Would it be better overall for racing if we scrapped the grand national ?

Shelflife

Let me say at the outset that im a big racing fan, punter and owner (have a share in some horses) so im not a shrinking violet in any way.

The national is the big hype race every year, watched by millions who wouldnt ordinarily watch racing and bet on in the same manner. The race unfortunately seems to give racing a bad name and gives credence to the loonies who want it banned.

The authorities in the UK pandered to the needs of the animal rights groups that wanted changes made and even made a balls of the whole whip use this year.

I dont side with the animal rights side of things but running a race which consistantly results in 50% of the animals falling and consistently results in fatalities over the years is manna from heaven for all the loonies that want racing banned.

All im saying is that maybe ,just maybe we could lose the national in order to save the whole of NH racing, for those that think im mad you have to remember that the same people got hunting banned in the uk as well.

I have always loved the GN but this year i seemed to grimace alot more at some of the falls, im also well aware of the fact that horses die on the flat and in other races , in fact we lost one of our own on the gallops recently.

but i just feel that the GN with the way that it is , gives way too much ammunition to the animal rights groups who can but a way better spin on the whole thing then the hopelessly out of touch racing authorites in britain.

sonnky

If you don't want to watch it change the channel.

Big Daddy Cool

absolutely not. end of reply

marozz

No way! It's more than just a horse race, it's an institution, almost part of our culture.

Nulty

NH racing is not under threat - don't believe the hype. 150,000 people went to Aintree this year after all the publicity of last year.

The Grand National will not change that much and is definitely not going anywhere. I would not be overly upset if they reduced the field to 35 runners. It seems to me the most dangerous thing is not the jumps but the numbers. Getting the horses anxious at the start because of false starts and delays doesn't help.

A surprising number of deaths are due to loose horses and its the loose horses that often suffer the fatalities. I've never heard of anyone trying to come up with a solution to take the loose horses out of the race. I know its almost an impossible thing to do in the middle of a race. Maybe slip ways all around the track that allow them to funnel off the course?

Nulty

Also 'brought down' horses are too common. A reduced field would definitely reduce the number of brought down horses.

Brought down
loose horses
speed

These are the most dangerous aspects of the race imo - not the fences

Onthe3rdDay

Shelflife wrote: »

All im saying is that maybe ,just maybe we could lose the national in order to save the whole of NH racing, for those that think im mad you have to remember that the same people got hunting banned in the uk as well.

There's no way that NH racing is under threat, there's too much money involved. Hunting was an easy target because it was regarded as just toffs having a jolly day out. Racing is still a big part of life culturally in the UK in the so called working classes. Obviously betting is a big part of that.

However, I know several people in the racing industry who aren't too fond of the Grand National, they regard it as cruel and unnecessary. It's more of a spectacle rather than real racing.

Huntley

No. The knock-on effect on the economy and industry would be massive.

As I said on the other thread, there is a far bigger claim to pull the Cross Country at Cheltenham. That adds nothing to the industry and is simply a race filler with horses who have lost their way in the game. The ground is like a road, prize money is pittance and it adds nothing quality wise. Same number of deaths in that aswell as the National this year but unsurprisingly we didn't hear as much vitriol about that contest.

The media have a massive influence, and many people are swayed easily because they don't have an understanding of the sport.

Shelflife

Onthe3rdday there was a fair bit of money involved in the hunting industry as well and some very well connected hunters couldnt stop the ban either.

while there is alot more money involved in racing , those that oppose it couldnt give a crap about the industry per se, their interest is in the animal only ( the irony that most of these horses would have to be disposed of if racing was banned is lost on them).

I think as nulty as said that maybe numbers need to be reduced, but if we keep giving the animal rights groups they will gain momentum.

Nulty if you think its not under threat you are mistaken, sponsers will pull out if they get poor publicity from anything and the AR groups are very good at stirring up sh ite, sticking our heads in the ground wont work.

to those that tell me to change the channel, and no way its an institution, im not the problem, its joe public who turn on to watch the race once a year and sees fatalities and injuries on a regular basis and assumes that this is the norm, these are the people that the AR groups are getting their message across to.

themandan6611

no

Shelflife

The media have a massive influence, and many people are swayed easily because they don't have an understanding of the sport.

