Peolpe not interested in the sport will always focus on death if they cant get their teeth into another story. They do not share our inherent love of the sport and the technical machinations of form so obviously a simple story will appeal. Broadcasters know this which is why on a non-mundane raceday they go overboard with heartwarming tales of connections and how tough jockeys are. Horse personalities don't appear except to those very close so the focus must be on the human. Which is all well and good, and had there been no deaths yesterday would have been the main story again, maybe that bloke who the win was dedicated to, or John Hales or katie Walsh. But the lowest common denominator is and always will be death. Look at the overeaction to every minor celebrity's death. That doesn't mean we should bow to this feeling or even overly respect it, as you can be sure that most of those making 'cry! cry! cruelty!!' remarks yesterday won't give a **** by now and will be getting on with their lives.
It doesn't unequivocally prove that it has failed though stick, those samples are too small. From 96-99 there were 7 fatalities, from 75-79 7 as well. You can do all sorts with the figures to make them fit a thesis.My point is that there will be a time when there has been no fatalities for a couple of years and that it will still have been the same race, so it's a reaction to an immediate event rather than a measured reaction the whole history of the thing.
All I know is Ches that as a racing and National fan of many years the news that two horses had lost their lives again yesterday made me feel sickened. It's a race we do not need and a course we should do without. Just telling you how I feel and I think the stats of a horse dying on average every year in the same race speaks for itself.
Every two years, but I know what you mean. I disagree though. If we can do without it we can do without any of them ultimately.
"There is always risk in sport. A lot of people have to grow up, and realise that it is life." -Paul Nicholls. This gets me irate. He just brushes it under the carpet IMO. I suppose being a horse trainer though you hve no choice, otherwise you'd have an exceptionally heavy conscience. How do people need to "grow up"- its a perfectly logical argument to say that 40 horses pissballing at fences that are too big over a gruelling trip is immoral. Nicholls is just putting on the front because he knows what happens in racing. It annoys me that he comes out with a comment like this though. What shall we do then, just let it happen year in year out? Unbelieveably poor on Nicholls part.
When i think of the words " Grand National" it evokes a different kind of meaning than it used to.To me it Invariably means death and suffering. It is simply not acceptable to run a race this cruel and barbaric anymore,and in the name of sport.You can quote stats and figures till you are blue in the face.But ultimately you can guarantee that at least 1 horse will lose its life every year,if not more. Yet we are meant to accept these deaths and then use them merely as statistics for the basis of arguments and debates.The only way to stop deaths in the GN is not have the GN anymore.And i for one am fully behind banning the race.
Spot on. They are experienced and knowledgeable enough to read his previous races in order to make an educated guess as to how the horse would run. They decided the right decision was to run him. Are you suggesting According To Pete's connections were mad to run him as well? West End Rocker? State of Play? Etc . . . ? Just because what happened happened doesn't mean that you were right and they were wrong. They know far more about the horse than you do so are far better placed to make the decision.
Even if there were no Fatalities, the RSPCA would still have moaned about something. They hate the National and it's the time of year they enjoy in which they can blame deaths on someone else. Aintree have done an excellent job, although I am slightly against the 'cornering' of loose horses beside the Canal Turn. One day those horses will start running the wrong way and will cause chaos. by Foinavon and Beaches. They do have to be congratulated in their innovation of adding space so that horses can bypass the fences when required. Great. As for the fences, they looked fine. Beaches didn't claim as many horses as it usually does so there was improvement there. The chair only claimed a couple throughout the weekend so again successful.
I bet half of the people who moaned still had a bet on the race knowing that a horse could be killed at any second
Another thing I really dislike is the use of the word 'destroyed'. I know and understand why they use it and as a result I cringe everytime. I'd rather they used died though maybe I need to think of the children or something.
"Destroyed" conjures up a vision of Jeremy Clarkson. Why can't they say something like "Was spared any suffering"?
The use of the word 'destroyed' by Barty wasn't the best, and I suspect that a producer was screaming in his ear afterwards because I did notice that when he got to According To Pete he had been 'put down'. They are one and the same but somehow convey a very different message. I have horses myself, and compete them, and take risks, and I accept that it is an inevitability that one day I will lose a horse in action, if I don't kill myself first. However, that doesn't mean for one minute that I don't care for them as the animal rights brigade would have you believe. Racehorses are about the best looked after animal in the world, treated like Kings and kept fit and healthy to run to the best of their abilities. If I had the choice between a broken leg for me or a broken leg for one of my horses, I'd take it myself every day of the week. One reason is that obviously isn't fatal for me, but also, what is the point of me not having a broken leg if my horse does? It is my raison d'etre. And on that subject there is a rather excellent article in the Guardian from a while back which everybody should read - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/sep/23/claims-five-broken-leg-horse?CMP=twt_gu
The other thing I meant to say was a Tweet by Sean Boyce really struck a cord. It was something along the lines of at least we are hoping for the best, rather than hoping for the worst, like the animal rights campaigners. I would rather have lost two horses yesterday than gained two statistics.
Wouldn't bother me if they ripped up the national fences tomorrow and the race were never run again. I was there Thursday and had a walk down to look at the last, and even with the built-up areas before and after the fence it looked monstrous - any that is one of the "easy" ones.
I reckon if jonjo ever has another GC winner he will not run him in the national again (if its still around, to me NH racing does not need the race. It is really the race for the masses!) But it is ridiculous running a gold cup winner in a race like the national- As someone said earlier can you imagaine Nicholls putting Kauto Star round there or NTD putting Imperial Commander, no way! To win the gold cup the horse has to be the creme dela creme, top of the world, the number one chaser in the world. Surely you would do everything you could to protect him/her, the star of your stable for the next year. Im not blaming connections, they never would have put him in hte race if they didnt think he was capble of getting round. I did have agut feeling for synchronised at the beginning of the race, I wish I was wrong!! RIP To both horses
Most owners and trainers want to have the winner of the National on their roll of honour and though they have done it before, to do it again would be great, i'm sure JP and Noreen wanted to see the horse run in the race and they all concurred that he was well and able to do so and if they felt he may win, then why not run him? The sad fact is people can't predict the future, they know by running their horse he may be injured and that's the chance taken. Also a huge loss According to Pete. And yes the word destroyed is not nice to see. I turn on the sport news to see ''2 horses destroyed in National'', and my first thoughts are off bad images of horses in pain, i hope they might re think their wording in future. Sad day for racing, R.I.P both horses.
The things I dislike most about the GN fences are: 1. Does there have to be a ditch in front of a fence? A take off line is good but why a ditch? 2. Does there have to be an invisible drop the other side of a fence? 3. Do we really need a fence over 6ft high?
I dislike the invisible drops also, it seems an easy way to get injured. Something like us jumping a wall 2ft on this side and with a 8ft drop on the other, easy way to break/tear/pull something.
1. I knew there was a very good chance Synchronised would not get round, statistically this gave him an increased chance of falling, therefore increasing the chance of injury. I was right (unfortunately and regrettably), they were wrong. 2. I agree they were in a far better position than me to make the decision, they made the wrong one. According to Pete was a tragic accident that could have happened anywhere. I'll say again, no horses life is worth more than another, but if Synch had been my Gold Cup winner, he wouldn't have gone within 100 miles of Aintree
