Grand National Daily Thread

i feel the same joe! If he was my gold cup winnerm, I would rap him in cotton wool in between races, to have a gold cup winner is very rare! you would do everything you can to keep him sound and prep him for the year after to regain his crown!

 

"There is always risk in sport. A lot of people have to grow up, and realise that it is life." -Paul Nicholls.

I am entering Paul Nicholls into a heavyweight boxing match against Vitali Klitshko, that i have not asked him should not matter but he will have he's saddle sorry i mean gloves put on and sent in the ring regardless. I would like to say now that should he sustain any serious injury and any one wants to complain, would they just grow up, its sport these things happen.

 

Brilliant bluesky....fantastic analogy. How does Klitschko feel about giving all that weight away?
Totally out of touch with reality and defending his livelihood to the hilt in my opinion.

 

I must say I think Nicholls is on the mark in this regards, racing is a sport with inherent dangers, much like many other sports (marathon running, Greyhound racing, motorsport to name but three) and those who participate in the sport, by buying and racing thoroughbreds know the risks that their horses are taking when racing in events such as the Grand National.

I am not a big fan of the race, but I can't see what more the authorities can do to make the race safer, unless they change it completely and ruin what is a magnificent traditional event which is watched by 600 million globally. They have tried to make it safer, without changing what intrinsically makes it the event people know and love.

Nicholls stated that horses are more likely to be killed in a field than when racing, if that is the case, then that says a great deal about the way racehorses are looked after at the racecourses.

 

Furthermore, should anyone continue to complain after i have told them to grow up i will tell them how well Mr Nicholls was looked after when he was alive. I will tell them how i used to give him lots of rich food and as much ale as he could drink, just look at him i will say, not to mention the fine fine tweed clothing and country hats like your average man in the street would never see.

Joking aside, i do agree with you Nass that any sport comes with a danger, we do however have two problems with this idea in relation to horse racing. The first is that the horse does not choose it where as the rugby player does, also we have to ask ourselves if we are going too far in creating man made danger, why such big fences? why so many runners allowed? we are revelling in the dangers faced by an unchoosing animal for our pleasure and this should always cause a problem to an compassionate human being.

 

In that case then Bluesky, shall we get rid of horse racing altogether, and rid the world of the wonderful animal that is the thoroughbred racehorse?

I agree PN was a little hasty and also his comments could definitely have been worded better, however he himself has lost more than his fair share of promising horses, Twist Magic to name but one, I think he's probably become it a bit numb to horses losing their life within the sport. I'm not saying its an excuse but it could be an explanation as to why his comments were a bit short and to the point.

 

sorry to butt in ...... new here

however i think the most telling arguement here is that these NH horses, as fantastic as they are, they are almost without exception gelded, therefore no stud value and no real risk to keep running them and risking them in these crazy races

a full horse with a sellable stud value would never ever be entered in the GN

 

Joe, I felt his comments were rather condescending. A bit "we" know better than "you". Reminded of the last century and the old boys network frankly. Anyone with such a vested interest is bound to defend his corner.

I dont believe we should abolish racing, I just think that this is a spectacle we can do without and frankly NASS I dont care how many people watch it, it doesnt make it right. I dare say they still sell out bullfighting every week in some countries!

 

Fair enough Stick, I can see where you're coming from, PN has never been the most tactful with his comments anyway.

I think I know how he feels though, everyone at work was imploring me today for my views on the 'cruel and barbaric sport' (quote) they know I attend and watch on a regular basis. I did get a bit defensive myself though, because I had people who I knew for a fact didn't know what they were talking about, analysing and criticising a sport they watched, at most, once a year! These people have no clue about all the good that goes on in Horse Racing, and only see the bad because the bloodthirsty media are only interested in big headlines and selling papers.

The problem is if you ban the national on the back of 2 horses getting killed in incidents that could quite frankley have happened at any NH racecourse in the country, then people are going to start hunting down for Cheltenham to be banned and so on, where does it stop?

