I think (hope) that the majority of Horse Racing fans who think that the national should be scrapped want it to be scrapped because they think it a genuine danger to the horses running in it, not because they hope that it will 'make the RSPCA go away'. I personally think that the argument that 'if we loose the national we will loose the lot' is incorrect. To my mind there are two opinions here: 1) "The media pressure about horse deaths only happens around the Grand National because it has a greater public image", or 2) "The media pressure about horse deaths only happens around the Grand National because it appears to pose a greater risk". If you subscribe to idea 1, then, sadly, the Cheltenham Festival simply does not have the same level of public knowledge, and probably never will. If the National is scrapped then the public's main knowledge of racing will be about the Classics, not Cheltenham. The lack of public interest would diminish the calls for changes to racing as the RSPCA and the like wouldn't have the same level of pulpit to stand at. If you subscribe to idea 2, then the lower statistics relating to rest of racing, not just at the National, would also decrease the public interest in other events. In my personal, and relatively uninformed opinion, if the probability of a horse dying on an average run around the National Fences is significantly higher than the probability that a horse will die running around a normal chase course, then the National course should be scrapped and the National should be run over normal fences. The fact that 14 horses have died jumping Bechers Brook in the National, whilst no more than 7 have died jumping any of the other fences in that race, to me indicates that it should be removed from the course. If no other changes are ever made to the National, then this should be the one.
Just over 104,000 people in 2006 died from smoking related illnesses in the UK. An estimated 400,000 people stopped smoking as a result of the smoking ban introduced in 2007. The smoking ban is a perfect comparison: smoking in a way which provides an unethical risk to innocent bystanders has been stopped, and smoking in the comfort of ones own home in a way which does not affect the lives of uninvolved people is still more than acceptable to whoever wants to. If National Hunt racing manages a similar level of success: racing banned on more statistically unsafe environments (i.e the National Course), whilst decreasing the number of horse deaths by a significant amount, I would think that an excellent result.
There is a problem with reffering to the animal rights brigade in the way people do as it becomes such a negative term and prevents reasonable exchange of views. This exchange of views is essential for evoloution, as the people who oppose something and ask for change act as a pressure against what currently exists and that pressure in theory when governed by open minded compassionate governers allows the collective as a whole to evolve. We no longer have racism that would have been acceptable in the seventies, women can vote and we no longer have legal dog and cock fighting but when someone first opposed these things they were seen as radical and unreasonable. Whilst i would agree that the extremes that exist in the animal rights movement are as unwanted or unhelpful as the extremes we see in other parts of life, we need be careful that anyone speaking up with an argument is not marginalised by the conviniant lumping in with those extremes. It is, whether you agree with it or not perfectly reasonable and logical to make an argument that the national now crosses the line that we as a supposedly compassionat society are unwilling to cross, the argument needs hearing and considering at least. The day we succeed in avoiding a challenge to our point of view by casting opposition as silly or needing to grow up we will have all lost. If we would have done that all along women would still be in the kitchin putting up with anything and everything, all blood sports would be allowed as long as entertaining and Jim Davidson would still be seen as the height of sophistication of humour. We always need that pressure upon us, challenging what is seen as acceptable.
Bluesky, yours is principally a reasonable point of view, and I agree that arguments should not be "marginalised." However, what we are discussing here is human beings using animals for sport- and all the ramifications that this practice encompasses. As I see it, once you accept this practice in principle, then I find it hard to understand any outrage at two horses dying in the Grand National- given that we accept an owner's right to run his horses for sport and pleasure; and that all parties involved (BHA, Trainers, Stewards, Course Officials, etc) do everything to ensure that high safety standards and good practices are met. Many sports can involve high risks and I can understand the argument that a horse, albeit a relatively docile and arguably unintelligent animal species, does not determine its own destiny when it is made to race or do other activities. I do not wish to enter the argument as to whether horses enjoy racing or not- or even whether we, as the superior animal, have the right to use them for pleasure. What I can't accept is decrying the Grand National as cruel and yet accepting steeplechasing in general. Notwithstanding more horses will die in this particular race than any other, there are no "cruel hands" manipulating the horses- as happens say in dog fighting. In other words, I don't think the event has crossed a boundary where tragedy rules the roost. If you believe it has crossed that boundary, then why watch it at all- or any steeplechasing for that matter? Personally I prefer and respect consistency of opinion, not knee-jerk reactions to one event. I love the Grand National and see it as a great spectacle. I also believe that is the view of the majority.
I agree with your points Tamerlo and i also do not feel that we have crossed that boundary within horse racing in general. The only point i dis-agree with is the one below. 'that all parties involved (BHA, Trainers, Stewards, Course Officials, etc) do everything to ensure that high safety standards and good practices are met.' I do not believe they have ensured this with regard to this particular race. If they had the too many runners, too challenging fences would not hold water. I think we need do more to meet the criteria you mention with regard the National, which if we did would mean it would cease be the National. The statistic we really need is how does it compare to any other race in the last 20 years, i.e Gold cup, Champion chase, Champion hurdle, Arkle etc as if it had a statistic that stood out like a sore thumb this would say look we are clearly allowing this too be too dangerous. My main point was about the way a challenge to what currently exists is met with aggression and be-littling in case something should gather pace and cause a change, it is that challenge that helps us evolve, but at the same time each challenge must be able to show scentific, factual or compassionate reasoning that the current situation is unacceptable. To re-itterate i agree with you Racing in general has not crossed the line and those that would like it banned do not have a strong enough argument in my opinion but with regard the National i think perhaps they might. We could also put down every progressive proposal with the simplistic 'If you don't like it, dont do it' but like i said before no evoloution would be possible. Imagine if you don't like slavery dont have a slave, but don't question our right to.