Huntley you have hit the nail on the head here, the media will pander to whatever sells their product.

this is why we shouldnt tick our heads in the ground about this subject.

Onthe3rdDay

Shelflife wrote: »

Onthe3rdday there was a fair bit of money involved in the hunting industry as well and some very well connected hunters couldnt stop the ban either.

But you couldn't bet on hunting.

WHIP IT!

I'm a big fan of the National and would hate to see it banned - but nobody should kid themselves that this couldn't happen... when you make any kind of allowances for PETA etc you've already started the slow process (or, at times, even the alarmingly fast process!) of your sport/endevour being done away with... This is a real danger for all kinds of horsesport.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/05/bid_to_ban_dog_racing_succeeds_on_2d_try/

http://horsetalk.co.nz/2012/03/29/horse-dies-in-first-victorian-jumps-race-of-season/

Nulty

John Smith's are not going anywhere. Their association with the National is as good as they could possibly have hoped for. Like I said, the race is more popular now than ever before. Half a billion people watched it around the world. Modern record numbers of people attend the fixture. More prize money than ever before.

The problem is that people in horse racing pay too much heed to the pressures of other factions and if horse raving thinks it needs to change then horse racing should change - not because the Daily Mail wants to make a story.

I, as a horse racing fan and keen follower and bettor think that a lower number of horses would make a difference to the number of injuries. I also think that it will lessen the spectacle and tradition of the race but a middle ground needs to be found.

Racing shouldn't think its pandering to the demands of joe public but do what it thinks is right for the sport and the animals. The BHA is the best placed to make those decisions.

I also think they have a good chief exec now and I thikn he'll make the right decisions. I trust Bittar not to over react.

Oscars Well.

No, a race as popular as the National has the power to bring large numbers of potential owners to racing, along with attracting new followers and fans.

Shelflife

Racing shouldn't think its pandering to the demands of joe public but do what it thinks is right for the sport and the animals. The BHA is the best placed to make those decisions.

Good point nulty and to be clear im not advocating the scrapping of the national. but if the bha alienate joe public then it coulds come back to haunt them.

I also belive that they pandered to the general public when they made the whip rule changes and they made a balls of that and made fools of themselves.

bha may well have the best interests of racing at heart but they dont always go about it the right way.

john Smith have a great relationship at the moment with racing, but a with a good media campaign the like of peta can easily put the wind up the marketing executives and they could just as easily pull their sponsorship for "economic "reasons.

Marketing people are notoriously windy, one whiff of a scandel and they go running, to believe that sponsors will never leave is nieve.

Nulty

My point is - They are not alienating anyone, ridiculous headlines are. If they were alienating people, the viewing figures would be down, attendances would be down, betting turn over would be down. Its a myth. Horse racing all around Britain has had increasing attendence records for the past few years according to ATR.

It's a myth

Nulty

John Smiths are getting massive exposure and the people that they appeal to are not the type that would be put off their product because they are associated with the Grand National.

Money talks bull**** walks.

That show "Luck" in the US was cancelled officially because of horse deaths - bollocks. It wasn't popular and no one was watching it. Money vs horse welfare.

WHIP IT!

Nulty wrote: »

John Smiths are getting massive exposure and the people that they appeal to are not the type that would be put off their product because they are associated with the Grand National.

Money talks bull**** walks.

That show "Luck" in the US was cancelled officially because of horse deaths - bollocks. It wasn't popular and no one was watching it. Money vs horse welfare.

Source??

Nulty

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Source??

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=luck+cancelled

mailburner

Nulty wrote: »

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=luck+cancelled

lmao :pac:

oatsareclass

scrap it for sure, god did no-one else feel sick watching all those falls?
i saw someone say......"Would you ban football or rugby just because there is a risk somebody might get hurt?
The big difference is we have a choice to take part in these sports, fully knowing the dangers involved.....the horses don't have a choice...

oatsareclass

thought these guys summed it up very well

"I'm very sad today that two of these beautiful animals have had to die so people can have a flutter and a day out at the races. I'm not against racing or gambling, just animal cruelty"

"I think we should all campaign for a 'no curtain' rule from now on. If the the money grabbing, scally scousers and everyone else that bets saw a horse getting a BULLET in their heads then maybe, just maybe, they might think again."