 

I disagree with the first part, he was asked a question and he replied in an honest manner, he probably gets letters through the post from those who are against the sport daily and he probably gets accosted by them too. I actually agree with him, people do need to grow up in this regard, everyone knows that the Grand National has the likelihood of fatalities (both horse and jockey) and people should also know (because of the BBC's brilliant coverage) that the owners and stable staff care greatly for the horses and would do everything in their powers to keep the horses alive, if they thought it was a humane thing to do.

Now, I understand people think the sport is wrong because we are risking the lives of animals for pleasure, and that is fine, however I don't think people can watch the race (probably bet too) and then criticise the sport, knowing full well what has happened previously. I actually find it surprising that people who follow the sport and have close links with the sport are saying that the National Hunt sphere can do without the Grand National and all that it brings to the table. I am not a fan of the race, but I accept it as a thorough test for horse and jockey and a wonderful event for those lucky enough to have a runner.

In the same way I would go to a bullfight, knowing the end product, and the same way I would go game hunting.

I am not saying its right or wrong, but I am saying that there is a need for it and if people know the risks, then they can opt out of the event.

 

I think Joe that there is an argument that could be made for banning racing (certainly national hunt at least) but it is most definately not one i agree with. I do feel however that with the national we have constructed man made challenges that create the dangers that the horses face and they are simply not needed for anything other than the spectacle and i simply don't want to put something that beautiful and intelligent in that much danger for how it looks for me to see it. The fences are not seen on any other course and never are 40 runners allowed to contest a chase on any other course let alone one with thise fences. We made these fences and its not necessary.

The Paul Nicholls thing is different, the offence is that he used very aggresive language and put down people who's motivation was simply compassion regardless of if we agree with them or not. Once he gathered himself he toned it down but often you see the real feelings in the moment. I have always been neither a fan or the opposite of Nicholls but i have lost some respect for him over that.

An animal becoming extinct idea i can never buy into as a compassionate argument. It's the if we did not put this Rhino in a zoo it would become extinct, it's for its own good. The animal has no idea of it's continuity, no sentiment and like many things we preserve them only for ourselves. The caring for them and their environment should arise as a motivation in us much earlier. It's a bit like saying if Bulls were endangered we would be doing THEM a favour by keeping the species going even though we kill them in bull fights because if we did not they would become extinct, and the bulls would say gosh thanks.

I love Racing by the way, just not the National as it has too many man made dangers. I used to hate that Czech race as well in which horses would die most years. I do even accept that deaths will occur during racing, it's just the provoking them in the way the national does that does not sit right.

 

Thoroughbreds would not exist if man had not contributed to making certain breeds of horses mate with each other, solely for the purpose of racing them so in theory if you banned horse racing, there would be no reason for them to exist. They are bred to do what they do, and in the main they enjoy galloping and jumping. Rhinos are not bred to be kept in a zoo, and bulls are certainly not bred to be run down a street in Spain, before being murdered.

Fair enough you think the national fences are too much of a test. I disagree, the accidents that happened on Saturday could have happened anywhere, at any racecourse in the country, so to blame the fences is IMO showing a misunderstanding of what led to the two horses dieing on this particular occasion.

I was sickened at the 2 horses that died in 2011, Dooneys Gate, and Ornais. Both suffered horrific injuries that WERE the fault of the fences, a broken back, and a broken neck respectively. I made a concious decision to finish with the national altogether unless changes were made. Changes there were, and I decided to give the national another chance.

You can't judge the changes that have been made on two accidents in one race that could have occurred anywhere! The changes need to be judged over at least 3/4/5 runnings. If there were still being animals killed on a regular basis after this, and the blame could be level at the obstacles, then the time for considering the abolishment of the national would then have to happen.

