The future of the National

As you are all aware there was huge interest in the race this year with animal activists throwing a huge spotlight on the event. Sadly it didnt take long for them to have their point made with Hill Sixteen falling and being killed at the first. I believe five came down at the first and three more at the second which caused mayhem with loose horses running in all directions.
Racing people have claimed that a lot of this was caused by the delay to the start caused by the activists. I wondered how many of you would agree and what your thoughts are on the race going forward.
Hill Sixteens connections have claimed that the delay caused the horse to get hyper in the preliminaries. My question to them would be "why didnt you withdraw".
Going forward I would suggest a further reduction in the field size, would we really miss the bottom half dozen? In addition I would move the first fence nearer to the start line to reduce the speed at which they arrive at the first fence. I would also reduce the size of the first fence almost making it a warm up fence.
Interested to hear everyones opinions on the subject as I think we are at a crossroad.

 

So to answer your questions -

• I do think the protest caused the start and the chaos, but perhaps I am different but I do not just put this down to the protesters.
• Sandy was on Radio 5 live this morning and they asked him about withdrawing the horse, he said that the horse wasn't that hyper and that they would have withdrawn him if the jockey had said he wasn't right.
• I would agree with dropping the number of runners. However I would change it even more.
• Moving the start & size of fences - this is a bit that I think needs a wider piece of thinking - i'll come onto that.

So my thoughts.

I think the protesters were wrong to do the action they did, and especially when they did it, if they wanted to stop the racing, they should have done this before the first race of the day. It may have caught the authorities off guard too. However to suggest that the only race they wanted to stop was the Grand National was showing what they really wanted, oxygen for their vegan ideals. Now, I don't care if people want to be vegan, or want to protest about the plethora of animal based issues the UK has, and I have very strong views on the way this country deals with wildlife (CSOs being the biggest high profile story). However to aim to stop the Grand National as the horses are in the parade ring is ultimately a bad idea.

The issue for me was how rushed everything was, again I mentioned Sandy when he was on Radio 5 live this morning (well worth a listen), Sandy stated that they took Hill Sixteen back to his box and washed him off, and then the signal came that they needed to saddle and get to the start. He said this felt rushed and they were running about. He also said the horse was one of the last out on course, and that it was down to the jockey to say if the horse was ready to race after going to the start.

Now if you watch the race coverage back, (I haven't) wasn't Hill Sixteen playing up when the others were already circling at the start? If I remember correctly he was awkward out of the walkway and it perhaps would have been ideal to be able to parade to give him time to cool down. Instead, they cancelled the parade (which in general I would agree with) and made the whole process rushed. It was almost as if they had a window that they had to get the race off in. This isn't how you deal with animals and hyped up events.

This for me was the true cause of the carnage, it was rushed and it was fever pitch, it wasn't what was right for the horses and whilst I understand why it happened, I think the authorities have some blame here, and they need to get better mitigation for the likely events in the future.

I am not a fan of the Grand National, I am sure most on here have heard me say that before, it is a race that has a risk of showing the sport in a bad light, and whilst it has changed (the Grand National handicap hurdle as I called it earlier this week), the idea of 40 horses running in a feverish atmosphere isn't likely to show the sport in the true light. Drop the field by a quarter and its still a competitive handicap, and it should reduce risk of collateral injuries which must have happened this year.

I think jockeys also need to take responsibility this year, we had quite a few going flat out at the first, and look how Coko Beach and Mister Coffey finished after making much of the running. Jonjo Jnr and Nico both gave their horses no chance of getting round in the best manner and it was a rush of blood to the head race for so many of the competitors, horse and human.

Similarly the starter let them go when they weren't lined up in a manner they would normally require, again a rush of blood to allow the race to go ahead at all costs.

What would I do?

1. Reduce the field size to 30
2. Return the race to a position in the card earlier in the day. The later in the day, the less mitigation that can be put in place, and the more revved up everyone is.
3. Qualifying to the race, scrap the whole thing of needing to run over a trip etc. The top 30 horses in the handicap should be the 30 that run, quality horses is what they should be aiming for.
4. Jockeys have to take responsibility. Any that don't pull up when well beaten in previous editions should have to be put through a course. Similarly those well beaten before 2 out should have to pull up. They also should have responsibility for the start. Any horse that charges the tape should be withdrawn.
5. Any horse playing up before the start should be withdrawn. There was a past Gold Cup winner who would have been withdrawn rather than what sadly happened, if this was the case.
6. If start is delayed, they should start a completely new process to give the horses time to calm down. Rather than rush.
7. Post Liverpudlians around the perimeter fence, with a picnic and beverages, and perhaps a baton or two.

 

And as one final note. If anyone wants the end to racing, it isn't the Grand National they should be targeting, but the treatment of horses in general with wind ops, the use of medication and general over training (and breeding) of the breed. However, I guess thankfully, these are far enough away from prying eyes to mean that the sport doesn't need to clean itself up as quickly as it should.

 

Any thought on the fact the organiser of this was on sky news warning what they were planning in the morning ?
Stating they would be circling the perimiter and would peacefully try to get on the track.
I agree in the principles it is a dangerous race , if they had anything about them they would be mentioning the jockeys who get injured too . In my view there was nothing piecefull in there actions and they should be charged with breaking and entering aswell as disturbing the event . The organisers and police involved should not have stood back and waited for the inevitable , if it was a terrorist threat it would have been dealt with and lets face it all be it no bomb but it was a premeditated attack !
As for reducing numbers and the fence ideas these are steps that need to be looked at . it has and always be in my eyes a bookies benevolant fund in my view .
I do back two for interest but at no more than a few quid . As i know the odds are stacked against the punter.