BackScrub

No it wouldn't but I think the race needs reviewing.

I posted yesterday that I'm done watching the GN and I plan to stick by that. I feel pretty bitter about Synchronised running in the race but that's not the issue.

I think my issue with the race is that it's almost expected now that fatalities will occur and less than half the field will finish. To be honest, that's a bit of a joke, how could it not be?

Of course horses fall and brought down every day of the week, even injured on their own gallops and that's reasonable I think. My thinking brings me to what's REASONABLE.

It's reasonable to assume that in almost all jump races bar the GN, the vast majority of entrants will get around safe. Jumping accidents will happen but that's the game. Ruby's fall in the Aintree hurdle was as bad a fall as I've seen in any race, that could easily have been tragic for both horse and jockey. Luckily it wasn't, but it's a reasonable occurrence in any race.

What's UNREASONABLE (IMO) is too many horses in the first place. That race yesterday was carnage before any horse was killed, my alarm bells were ringing at an early stage. In any normal event, both horse and jockey are extremely adept at avoiding other fallers. That's becoming almost impossible now in the GN.

I realise I'm rambling, so what would I do?

1. Raise the height of some of the fences
2. Cut the number of entrants down to 30
3. Perhaps eliminate the 1st fence and make the 2nd the 1st.
4. Perhaps introduce a 'split start' with a staggered 1st and 2nd fence.

OK, 4 may be mad but I think the speed they go at the 1st fence is crucial and that sets a tone for the race.

Sorry for the long post, I just don't love the thing as much as I did for 30 years or so.

unitedrover

No,it should be kept. Its steeped in history.what other race can people remember the winners from 50 and 60 years ago? Its unfortunate for the organisers that the National suffered fatalaties again after last year especially a GC winner.

unitedrover

The one thing i remember as they bypassed a fence was a loose horse jumping the fence. Could have been danger for the jockeys and medics behind the screen if there were a few more loose horses jumping it at that time.

WHIP IT!

Nulty wrote: »

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=luck+cancelled

When you're finished being an ignorant c*nt, I was asking for proof that the show was "unpopular and no one was watching". I'm well aware the show was cancelled and have never heard any other reason other than the animal welfare do-gooders had their tuppence worth.

oatsareclass

unitedrover wrote: »

No,it should be kept. Its steeped in history.what other race can people remember the winners from 50 and 60 years ago? Its unfortunate for the organisers that the National suffered fatalaties again after last year especially a GC winner.

Jeez i hate that bloody argument, oh but its steeped in history....AND?? Tradition should never be an excuse for cruelty - bullfighting, cockfighting are all steeped in history...does that justify them?

If the riders had died, people would not use culture/tradition as a defense. Because it is an animal, however, it is easy to hide behind the excuse of culture/ tradition.

mailburner

would we be even having this discussion had a gold cup winner
not been one of the fatalities?
I doubt it
Personally I wouldn't be running a gold cup winner so soon after and
carrying top weight but I'll give the connections the benefit of
the doubt, they probably know better

I wasn't aware that the cross country at cheltenham has as many
fatalities yet few seem to know that or mention it


As far as i can see the only way around it is to reduce the field by 5 maybe

Nulty

WHIP IT! wrote: »

When you're finished being an ignorant c*nt, I was asking for proof that the show was "unpopular and no one was watching". I'm well aware the show was cancelled and have never heard any other reason other than the animal welfare do-gooders had their tuppence worth.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I never intended to come across as like that.

Why didn't you try to find out for yourself?

jamesbere

I think reducing the field would help and also they have to sort out these false starts, it spooks the horses and gets them out of there rhythm.

Surely they can find a better way to start a race then a piece of rope going across a track, the horse more then likely can not see it and runs.

Also this is a risk sport, like any other that involves some amount of speed. Accidents are going to happen no matter how safe you make it. But hearing people say that it is animal cruelty is wrong, what about all the trainers and stable safe that put there lives into looking after these horses, it must be very hard for them to lose a horse but they know the risks.

I hope the GN does not get banned, I love the race I think it is very exciting.

barney4001

perhaps if the weights were lowered to11 stone top and 9 7 bottom might help somewhat,may be hard to get jockeys doing 9 7 though

by the way the starting method of the national is a disgrace,better having a flag start than that shambles on saturday

kksaints

Cut the distance between the start and the 1st fence. Its too long and the horses build up too much speed. Make the ground slower on the National ground not massively in favour of good ground for the national.