 

Not sure I agree that the two fatal injuries could have happened anywhere. According to Pete's appeared to be due to a collision which would be extremely unlikely to happen in a standard chase - it was due to the number of runners and the toughness of the fences. Also, how many horses suffer fatal injuries when galloping free after a fall? I'm not aware of it happening that often.

I have NH racing in my blood but am increasingly beginning to feel that the National has seen out its shelf life. It is supposed to be the showcase of NH racing but is an embarassment. People who know nothing about the sport dismiss NH as 'the Grand National and all that nonsense', blissfully unaware that the National is a unique event. So they wrap the whole of NH racing up with what they see in the National and extrapolate 4 deaths in two years into a ridiculous number across the whole sport. That is the danger for me and we need to be careful that NH as a whole is not compromised by the injury and fatality rate in the National.

 

Why would it be extremely unlikely to happen in a standard chase? Half the field were already out of the race, or were behind According to Pete when he was brought down, so the too many horses argument can't be applied in that particular incident. According to Pete jumped the fence fine, it was the horse at the side of him which killed him, and if you've never seen a horse brought down in that fashion outside the National, then you can't have seen many races.

I vividly remember Neptune Collonges brought down in a Hennessy handicap a few years ago in a very similar incident, so to blame the fences on this occasion for this fatality is wrong and misguided IMO. According to Pete was unfortunately very unlucky.

I'll grant you that its unusual to have horses injure themselves galloping free, but is definitely not unique. Synchronised should not have run in the National, anyone that has ever seen him jump a fence could surely see that, again whether the course and its obstacles can be blamed for this death is questionable.

You make a valid point about the National reflecting badly on the NH game as a whole though, because to the ignorant and misinformed it doesn't look good when statistics are trotted out. But the media don't help, and people that should know better write lazy articles attempting to get a bit of self-exposure and publicity at the expense of equine tragedy, and stir up a cocophany of ill-feeling towards horse racing as a whole.

 

Interesting points on this one Oddy... The Cheltenham Festival, imo, is a far bigger a racing event than the Grand National and yet Cheltenham had its share of deaths this year and to my knowledge the media didnt jump all over the festival as a whole as they have done with the GN. Yes there was metion of the X-Country track being too dry and dangerous, and yes the jumps/fences are totally different to what you usually see horse go over. But i do think its more of a opportunity for the Anti-Horse racing people to pick on the GN because of its prestige and viewer potential... The thing is not one racing fan wants a horse death at any racecourse yet alone the one with the most publicity, and yet its the one that gets targeted every year now.

Its a damn shame all round and something that wont stop until the GN has a race in which every horse that starts finishes year after year after year...

The points about the standard of horse is also a very relevant one. Why oh why do some trainers think that a horse would get round some trips if the average defeat is over 80l's...?

There are still a lot of questions to answer and in time they will ebb away until next years race... A never ending story this one im afraid...

 

As I said yesterday on the old ‘Daily Thread’ I was both saddened and appalled by this years Grand National and really can see no future for the race. I’m sure its got another few renewals left in it but beyond that I seriously do doubt if it has a long-term future. From now on, whether purists like it or not, any subsequent running is going to be judged not on its winner but whether or not there are any fatalities and any contest (in whatever sphere of life) that has this shadow hanging over it really does have no future. In the last 2 years a total of 2 deaths have occurred per heat and it may be gruesome and macabre to wonder this but how many fatalities could the contest cope with, in one running, before it is forcibly cancelled??? On the above average, for instance, if we got none next year but 4 in the following renewal the race would be over immediately as you could never justify such a scenario in the case of ‘sport’. My view is that the race should be curtailed to the annuls of history with immediate effect. Yes, it is part of this country’s heritage and history but that is no reason to keep something past its ‘sell-by date’.

