People need to get a ****ing grip here and look at the incidents separately before they have a blanket reaction of 'its babaric, it should be scrapped'! The blame for Synchronised's death should be laid squarely at the connections' door, he didn't have the scope for the race, he's never jumped well enough to even suggest he's a National horse, so he shouldn't have even been there in the first place. Not the fault of the race, or it obstacles whatsoever. According to Pete was the victim of a tragic accident, and the incident which broke his leg could have happened at any park racecourse, so to blame the race as a whole for that particular incident is nothing short of short-sightedness and reactionary non-analytical rhetoric. I'm obviously very saddened by the deaths of 2 wonderful racehorses, but the course and/or obstacles can not be blamed for the 2 incidents yesterday. The only modification I can give credence to is a decrease of the number of runners, but apart from it should just be left as it is. Without racing, these thoroughbreds would not exist in the first place.
Can you as easily explain all the other twenty fatalaties on the National course in the last twelve years? Most on this forum were confident that Synchronised was NOT a National horse but still he was allowed to take his chance without ever proving his ability over this type of fence. By the way, I am equally certain that more qualifying races over the course would only lead to more fatalaties in those qualifiers. For years Joe Lively I have held the exact same view as you have expressed above. I think I changed my mind yesterday when I saw a horse that I thought should absolutely not be there, lose his life. This is not hindsight as I expressed this view on this forum prior to the race! I am leaving this debate now as I have more than had my say. I sincerely hope that some good comes out of such tragic events. Such a shame that the discussion isnt about what a thrilling climax the race was yesterday. That has somewhat faded into the background.
Before you get too high on your high horse, many (myself included) voiced similar concerns about whether Sunnyhillboy, for the same connections, would have the necessary size and scope for the National test. He jumped fantastic and went down by an agonising nose, the smallest margin of defeat in the race's long long history. Junior was another who people had doubts about and he fell early too. I am sure many would have had West End Rocker down as a suitable horse having won the Becher and yet he fell at the 2nd. Giles Cross, although having no course form, looked the ideal type and he hated the place. We can guess, but in reality it is not that simple. I said before the race that I didn't think Synchronised was a National horse. That doesn't mean that I am now right because of the tragic events. It also doesn't mean that connections were wrong for running him. At the end of the day they have much more information and knowledge about their horse and his suitability for the race than we do. If they were happy for him to take his chance then I have no problem with that because I am quite sure that they wouldn't have risked him if they had any doubt. Synchronised's jumping over the first 5 was unremarkable, either good or bad, he jumped Becher's well enough but knuckled on landing as countless horses have before. It was as soft a fall as you will see and he then got up and galloped off, before suffering his injury 5 fences later. I haven't quite collected my thoughts on the race and what should happen yet but am in the process of doing so. However, one thing that drives me absolutely insane is people claiming to 'know' about things about which they have no knowledge. The statement that "the blame for Synchronised's death should be laid squarely at the connections' door" is a case in point. P.S. Joe, I don't mean that to come across badly, but I fear that it will.
No I can't Stick, but I do know I felt exactly the same about the race 12 months ago as a lot of you do today, and was considering never bothering with it again. The incident where Dooneys Gate was killed made me feel sick to the stomach, and I thought that no horse should be put through what he went through when he broke his back trying to jump a fence. I then started thinking a deeper about it, and actually made a point of reading up on the modifications the BHA and Aintree were going to make and the differences these changes would have in the practical running of the race. I decided to give it another chance, and I'm glad I did. Now I'm not saying that it makes a difference how a horse dies, however I do think the severity of the injuries suffered were nowhere near as bad as last year (a broken back, and a broken neck), which to me shows an improvement already, please don't read into this that I'd rather a horse die one way rather than another because I wouldn't, I'd rather them not perish at all but I hope you can see where I'm coming from. Cheltenham's fatality rate isn't great (40 deaths minimum since 2007), but do people want that racecourse closed? IMO in this debate, you can't have it both ways, people are trying to have their cake and eat it. My old favourite Neptune Collonges stepped out of the substantial shadows of Kauto Star and Denman, and landed the prize his service to the sport deserved. That's what people should be talking about.
Sorry Zen - 'claiming to know about things about which they have no knowledge'.......what do you mean exactly? Please elaborate.
Hadn't realised this debate was ongoing. I'll always view the race as a brutal test, one improvement I think needs to be brought in is reducing the number of runners. Too many go too quick early on to avoid trouble and if you make a mistake at that pace the risks increase, reducing the field will create bigger gaps/lanes for horses to take and may reduce the speed they travel for the first half mile. It's always sad when horses die providing us with entertainment but I'll always believe that they enjoy what they do too, they just happen to be incredibly fragile animals...
You said "he didn't have the scope for the race, he's never jumped well enough to even suggest he's a National horse, so he shouldn't have even been there in the first place". You don't know that and yet state it as if it is fact. As I said in my previous post, we can try and draw conclusions about who might/might not take to the place but ultimately they are educated guesses. Jonjo/AP/JP know far more about their horse and are, as a consequence, far better placed to make the decision. Let me take the following horses, some of whom received considerable 'coverage' on this forum and in the wider media, as examples: Synchronised: Some, myself included, voiced concerns about his scope for Aintree. Falls at fence 6. Sunnyhillboy: Some, myself included, voiced concerns about his scope for Aintree. Finishes 2nd. Junior: Some, myself included, voiced concerns about his low jumping style. Falls at fence 2. West End Rocker: Winner of the Becher and one that could have been expected to jump round. Falls at fence 2. Black Apalachi: Winner of a Becher and one that could have been expected to jump round. Falls at fence 8. State Of Play: 4th, 3rd, 4th in the past three renewals. A banker to jump round. Unseats at fence 5. Vic Venturi: Winner of a Becher. Refuses at fence 19. It is clear from the above that our expectations of what might happen and what actually happens are very different.
