Grand National

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Deleted 1

Deleted 1

Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator
Jun 16, 2011
19,443
3,756
113
North West London
The other day the RSPCA said that if Becheres brook still wasn't safe enough for their liking in next year's race they would consider pushing for the abolition of the race.

Personally speaking I've always thought the Grand National to be a bit of a waste of time (it's just another long distance handicap really) and a real invitation for everyone who hates the sport to moan about how cruel and evil it is. I think it should be scrapped and consigned to the dustbin of history.

I know a lot of people have a different opinion so what do the good members of the board think about the future of the race? Are those who enjoy it a bit worried about what RSPCA's next steps may be or do you think they should mind their own business?
 
There was a very interesting (and very long) thread about this at the time earlier in the year, - and an excellently thought out post on Zenyatta's blog which sticks out:

http://tommarch.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/national-nightmare.html

My opinion on the matter was originally that modifications should be made to the jumps, but that blog post suggests strong evidence that reducing the number of runners would be a much more effective approach.

I agree with you when you say it's just another long distance handicap as far as I'm concerned, and if scrapping it makes people view the sport in a kinder light then fair enough. I suspect that actually, making effective modifications will be a better way to improve public opinion than scrapping it.
 
Personally I think the safety issue is more around the number of runners. For me lots of the runners are unsighted or interfered with particularly in early part of the race.

I would prefer the race to be kept, its an National institution. Reduced runners and required further fence modifications.
 
Couldn't give a toss about the Grand National myself. People can put it in all the fancy words for and against I simply don't give a crap. Donkey race which will always attract the morons that will complain when ironically the horse they have a £1 bet on falls.
 
Such a pointless race and a race that simply comes down to greed and ignorance.

The bookies love the race. A 40 runner unsafe lottery where there is rarely a fancied winner.

The problem is though that National Hunt is too unsafe in general. As entertaining as it is, ir needs a rethink in terms of future.
 
I can't understand any horse racing fan having antipathy towards the Grand National. If you want to ban it, then why don't you want to ban all other races? All races present a degree of risk to the horse; it's just that the risk is greater in the Grand National than any other. After all, it's just another race.
Man has used animals for either food or pleasure since time immemorial. If you don't believe that they should be used for pleasure, then that's fair enough, but we are the superior being on this little planet and there is an overwhelming argument that, if we ban using animals for pleasure, then we're trying to suppress human nature.
I believe there are arguably other practices involving animals which are far more repugnant than risking horses' welfare for our pleasure.
Zoos for one......animals pacing up and down in alien and restrictive environments. And how cruel is it to keep birds in cages? Creatures which were given the freedom and beauty of flight- spending their whole life unable to spread their wings and soar to the heavens.
As regards the RSPCA, I don't hear them going on about those aspects. Why not? They claim to truly represent animals' interests- if you believe that!
The truth is that the RSPCA is a hyper rich organisation with their top management paying themselves fat salaries from plush offices- all made possible by a public which gives more to animals than children. Like animal protesters, anti-war protesters, and such like generally, they should get out into the real world and earn an honest, decent living like most of us have to.
Personally I shouldn't bat an eyelid if the RSPCA were closed down- and all their money given to starving and disadvantaged children.
 
I would say that to ban a race that has been run since 18something or so would be very hard to do. The history of the race is in the fabric of the sporting calendar and will be for a very long time to come...

But for a ultimatum to be put on 1 race, as governed by the RSPCA, seems a bit harsh on the National. Unfortunately we do lose horses to other races and they dont bang their drum over them as much as the GN... I do think its more to do with publicity for the RSPCA than anything to do with the mortality of the race... The death of a horse is a tragic thing but this debate will never go away until no deaths ever happen at this or any other race course... And we know that wont happen...
 
There is no way of escaping the fame of the event. It's probably the biggest name race on the planet. Those who live in the UK have a better feel for the importance of their own races, but we on the outside really only know the Grand National and the Derby. And I can tell you, the GN is huge, it far and away outstrips the Derby in people's minds. To non racing fans in Oz, the Derby is a shoulder shrug, The GN on the other hand, draws an interest. People want to see the spectacle.

The RSPCA are a savvy lot, they see an attack on the GN as the thin edge of the wedge. It can only lift their status in the public mainstream. In the above paragraph I mentioned the fame of the race and the massive following it has around the globe, but the number of sporting fans who love the event, are not enough to see off the much larger ground swell of those who want an end to hunt racing in general. Can the event survive? I don't know, but the fight has just begun.
 
OddDog said:
Cap it at 25 runners. Job done.
Click to expand...

