Grand National

[nijinski]

Originally Posted by Bullet Plane

Let's hope not.

Jump racing is safe. The horses are traveling much slower than in flat racing. It is rather common for them to fall, but rarely are they hurt.

I watch a ton of it...I don't see anybody get hurt any more than Flat race..maybe much less so..

It was a fluke.

Bechers jump , a fluke ? I'm aware they altered it due to pressure , but it's still a dangerous landing . GN is over 4 miles , so obviously they go slower than flat racing
It's a huge sporting event with a long history and a big following , but I see nothing wrong with fixing a problem and that particular fence has had too many fallen horses . IMO.

[Shelby]

Originally Posted by Humph

One year , when they had had so much rain that the going was nearly unraceable , they only had 2 finishers . I think it was about 10 years back , the year when they had a scare with foot and mouth and the Cheltenham Festival had been cancelled ( no Cheltenham and no Aintree in one season and jump racing in England would be a virtual non event ) so they went ahead with the Grand National anyway.

A hideous race , imho - something I wouldn't subject a horse to.

Geez, and I thought this race was bad with only a few finishers. Thankfully, it was way more than two!

[PhantomOnTour]

Lower the fences a little

[trp]

Originally Posted by Bullet Plane

Let's hope not.

Jump racing is safe. The horses are traveling much slower than in flat racing. It is rather common for them to fall, but rarely are they hurt.

I watch a ton of it...I don't see anybody get hurt any more than Flat race..maybe much less so..

It was a fluke.

That's wrong.

The British Horseracing Authority puts the fatality rate for flat (turf) and all weather racing at around 0.6 per 1000 runners and the rate for jumps at just over 4 per 1000.

My guess based on looking at some unverified data is that the rate for the Grand National is much higher than the average jumps race.

[craigbraddick]

Lowering the fences is only going to cause the horses to go faster, stumble on landing and fall.

Having seen more than thirty Grand Nationals my view is the horses entered are on the whole smaller and more athletic than many of the horses from Grand Nationals past. But that will not change until horses become specifically bred for jumping once more.

Secondly, narrowing of the fences means the field needs to be reduced. As it is a handicap with the top weight carrying 12 stone (168 lbs) I suggest that no horses should be allowed to take part in the race who are rated below 10 stone 6 pounds (146 lbs.)

Thirdly, no horse should be allowed to run who has failed to complete the course in any of its last five starts.

Fourthly, the run to the first fence needs reducing as the horses are getting away too quickly from the start and sprinting over the melling road down to the first.

The new watering system does not work. The Grand National should never be run on anything faster than soft ground. Even the RSPCA recognize that softer ground although often causing more fallers means the falls happen at far less velocity, often caused just by skidding on landing and seldom does harm happen to animal or jockey than racing on a fast track.

Drop fences such as Bechers need to be leveled out but although the animal rights people will protest, I would actually be in favor of increasing the height of the fences a few inches for two reasons. A slightly bigger fence may look less tempting to a horse who is tiring and the horse may just refuse or the jockey decide it is time to call it a day and slightly bigger fences will encourage them to be taken with less speed.

[Bullet Plane]

Originally Posted by trp

That's wrong.

The British Horseracing Authority puts the fatality rate for flat (turf) and all weather racing at around 0.6 per 1000 runners and the rate for jumps at just over 4 per 1000.

My guess based on looking at some unverified data is that the rate for the Grand National is much higher than the average jumps race.

How can my personal observations be "wrong"?

I'm telling you what I have observed from years of watching those races.

I, at least hope, that you are an avid jump fan.

Stats like the ones you quoted are meaningless. You have to look at each case on an individual basis. Trust the people who work the horses. Love the horses. Love the sport.

Lets agree on at least this much...I'm really looking forward to next years jump season.

[trp]

Originally Posted by Bullet Plane

How can my personal observations be "wrong"?

I'm telling you what I have observed from years of watching those races.

I, at least hope, that you are an avid jump fan.

Stats like the ones you quoted are meaningless. You have to look at each case on an individual basis. Trust the people who work the horses. Love the horses. Love the sport.

Lets agree on at least this much...I'm really looking forward to next years jump season.

You must have been very lucky about which races you watched. Otherwise, I don't understand how you could have missed the high fatality rate. It's not something new. Jump races have always been much more dangerous.