Can I just say that this debate is a credit to everyone involved and if the BHA wants to view an extremely well informed cross section of racing fans then it should look through this thread. One of the best debates I have ever seen on a forum and some excellent writing. Above all, in the main, very reasoned, thought provoking and respectful.
I thought the same Stick - more than 300 posts, with vastly differing opinions, on an incredibly emotive subject with barely a cross word. Just shows what can be achieved when people value each others opinions!
SPOT ON. The best comment I have read on the subject so far, and what I have been driving at for ages now. How can people accept NH racing as a whole knowing full well horses will be fatally injured throughout the season, and not accept the National? And further more what is the point of a Grand National, if any old hobby hoss can jump the fences and complete the course like any other racecourse?! I would consider decreasing the number of runners, but apart from I fail to see what other aspect of the National should be changed. Just to clarify I love NH racing (far more than the flat) but can live with the fact that as regrettable as they may be, accidents happen. Although I am saddened and sometimes very upset when horses die partaking in the sport I love, I know that the highs of racing far outweigh the lows. As long as the deaths are investigated, and any improvements made to ensure they don't happen again, it sits ok with me. I'd like to follow the comments made above by Stick and Dan, an excellent debate
Agree this is an excellent debate. My old man was a travelling head lad for 25 years and I wonder what he and his generation would make of all this. I well remember his distress when he returned from the races without a horse (or even worse with an empty horsebox, as happened once when a particularly high-profile stable star was fatally injured at Cheltenham). His anguish was far more genuine than that of most of the animal rights people who pop up at this time of the year. Like many people in racing he spoke of the horses as if they were humans and they were never viewed as "disposables", which seems to be a charge levelled at the NH fraternity by ignorant outsiders. When the Queen Mother had horses with Fulke Walwyn she would not have a runner in the Grand National. No doubt scarred by the Devon Loch incident, she would not budge when Walwyn pleaded with her to run horses which were tailor-made for the race such as Game Spirit and Special Cargo. I wonder if she also had in the back of her mind the likely furore if she had a runner in the race which was fatally injured. So although it was frustrating at the time she probably made the right decision.
I agree Fulkes, some of the animal rights groups (RSPCA) do do their research and understand what they are protesting about, however others as you have alluded to, just seem to want to scream and shout about something, anything, to have their voices heard. Anyone that attends the Cheltenham festival on a regular basis will know about the animal rights protesters that stand on the corner at the roundabout just outside the entrance, think they are part of Animal Aid. They usually have cardboard cutouts of grave headstones that have a horses name on them that has unfortunately perished in previous years at the Festival. One particular year, one of the protesters, a young lady, happened to have a headstone which simply read 'Gloria Victis', and I decided I would try and engage them in conversation on the subject they were protesting about. 'Hello there, do you happen to know what actually happened to Gloria Victis?', I said. 'Yeah, she(!) died jumping a fence here', came the reply. 'Actually', I said, 'it's more widely accepted that the horse separated, or broke, a shoulder before the fence when running on flat ground, an accident that can happen anywhere, including during recreational equestrian events, so more research required on your part I think don't you?' Needless to say she totally changed the subject, started raising her voice gradually to a scream and accused me of funding animal cruelty. I lost a lot of respect for that particular animal rights group that day.
About to say something similar Stick but couldn't have put it better myself. My view is very simplistic compared to the grand debate here. Keep the National. Definitely fill in the ditches and maybe reduce the height of the Chair. Stiffer qualification resulting in fewer runners and a narrower weight range. Having watched the National several times now (but only from about 6 out), the thrill of the race and the emotions of the victors are things I would hate to see disappear. If the changes resulted in no further accidents that could be attributed in any way to the nature of the race then maybe we won't be having this debate again. That would be some achievement.