I'd say 30 but I agree with the intent.
The fact so many horses are allowed to run is what creates chaos at the start year after year and I'm also convinced the number of runners is what leads to a suicial pace over the first mile, I don't think it's any coincidence the majority of fallers happen on the first circuit, there are plenty of horses that pull up in latter stages but tired horses who have had enough are in no danger, it's the rags who go over the Melling Road at 6f pace who are a danger not just to themselves but also to those following them....
 
I'd love to see the old fences put back and the race returned to it's former glory.

A highly unpopular suggestion or merely suggesting what a lot of people riding the PC wave really think?
 
I think what annoys me about the Grand National is that it is so unlike any other horse race.

obviously that is its attraction but for the casual once a year horse race spectator this can be a problem.
Every year you get a huge TV audience and then they see horses getting killed. They then go away thinking all horse racing is like this.

For the racing fan the Cheltenham Gold Cup is I think much more important as a race and although popular still struggles to get the widespread coverage and TV viewers that the National gets.
 
Steveo - I've said for years that if the Gold Cup was run at 4pm on a Saturday on a non Six-Nations day it would get similar figures, and within 2-3 years and the right marketing viewing figures would overtake the National.
The GN survives on a reputation from when it was a great race IMO, recent years have been farcical and paint a very poor picture of UK NH racing, the last two Gold Cups whilst differing in quality have been wonderful spectacles without the carnage the GN has created and any audience couldn't fail to watch either race and enjoy the entertainment provided.
If I'm honest I much prefer the shoulder races on the GN card than the race itself....
 
i'm in the reduce the number of runners camp. and didn't someone say if the fences were higher they couldn't be taken at such a speed? it might have been in zenyatta's articles about it. in the thread about modifications to the national there was something about moving the start forward 90yards. does that mean nearer the first fence, which will make less of a pelting run up? if that's the case it's a good idea.

i have to confess i like the national for picking a horse (every year i have to explain to people it's not so much of a lottery as they think), but i don't like trying to pick my horse out of a massive field that's going too fast without enough room until a lot have fallen.

part of the attraction for the general public though is sweepstakes which you can have a whole workplace take part in. i think that's where the pot luck impression of the race comes from. their horse comes out of a hat.

i agree with grizzly if the cheltenham gold cup was on a saturday then it would have a bigger audience, although would that end up with more entries as a consequence. as an aside, what's the maximum entries for the gold cup?
 
Grizzly said:
Steveo - I've said for years that if the Gold Cup was run at 4pm on a Saturday on a non Six-Nations day it would get similar figures, and within 2-3 years and the right marketing viewing figures would overtake the National.
The GN survives on a reputation from when it was a great race IMO, recent years have been farcical and paint a very poor picture of UK NH racing, the last two Gold Cups whilst differing in quality have been wonderful spectacles without the carnage the GN has created and any audience couldn't fail to watch either race and enjoy the entertainment provided.
If I'm honest I much prefer the shoulder races on the GN card than the race itself....
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more <applause>
 
Petino - They will be moving the start forward 90 yards so they start away from the crowds which they think will help settle the horses better, I think they could be right, I'd go further and move it 200 yards away - similar to the King George start at Kempton - perhaps even removing the 1st or creating a way of allowing the horses to bypass this fence on the 1st circuit (but take it on the 2nd).
The run to the 1st is currently over 2f I think which is plenty of time for the horses who don't settle to build up some pace and also for the lunatic jockeys who were forced to line up on the outside to get their mounts going at 6f pace to try getting a rails pitch after the 1st/2nd - they can't afford to stay wide right up to the Canal Turn because they will have run significantly further than those on the inside by that stage.
I definitely think it's the pace that creates the danger but hold the view that in itself is created by a large number of runners, whatever they do I hope it works because I'm tired of their failure to address issues that create the perception that NH racing is run by uncaring selfish butchers when the reality is very very different
 
i agree grizzly, i hope they do make proper modifications. it seems to me, as they make what look like smallish changes every year, each change means next year they have to change something else slightly. doesn't seem right to me. and the pace at the beginning really should be slower, not least considering the distance.

oddog thanks for the CGC runners figure. 22 is a fair amount. i can't find the vid on youtube and it's probably dropped off the list of full races on the cheltenham site. but i'm assumng they didn't go off at the speed the national does.
 
I'm not sure if the answer to this has already been provided here somewhere, but I was surprised they have suggested there is no need to reduce the number of runners so I'll ask the question.

Is there an analysis of fallers by fence and number of runners. Zen may have done this. Intuitively (not backed by stats) I would have thought that the speed at which they approached the first fence would be influenced by the number of runners and would expect more early fallers in very large fields. After a while the number of starters are irrelevant as they get well spread out and falling is more likely to be through tiredness/riding errors etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back