Why are the stats meaningless? They are what they are: the total racing death rates in the sport. So many horses started and so many died, with the jump rate about 7 times the rate for flat racing.

I have no doubt that most people connected with the sport love their horses and treat them well. I'm also sure that the fans also truly love the horses, but that's irrelevant. I'm talking about the intrinsic risk in the sport.

I'm not a jumps fan. I'm a long way from being a PETA-type, but the jumps exceed my threshold for fatalities.

[davew]

After watching yesterdays and the 2001 version, it seems awful dangerous to me. Jockeys must have death wish.

Why don't they have outriders to catch the loose horses after they dump their jockey going over the tree branches? The loose horses just multiplied the collisions, crashes, and refusals.

I am not sure how anyone could handicap and bet on a race like this.

[Bullet Plane]

Originally Posted by trp

You must have been very lucky about which races you watched. Otherwise, I don't understand how you could have missed the high fatality rate. It's not something new. Jump races have always been much more dangerous.

Why are the stats meaningless? They are what they are: the total racing death rates in the sport. So many horses started and so many died, with the jump rate about 7 times the rate for flat racing.

I have no doubt that most people connected with the sport love their horses and treat them well. I'm also sure that the fans also truly love the horses, but that's irrelevant. I'm talking about the intrinsic risk in the sport.

I'm not a jumps fan. I'm a long way from being a PETA-type, but the jumps exceed my threshold for fatalities.

How many years were you a serious fan of jump racing? I'm guessing it must have been several. What 10-20 years?

If not, then I refuse to waste anymore typing on your type.

[5k-claim]

Originally Posted by Bullet Plane

How many years were you a serious fan of jump racing? I'm guessing it must have been several. What 10-20 years?

If not, then I refuse to waste anymore typing on your type.

That would not be in the spirit of sharing.

.

[nijinski]

Originally Posted by Bullet Plane

How many years were you a serious fan of jump racing? I'm guessing it must have been several. What 10-20 years?

If not, then I refuse to waste anymore typing on your type.

I think you only need to revisit Aintree last year. In about a three day period six confirmed fatalities . Two were in the National . I watched last year and decided that would be the last . No mention of the two horses . Just knowing that the other horses were diverted from a few fences was enough.
To add to the disappointment was the excessive whipping of the winner and the jockey gets one week . The horse was clearly the best after a marathon .That was a poor ruling IMO.
I have no problem when Europe comes down on US racing . They have valid points and there is much work to do here. Why you don't see there needs to be more consideration and some alteration for the Grand National entrants
is beyond me.

[Native Texan III]

Originally Posted by Bullet Plane

How can my personal observations be "wrong"?

I'm telling you what I have observed from years of watching those races.

I, at least hope, that you are an avid jump fan.

Stats like the ones you quoted are meaningless. You have to look at each case on an individual basis. Trust the people who work the horses. Love the horses. Love the sport.

Lets agree on at least this much...I'm really looking forward to next years jump season.

Statistics collated with integrity are one of the few things that are meaningful.
You have to look at the individual cases , collate them and compare with the totals and averages.

Not only are jump horses regularly killed and maimed so are their riders.
You cannot have watched many jump races and still be so ignorant of the facts.

Have a read of
http://www.ucd.ie/mecheng/staff_page...in%20press.pdf

"Horse racing is a particularly risky sport
in which the rider’s position and height above the ground, and the
unpredictability, power, speed, mass of the horse and the
likelihood of being kicked or trampled in the event of a fall all
contribute to the incidence and severity of jockeys’ injuries. Two-
thirds of jockey fatalities between 1975 and 2000 in Britain were
from head injury.

Jump racing was seen to have a greater fall/ride
incidence than flat racing, while flat racing had a higher
concussion/fall incidence in both Britain and Ireland. It has also been
reported that racing jockeys, despite always wearing helmets,
have a concussion rate of 13%, which is higher than reported in
American football and boxing. Injury risks for professional jockeys
are higher than in other sports, at 0.88% per competitor per event,
compared to 0.24% and 0.14% in professional motorcycle and car
racing, respectively."

[Native Texan III]

Originally Posted by craigbraddick

Lowering the fences is only going to cause the horses to go faster, stumble on landing and fall.