I think i pretty much agree with your view Ron, fences safer, fewer runners and we bring the National nearer to the rest of national hunt racing rather than this stand alone test which perhaps push's the dangers too far in the name of spectacle. I think this would be my reply also to the comments above in genuinely not understanding how it is possible to agree with National hunt racing in general but not the National. I find it distinctly possible to seperate the two as i think some of us view the National as a stand alone race in which the dangers are allowed to continue for the joy of the spectacle, where as national hunt racing in general does not do that, and some of us are simply questioning that. This is how it is possible to be a fan of National hunt racing but not the national, very simply the view can be taken that it is not like any other national hunt race and is allowed to be too challenging for a few collective reasons because of it's profile. We would as i say need statistical evidence to decide if we are being over reactionary or not. If the Gold cup had 6 deaths in 20 years the champion chase 3, the arkle 5, the champion hurdle 2, Midlands national 6 and the National 25 then we do have an argument that holds water and "grow up" or "but i like it" really should not deter reasonable debate. If however there is very little in the statistics then we can say there is perhaps an over reaction on account of the races high profile, by all means review it and make any obvious changes that may help but conclude there is not really a situation that says this race should be singled out alone. These statistics would help bring some substance to the debate and take emotion out of it on both sides of the arguement. It's the emotion that makes it hard to bring the two sides together as even personally you know very well that you can never discuss something with someone when they have become over emotional as the first thing that happens is they become unable to listen with perspective due to their investment in their existing point of view. In this debate it's the over emotion that makes anyone stating a case for the national a blood thirsty horse hater and any one arguing its need for change or removal from the calendar a mad animal rights brigader who given half a chance will take the fun out of everything and eat your grandma.
Bluesky, another well-reasoned argument. Yet is there anything wrong with having a "stand alone test?" Isn't it this very aspect of the race which has created its uniqueness; its memorable history; its great tradition; and its weird and wonderful 'tales of the unexpected?' From the aptly named original winner, Lottery; through to Foinavon and the historic 23rd fence pile up; and onto the great achievements of Red Rum. Millions of memories for millions of people. How could anyone throw all that into the rubbish bin? How could anyone dare? To digress slightly.... If you were to ask me which Grand National would I have liked to see more than any other, then it has to be the 1938 renewal. I take the liberty of extracting a few lines from an Article I posted last autumn.... "Bruce Hobbs was in the final minutes of his mortal days. He recollected all the wonderful memories of a life fulfilled, but one magical memory dominated all the others...... In 1938, the young seventeen year old professional had ridden over thirty winners during that season- and was lucky enough to be riding in the Grand National – on Battleship, an eleven year old entire trained by his father, Reg Hobbs, for American owner, Marion Dupont Scott- who was married to film star, Randolph Scott. Battleship had won the American Grand National as a seven year old (among other races in the USA) and was then sent to compete in the UK. However, the handicapper did him no favours in allotting him 11st 6lbs. The race produced a gruelling finish... After jumping the last behind Irish challenger, Royal Danieli, Bruce Hobbs conjured one last, desperate effort from his muscular, small sized mount. With flailing arms and heels dug in, Battleship responded and, in the shadow of the post, stuck out his neck to win. Whatever the depth of your sensibility, you have to believe that no other jockey felt greater exhilaration and excitement than that experienced by young seventeen year old Bruce Hobbs on that memorable day in 1938. He still remains the youngest jockey ever to win Aintree’s great marathon- on the smallest ever horse and the last successful entire." Looking down from above, I wonder what Bruce Hobbs would think if you suggested scrapping the Grand National? PS. What a coincidence that Neptune Collonges was the same age, carried the same weight and won in similar fashion. It would be easy to forget what a great finish last Saturday's National produced.
I have to agree with the Stick comment, supported by the rank and file, that this is a cracking thread. It's something that just couldn't happen on the General Chat Forum. I think one of the things that must be born in mind here, is that we're all extremely biased when it comes to racing. We love the sport, and as such, we run the risk of reaching to the converted. The debate here has centered around whether the Grand National should be scrapped or not, what this means to the animal rights people, and the average person in the street. I like racing and want racing to stay. I shouldn't speak for others, but I'd suggest that if the animal rights folk were offered the perfect outcome, all racing would be halted. But I'd prefer to think that most of these people are pretty level headed when it comes to this subject. They fully realise that racing is a huge contributor to the economy, and would not want to see untold damage done to the national economy. As for the general public, I find it hard to believe most of them are firm supporters of the hunt scene. I think it's probably just something that has to be endured, like other people smoking. I'm of the opinion that we are in the minority. We are the lepers.
Wow. Some analysis. Great research. I don't know what changes were made when but maybe going back any further could be misleading due to the changes made. This site describes the changes made from last year and describes all the fences. Although you have analysed fence by fence Zen (mammoth effort) is it easy to guestimate what effect filling in the ditches might have. Wikipedia has a good description also under "Courses". It's interesting that the most number of finishers ever was 23 in 1984. There were 66 runners in 1929; I wonder how many of those went at each fence (sounds a nightmare). I also wonder what the stats were like in the 1940s and 50s when the fences were significantly more severe. Zen, have you thought of analysing the effect of the experience of the rider? (eg those that have a better record over hurdles than fences} Some races are run over the National course (don't know what the differences are). Is there anything we can glean from those such races? (Eg they will have fewer runners; do they have fewer accidents early on?).
I have a 10,000 word dissertation due in on the 1st May. 0 words written so far. I have 4 exams in about a month. 0 revision done so far. Fear not, my priorities are spot on.
Not sure. If you use my data on each fence, and the fence descriptions then you should get some idea of how 'significant' the ditches are, ie whether they are more influential than plain fences. I had. However, the number of angles that could be investigated is almost limitless. As Quel has kindly pointed out, unfortunately I have a degree to contend with. I'd really much rather continue my investigation.