Mr Nicholls comments were his truthful opinion and no-one should ever be slated for giving such a view (regardless of whether or not you agree with it) as honesty in sport these days is becoming a rare commodity. I must say that what really, really bugs me is when owners or trainers come on with the sanctimonious and quite frankly lying, but P.C. correct line of, ‘all we hope for is that our horse comes home safe’. Broken down this means, with the GN in mind, that come 4.30 all they wanted was their horse to be alive. Total rot as if that’s ‘all they wanted’ they would never have subjected the beast to risking its life for the past 10 minutes. Horse racing is not a sport of ‘champagne and roses’, I’m afraid, as some people like to portray it. Unfortunately, at times it can be cold, hard and brutal and is far more often that not driven by money above all other things. Apart from the odd Corinthian or two people do not race for valour or glory these days but in the pursuit of cold hard cash.

I have always felt that those employed by racecourses and those who job it is to promote racing are often the worst sort of PR officers of all time and would question how they got their jobs in the first place. They always seem to promote a ‘them and us’ scenario and continually talk down to their audience believing that they themselves are always right and others, as they know little on the subject, should be ignored as they are irrelevant. When put up against a half decent broadcaster such racing PR people are often shown to be pompous with quite honestly opinions that do not stand up. The obvious recent example would be Simon Claisse following 5 fatal injuries, on the opening two days, at this years Cheltenham Festival. Rather than say how sad he was about this, offer consolation to connections or suggest ways to prevent this in the future he immediately went on the defensive and said, repeatedly in interviews, that the racecourse had no case to answer and largely refused to talk further on the subject as if it hadn’t happened.

I’ve been a follower and admirer of National Hunt racing for the best part of 20 years, ever since I was a tiny little ‘un, and as my regular readers will testify am no ‘bleeding heart Liberal’, but must say that never have I been more disillusioned with the sport (mainly as a result of the number of fatalities that are occurring, some to old faves of mine) and am starting to prefer the Flat version for the first time ever. Sir Henry has recently spoken about the breed being more vulnerable and susceptible to injury than ever before and perhaps this is the reason for the above but whatever the answer I really think a thorough review, including people from outside of racing rather than the usual ‘old boys whitewash’, needs to be conducting as National Hunt racing is at the moment doing itself no favours and the worst culprit is the Grand National which, in my view, is starting to drag the sport down to very low depths.

 

Nicely thought out piece Barney.

 

I regularly visit the HorsedeathWatch site as it's the only site I know where you can find out if an injured horse came home or not. The site shows that the number of deaths has fallen dramatically since the site began. The past year (13/3/11 to 12/03/12 as the site started on 13/3/2007) saw the lowest number, 115 and a fall in numbers for the 3rd year running from a high of 182, which shows improvements are being made.

I'm also saddened at the number of true racing fans who want the National scrapped. If you think the RSPCA and other campaigners will go away if this happens you are wrong. Just look what is happening with smoking. First it was no smoking in restuarants, then all public places, now they are wanting it scapped in your car and in beer gardens. If the National goes their focus will change to the Cheltenham festival and then it will be scrapping National Hunt Racing going altogether, so every fan shoud defend it.

Another point is the media who seem to believe most people want it scrapped. The TV audience was over 11 million this year and it was a 70,000+ sell out. This will make the National the biggest sporting TV audience of the year (unless England prove us wrong at Euro 2012) and will dwarf the FA Cup Final audience in a few weeks. That is hardly public condemnation, but more of a huge show of support and this follows 2011 where far worse images were shown live on TV.

The National is a spectacular event that brings many into National Hunt Racing and the authorities need to defend it, or I doubt I'll have the opportunity to visit Prestbury Park each March.

 

Nothing wrong with cracking down on smoking in public. Passive smoking kills. It's true that the animal rights people will not go away if the National is scrapped, they will as you've suggested, move onto other hunt events. I think they've made it quite clear in the past that they want the game outlawed. But this does not necessarily mean that we have to defend the unconscionable. The Grand National stands a fair distance from everyday jumping events. If the same ratio of deaths occurred in most hunt races, then the sport probably couldn't survive. As Zim once said, "The times, they are a changin'" Maybe it needs to go.