Having seen more than thirty Grand Nationals my view is the horses entered are on the whole smaller and more athletic than many of the horses from Grand Nationals past. But that will not change until horses become specifically bred for jumping once more.

Secondly, narrowing of the fences means the field needs to be reduced. As it is a handicap with the top weight carrying 12 stone (168 lbs) I suggest that no horses should be allowed to take part in the race who are rated below 10 stone 6 pounds (146 lbs.)

Thirdly, no horse should be allowed to run who has failed to complete the course in any of its last five starts.

Fourthly, the run to the first fence needs reducing as the horses are getting away too quickly from the start and sprinting over the melling road down to the first.

The new watering system does not work. The Grand National should never be run on anything faster than soft ground. Even the RSPCA recognize that softer ground although often causing more fallers means the falls happen at far less velocity, often caused just by skidding on landing and seldom does harm happen to animal or jockey than racing on a fast track.

Drop fences such as Bechers need to be levelled out but although the animal rights people will protest, I would actually be in favor of increasing the height of the fences a few inches for two reasons. A slightly bigger fence may look less tempting to a horse who is tiring and the horse may just refuse or the jockey decide it is time to call it a day and slightly bigger fences will encourage them to be taken with less speed.

Yes, ex-flat horse and French breds are the norm in jumping and the economic reasons for that won't change.

Recently the very lowest rated horses do not get into the race.
This year the horses to finish second, 5th and 7th carried 10s5, 10s0 and 10s0 respectively . The winner carried 11s6.

What relevance has completing at other courses to Aintree GN? Many of the horses jumping OK in themselves were brought down by other horses.

The reason horses race to the first fence is to get to the front so that they are not impeded by other horses at jumps and falling in front. Also they want to race on the inner to save ground over 4.5 miles. They do not want to be 20-30 wide.

Soft ground makes jumping harder and even more tiring for horses racing 4.5 miles. The ground was perfect for jump racing. Sliding on landing rips the tendons in horse legs and wrenches their backs and joints. Jockeys get thrown out of the saddle. Soft ground is less than 1 second slower per furlong.

Yes,drops are dangerous and pointless risks.
Horses were falling long before they were tired.
Only 15 out of 40 starters got to the finish.
If a horse refuses a taller fence then it impedes other horses close by that would otherwise jump the fence.

[NJ Stinks]

Until I hear the jockeys, trainers, and owners say the race itself is too dangerous, I am not going to condemn this race.

In fact, most comments by the connections after the race said nothing about changing the conditions of the race.

[Native Texan III]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

Until I hear the jockeys, trainers, and owners say the race itself is too dangerous, I am not going to condemn this race.

In fact, most comments by the connections after the race said nothing about changing the conditions of the race.

They have mostly repeated the same old head in the sand limp platitudes. They have huge vested interests in maintaining the jump racing status quo and not facing facts. Just as Wall St have huge vested interests in the American taxpayer keep on bailing them out.

If they ban the GN, then possibly all jump racing in UK, as in Australia in 2010, the trainers and jockeys are out of a job and the owners have gelded horses of no racing value - so will end up as horse meat.

(Steeplechase and hurdle racing in the Australian state of Victoria (the last State to run jump races) was abolished in 2010, prompted by the deaths of 20 horses in two years.)

The RSPCA have a legal right to bring criminal prosecutions of those involved in harming animals.

However,
"The owner of a horse that died after falling at the Grand National's most famous fence on Saturday has vowed never to enter the race again.
The race was again marred by controversy at the weekend after both Synchronised, the Gold Cup winner, and According to Pete fell at Becher's Brook and were later put down.

According to Pete was brought down as he jumped the fence for the second time. "If he had won, I would have paraded him down the street," said the owner, Peter Nelson, of Helperby, North Yorkshire. "But now, I will never enter the race again. I know I've had a bad experience. There are 40 horses running and any of them could be brought down at any time." The race was won by Neptune Collonges, and just 15 of the 40-horse field reached the finishing post. The RSPCA described the deaths as "totally unacceptable" and called for an "urgent examination" of the incidents.

The fatalities are likely to lead to a review of fences such as Becher's Brook which feature a deeper drop than approach. The fence is the most famous in racing, and has an approach of 4ft 10in but a drop on the other side of between 5ft 2in and 5ft 8in."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/r...l-7646608.html