 

The UK Grand National is not the only Grand National in the World. Do those other Nationals have similar problems/concerns? Is there anything that can be learned from those, or are they in a worse situation?

Regarding moving the first fence closer to the start to reduce the speed at which it is jumped, I get the idea but might that not cause more congestion? Reducing the number of runners and introducing stricter qualification would clearly help. I think this also applies to other large "lotteries"

Of course, if we keep reducing the size of fences, reducing the number of runners etc, it wouldn't be any different to any other long distance handicap and therefore loses its prestige and might as well be scrapped altogether

Regarding the Hill Sixteen incident, I agree that the organisers were at fault, rushing procedures. However, if the other 39 runners weren't affected, it does point the figure firmly at the jockey and trainer. In the circumstances the horse should have been withdrawn, in my view. But that is in no way excusing the organisers

 

The other 38 were affected, we had lots of fallers and even more horses who ran no sort of race because of the process. Just because the stories haven't been told, doesn't mean they weren't affected. If one of the loose horses had come down mid first circuit then we could be talking about other fatalities too.

On the point of losing prestige, do you think a field of 30 or 35 would look that much different than a field of 40?

 

People die on roads should we stop using cars? Wouldn't miss the national if it was stopped.

 

I never thought that I would say this but…would horse racing be seen in a better light without the Grand National?
Yes it’s a huge spotlight on the sport but for the once a year racegoer it’s probably not one that would get you interested long term. It’s very hard to predict, there are too many runners and it is too long!

if you were going to introduce a new race today then the Grand National would not be considered - really it only exists because of its history. And as the number of race goers continues to decline there will be less and less interest in its history.

the problem for racing is that it is unlikely to find a race that is going to capture the interest that the National does…

 

Some interesting stats on the GN here

This year there were 4 fallers (one fatal), 7 pulled up and 11 unseated rider

Since1984 there have been 306 fallers with Bechers Brook accounting for 68 of those (40 on the first circuit). The first fence has accounted for 60 but on the second circuit (as fence 17) there have been just 2. That is a strong indication that something needs to be done about the approach to the first fence, as pointed out by Oddy and Nass. Would the GN be any worse off if something was done about Bechers? Of course what we don't is how many of those fallers would have fallen anyway, at a subsequent fence

 

It would be interesting to see these stats for the course since the replacement of the structures with the plastic fences they have inside each fence these days.

 

First fence still a problem by the looks of it, but not to the same extent. I don't see anyone arguing that the mad dash of 40 horses to fence 1 is not a problem. The idea of a practice fence is one practiced in France and seems a good idea (not sure what happens if they fall at that)

Here is a way out idea (I do love to think outside the box, but I confess to sometimes being too far out)

Stop horses carrying big weights; it's a long way. How about all entries carry 10.7 (say) and stagger the start. So, for example, if 40 runners, they are slotted into 4 categories and maybe drawn according to OR or balloted. Stalls start. 1st 10 go off, load next 10 and so on. Any horse holding up the start to go to back of queue. This would remove congestion at the first, still be a handicap (of sorts) but not burden any horse with hefty weight (kinder to horses). Try running a steeple chase with a sack of spuds on your back. Putting those not stalling fast enough at the back of the queue would ensure they go off in accordance with the "handicap" and prevent dodgy trainers "placing" a problem horse to give the early starters an unfair advantage

I'll get my coat

 

As far as I’m concerned, you can’t sit on the fence when it comes to animal welfare.
For thousands of years, man - as the superior species- has used animals for food, sport, pleasure, transport, or anything he’s deemed fit.
So you ether agree with that or you don’t.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with that and I see the majority of Saturday’s animal rights protesters as simply layabouts who live on the benefits paid for by all hard working taxpayers.
Yes, you could reduce the number of runners but that wouldn’t suit those protesters who simply want to do away with the race altogether; and a shorter run to the first fence seems sensible.
And I’m sure that racehorse owners, trainers, and jockeys do their utmost to care for the welfare of their charges, despite their awareness that equine injuries and deaths will happen at times.
That’s life, I’m afraid but, in this namby pamby society, there are too many people who need to “get a life” and stop throwing stones from inside their glass houses!

 

Looking at the numbers in the French equivelant the grand steeple chase de paris they limit to 20 runners , just the cream of the crop.

 

I don’t agree that we should remove the National because it always has a huge spotlight on it. Take away this race and the ‘spotlight’ will turn to the four days at Cheltenham.

I’m not sure of the statistics on the horses dying, as in, are the vast majority Class 4 or 5 horses? Are we letting too many horses on the track that aren’t suitable to be racehorses?

 

Tamerlo is spot on and Saff there as well. Start giving leeway and changing things and it's a big stinky Rabbit hole you're going down, and feck knows where it would end as "they" will go after everything to suit their agendas.

Tha National is not the race it once was due to the welfare changes which is fair enough. The only thing I would agree on changing above is the run to the first but you will always get jockeys rushing for position so it would have to be a 2 or 3 f run until they've sorted themselves out.

 

The people making the most noise about the Grand National are not interested in Racing and, ergo, not interested in horses. I think if any changes are made we have to be certain that it is not just the thin edge of the wedge, and that the GN is not got rid of followed by racing itself. As Pitt famously said ''beware of minorities they seek to put you in chains'' and that seems to be the way of the world at the moment. We seem to be accommodating every damn minority there is, while the silent majority looks on (increasingly aghast)..
The leader of one of these groups was on the radio yesterday saying first we must get rid of racing then stop eating animals. I think those that love this sport must get their act together and show these people what they are..
Maybe changes should be made. I wouldn't object to shortening the distance of the run to the first. But be clear why it's being done and not just to appease a lot of care-less extremists.
I do find it significant that there were significantly more fallers at the first two fences.