as rapid a recovery as possible. The placed horses in the GN will go back to the winners enclosure where space and washing facilities are limited (there is of course water, but not on the scale of the dedicated cooling area) so these horses get as much water as possible while they are still on track. This is what you see on TV. Arguing for hours about horses accidentally getting water in their ears is really only diluting the pro/anti racing debate and getting away from more valid welfare concerns.
 
Last edited:
Maddie Moo

Maddie Moo

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 February 2021
Messages
1,175
Location
At a racecourse🏇🏻
Visit site
My final post on this thread but can I just point out that Blenheim last year had a higher risk of horse fatality than Aintree did this year. You need to look at the numbers objectively and calculate risk per starters but Aintree had 320 racing over the 3 days and Blenheim had 160 horses starting over both the short and long courses. Both had 3 fatalities.

Racing will always have a higher number of horse injuries because they have considerably more participants than other sports, therefore the most accurate way is to work out the risk per 1000 starters for each equine discipline, this balances out the participant bias.

Blenheim (2022) Risk of horse fatality per 1000 starters = 18.7 horses/1000 starters

Aintree (2023) Risk of horse fatality per 1000 starters 9.37 horses / 1000 starters

Unfortunately the data around showjumping, dressage, polo etc plus BE is hidden away somewhere by the governing bodies so I was unable to do a true comparison - unless someone can point me in the direction of it?

ETA: I’m not posting that as a justification but I think it is very important that the figures are looked at objectively. I would 100% welcome a reduction in the number of horses allowed to run as well as the removal of the whip (I actually did my MRes ethics module presentation and report on banning the whip).
 
SantaVera

SantaVera

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 November 2020
Messages
2,521
Visit site
the fatality rate in other equine sports do not justify horse racing because the gn figures are less than bleneim. they just show how awful these sports are eventing and endurance to name but two. then theres young horses doing a lot of training for dressage and ending upo with hock problems. none of these horses involved in sport ,not one single one asked to do it. they were made to by humans. we are a disgusting species.
 
O

Orangehorse

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 November 2005
Messages
13,654
Visit site
Backtoblack said:
the fatality rate in other equine sports do not justify horse racing because the gn figures are less than bleneim. they just show how awful these sports are eventing and endurance to name but two. then theres young horses doing a lot of training for dressage and ending upo with hock problems. none of these horses involved in sport ,not one single one asked to do it. they were made to by humans. we are a disgusting species.
Click to expand...
That is saying stop using horses at all for anything. So no more breeding and just keep a few in a zoo for interest.

Its a point of view.

Had the faller at the first fence not died, it would have been a Grand National with no fatalities. The horse had jumped round the Aintree fences twice before and had a good chance. The trainer blamed the protestors for the delay and the horse getting so wound up and exciting that it didn't jump properly.
 
sakura

sakura

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 August 2008
Messages
917
Visit site
There’s a difference between using horses for professional sports for human gain and keeping them as pets. It’s a straw man argument to suggest that without equestrian sports, horses would just cease to exist. It’s also not helpful. Equestrian sports need to improve their safety and welfare, and they won’t if their supporters just throw their arms up every time it’s suggested.
 
C

Crazy_cat_lady

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 January 2012
Messages
7,542
Visit site
OrangeAndLemon said:
That's an interesting point considering what happened to Modern Pentathlon when it enjoyed a large audience through being an Olympic sport.
Click to expand...

The cynic in me says the modern pentathlon doesn't get thousands bet on it so is far easier to "lose" an element. There were some similarities with that and racing as well.

There were jockeys continuing both yesterday and in the Topham who should have pulled up. One in the Topham, in red on a horse with a blaze, was even using the whip despite being out of contention. I know Sire Du Berlais won when he was right out the back, but he was still within a few lengths of the field. Perhaps we need people like in eventing who can flag jockeys to pull up if they're X lengths detached? Would stop fatalities where horses are out of contention and fall and are fatally injured

Looking at the GN analysis in racing post several have "tailed off" in the description - should they have been made to continue? I know they'd have been eased down, and probably popping the jumps, but why add the extra risk? "Tailed off" suggests not even in contention for the places. 12th to 17th were all described this way. If they weaken from 4 out that's a long old way to keep going tailed off. Same in the fox hunters one was described as in rear throughout and tailed off. Why continue? I disagree with jockeys being forced to ride for the best possible place in staying races as it makes them more inclined to push tired horses because of the flack that will arise if they don't

Perhaps if the flagging system is used and jockeys forced to pull up, they can then get a ban if they have to be flagged (like a red card in football). They use it in F1 if a car is damaged that can cause danger, they're flagged a warning to come in the pits. If they dont they're disqualified. However again cynically is there's far less money bet on an F1 car so it's easier to "hinder" it by bringing it into the pits. OT got blasted for slapping his tired horse at badminton, surely tailed off means they are more tired than those not tailed off so at greater risk of a tired fall.
 