The fences are still the problem. Plenty fell that were not brought down. They will continue to fall, and when that happens, the deaths will come. It's unavoidable. We can argue all we want, but the bottom line is that the Grand National is a conveyor belt pumping out ...
I'm delighted to see that my views on this issue are shared by you, Quel and rainbow View as you're all among the posters I have the most respect for on this forum. I have a lot of respect for the RSPCA as in general terms they tend to be quite measured in their approach to the national - it's the other groups like PETA etc. who tend to be very radical and, as others have said, we're in danger of giving them all the ammunition they need. Next year is going to be interesting as there is a chance that some Channel 4 advertisers won't wish to be associated with it.
Like i said its all about opinions you have yours I have mine, you cant change that. I think your attitude to others opinions is very autocratic. I respect your opinon so respect mine and lets agree to differ, whatever happens all sports have their fatalities some more than others by the way we had 5 fatalities at the Cheltenahm Festival and two at Newcastle in one day at Newcastle should we cancel that too, come on Stick open wake up and smell the coffee. Statistically Cheltenham festival over the last two years has had more fatalities than the Grand National so your argument is totally flawed, but i do respect your opinion.
'It is clear from the above that our expectations of what might happen and what actually happens are very different' No ****, otherwise we'd all be millionaires! Of course what I predicted (told anyone that would listen that Junior and Synchronised would not complete) was an educated guess, but a well thought out, rationalised guess it was, of which a large part of my racing KNOWLEDGE was used in drawing to this conclusion. Nothing in sport is fact until after the event is it? So with that in my mind Synchroniseds connections are experienced and knowledgeable enough to be able to read his previous races in order to make an educated guess as to how the horse should run. Surely they had seen how low he jumps, and how many times he used to fiddle his way over fences. This alone should have set alarm bells off when considering sending over bigger obstacles, and if he was my Gold Cup winner he would've been nowhere near the starting line yesterday. With that as my opinion I think the blame should be with connections. Apologies if I was like a bull in a china shop earlier, and my opinions came across as fact
Jesus - that is appalling. Incidentally, I like Paul Nicholls a lot but his comments be they in the heat of the moment or not about people needing to grow up were at best misguided. As one of the higher profile public faces of racing he really hasn't helped the situation. I would imagine that, like many on here who are massive racing fans I'm going to face a barrage of questions tomorrow at work from people who criticise the sport. Like you Stick i don't know how to defend the National any more and Paul really hasn't helped matters!.
In fairness Dan that was a "heat of the moment" interview. His comments this morning on the subject are a lot more "measured"!
Obviously nothing contentious in my earlier post. That's a relief. A regards defending the GN I wouldn't even try. Why should we? It's run once a year. My wife won't watch it. I watch it and I get excited if my selections are up there with a chance, even though I don't have a penny on them. I feel as sick as anyone about the injuries and fatalities and when Wooly puts up a picture of the horses that suffered, that honest and trusting look in their eyes brings tears to mine. It wouldn't bother me if the GN was never run again but as long as it is I know my mixed emotions about the race will be the same as they always have been. As hinted earlier though I would like to see a trial of stiffer qualification which would reduce the number of runners and bring the weights closer together.
This is the number of deaths in the national http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equine_fatalities_in_the_Grand_National it bears no statistical relationship to the number of runners that have competed in the past 30 years. Zen is absolutely right to call you up on making a pronouncement that Synchronised is not suited to it. To imagine that you know more than Jonjo o'Neill, AP and JP about their horse is ridiculous. Any of them could have got round, many that have before fell and many that others didnt think would did. As for not able to condone it cyc well i assume you'll be living without meat, leather and all sorts of gelatine-based products from now on as there's no way it is necessary to eat or wear animals anymore, there are plenty of alternatives, but we do not exist in the world of necessity only, we do many things because we like and enjoy them not because they are necessary.
Eleven deaths in the last ten runnings compared to seven in the ten before that proves unequivocally that the attempts to make the race safer have failed. Twenty two deaths over the National fences since 2000. Those are the facts, what are we going to do with them. Is an average in the race of a death each year palateable? Maybe we will get odds next year as to who it will be! Unacceptable for me personally.
Ches I have not touched meat in 50 years. Not because of the ethics concerned, but because it tastes like crap. I've already confessed to being a weak bastard who is willing to risk seeing a horse get killed, just to give myself a few hours of fun on race day. As for not condoning the sport, (if it can be called that) I was speaking from my ethical high horse. I fully realise that the world in which I live can't exist without the exploitation of our animal friends, but that should not blind me to the damage we inflict on these creatures. That said, I'll log on tomorrow as usual for more of the same. It's bed time. I usually take an hour or two to drop off. I know that as I lie there in the dark, I'll feel sorry for those who pay the ultimte price, leather shoes or no.