Last edited:
Rowreach

Rowreach

Adjusting my sails
Joined
13 May 2007
Messages
17,853
Location
Northern Ireland
Visit site
I think what is interesting about the debate on here is that it is a horse forum, and the majority if not all of the participants are or have been horse owners, riders, competitors etc, and yet people like me (life time involvement with horses and a large number of horse sports, including jump racing) are actually questioning the ethics of it (the GN in particular).

And I think people involved in racing need to be a little bit more aware of how their own perceptions of what they do can appear to other people, and not just those who know feck all about horses. I think the screenshot I posted above, where the p*ss is being taken about those who think the race is cruel, plus the abysmal commentary yesterday, shows that racing thinks it's infallible.
 
Rowreach

Rowreach

Adjusting my sails
Joined
13 May 2007
Messages
17,853
Location
Northern Ireland
Visit site
Orangehorse said:
That is saying stop using horses at all for anything. So no more breeding and just keep a few in a zoo for interest.

Its a point of view.

Had the faller at the first fence not died, it would have been a Grand National with no fatalities. The horse had jumped round the Aintree fences twice before and had a good chance. The trainer blamed the protestors for the delay and the horse getting so wound up and exciting that it didn't jump properly.
Click to expand...

I don't think the race fatalities will be limited to one for this year, just that others will be off course.
 
C

Crazy_cat_lady

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 January 2012
Messages
7,542
Visit site
Re the cooling, wasn't there one year recently when it was really hot where the horses went straight to the cooling tent rather than the winners enclosure - perhaps they need to reintroduce this, while CR didnt look distressed, it would have been really grim if he'd keeled over on entering it - some have collapsed after a race before. Let him go get hosed down in the proper facilities, rather than walking back in with the jockey on and having to stand around for photos - why not let him cool down, then come back when more settled for photos with the rug and connections? I can't remember who it was, it was definitely recent, where the jockey walked in with the saddle as the horse went straight for cooling.

I know the water etc was used but the facilities were presumably more extensive in the tent, more space to walk him round in the shade - having to go into the enclosure probably added 10 minutes to the top 4 getting access to the proper facilities - are there vets in the unsaddling enclosure? I presume there are in the cool down but are they in the winners enclosure?
 
C

Crazy_cat_lady

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 January 2012
Messages
7,542
Visit site
Sandstone1 said:
The delay probably did effect the horses and jockeys but had any of the horses been so upset by it that they were not fit to run they should have been pulled from the race. The whole point of a protest is to bring these things to the notice of the public. I am a horse person by the way! You really can not blame the protesters as there are fatalities at most meetings. Was not a horse killed in a previous race yesterday? The start to that race was not delayed.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Hill Sixteens trainer said how distressed he'd become and had to have water thrown over him - was he in a fit state to race then? Why wasn't he pulled if he'd become that distressed. Would have have been if betting etc weren't involved? I saw a comment on a racing forum so unsure how accurate, that said Galvin was shaking - why was Galvin allowed to take part in that case? I know he is presumably one of the more sensitive types due to the red hood but if he really was shaking, was he in a fit state to run?
 
H

humblepie

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 February 2008
Messages
7,152
Visit site
The stewards will call in jockeys if they think they’ve continued when they should not. I do often think that the winning horse gets the short straw as ridden in but yes one year when horse I think they all went straight to the cooling fans.
 
S

Sandstone1

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 July 2010
Messages
8,178
Visit site
Rowreach said:
I think what is interesting about the debate on here is that it is a horse forum, and the majority if not all of the participants are or have been horse owners, riders, competitors etc, and yet people like me (life time involvement with horses and a large number of horse sports, including jump racing) are actually questioning the ethics of it (the GN in particular).

And I think people involved in racing need to be a little bit more aware of how their own perceptions of what they do can appear to other people, and not just those who know feck all about horses. I think the screenshot I posted above, where the p*ss is being taken about those who think the race is cruel, plus the abysmal commentary yesterday, shows that racing thinks it's infallible.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% times are changing and things that were acceptable a few years ago are not now. If sports that involve animals are to continue then the people at the top need to take a very hard look at themselves. Is a sport where there is a reasonable chance that when the horses runs it wont come back ethical? I really do not think so.
 
M

mle22

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 July 2008
Messages
1,670
Visit site
Throughout history, humans have always ‘used’ horses. They have been disposable commodities for work, war, food and entertainment. It has been the essential nature of the relationship between the two species. Even those who love horses have this attitude to a greater or lesser extent. I was struck that AP in the commentary yesterday, said that he got into racing because he loved horses. Our changing attitudes to our relationship with nature and animals mean this ‘ownership’ of other creatures is being challenged. We seem to be at a pivotal point in so many ways. I know my ways of thinking have changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top