It was interesting to see that there was only 3 fallers in the Topham on Friday.

ArmaniJeanss

Off Topic, but the programme Luck had 'ok' ratings figures, and HBO don't really give a fcuk about ratings anyway as they operate a business model whereby ratings are not part of their revenue stream.

So there may well have been truth in the official animal welfare/PETA explanation.

gscully

kksaints wrote: »

Cut the distance between the start and the 1st fence. Its too long and the horses build up too much speed. Make the ground slower on the National ground not massively in favour of good ground for the national.

It was interesting to see that there was only 3 fallers in the Topham on Friday.

Totally agree with this and said as much in the other thread.

Funnily enough, there was little outcry from the welfare groups when two horses died during the Cross Country race at Cheltenham (that course wasn't watered) or after the Gold Cup at Meydan. These groups have the best of intentions, I don't doubt that, but they are using the popularity of the race against itself.

Shelflife

but they are using the popularity of the race against itself.

This is in essence the whole problem, because it is so popular and has such a huge media presence any negatives are also highlighted and are pounced upon by the AR groups.

I just feel that they are providing ammunition for the "other side" as it were when there are so many fallers,injuries and fatalities in the race.

Da Shins Kelly

Article on the way the Grand National coverage is edited by Al Jazeera, if anyone is interested:

http://www.aljazeera.com/sport/2012/04/2012416122942675518.html?utm_content=automate&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=NewSocialFlow&utm_term=plustweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount

hucklebuck

We should just ban racing as it is barbaric.

No racing, no Grand National and PETA and the RSPCA are happy. :pac:

Nulty

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Article on the way the Grand National coverage is edited by Al Jazeera, if anyone is interested:

http://www.aljazeera.com/sport/2012/04/2012416122942675518.html?utm_content=automate&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=NewSocialFlow&utm_term=plustweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount

Yes, they are a great bunch of lads aren't they...

Da Shins Kelly

Nulty wrote: »

Yes, they are a great bunch of lads aren't they...

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. If you mean something sarcastic about Al Jazeera, it's just an article that I came across on the internet when reading up on opinions on this matter.

Nulty

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. If you mean something sarcastic about Al Jazeera, it's just an article that I came across on the internet when reading up on opinions on this matter.

Its not meant to mean anything. Throw away comment.


Folks are so defensive on the internet.

HigginsJ

http://www.rte.ie/sport/racing/uk/2012/0418/317565-devastated-mcmanus-opposed-to-national-changes/

Headline says it all, JP, Jonjo and Frank Berry have came out and said no fault of Aintree's, a freak accident and that he would be opposed to any changes to the National format.

Mellio

I dont think it should be scrapped but I do think the fences should be revised and the drops from the fences revised.

Why is there any need for the horse to jump over/through six feet fences then drop another six and half feet to the ground.(Sizes are only a guess).

My point is if anyone was to try and jump over a high wall and didnt realise it was even further down the other side of course you are going to lose balance and fall awkwardly.

The ground the other side of the fences need to be consistent with the ground that they jump from.

This is why I think the falls are so fearce.

I dont know how many fences are like that but there seems to be a few.

The race should not be banned but they need to review the footage from the last 20 races or more and review every incident to determine best practice for safety of horse and jockey. I would guess they have doen this already but who knows.

Mellio

HigginsJ wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/sport/racing/uk/2012/0418/317565-devastated-mcmanus-opposed-to-national-changes/

Headline says it all, JP, Jonjo and Frank Berry have came out and said no fault of Aintree's, a freak accident and that he would be opposed to any changes to the National format.

Fair enough point from the people in the business especially when there is so much money at stake, they dont want to ruin the spectacle of the National but something has to be done.

However this is also the case for Cheltenham where a few horses where fatally injured and killed.

it is part and parcel of the jumps and if you were given a % of fatalities from all jump racing over the year you would probably think it is very little.

It is one of those races that is televised on normal tv so you are gettting a bigger audience of people watching that wouldnt normally watch racing from one year to the next. It just highlights it more beucase its such a big event.

byhookorbycrook

Mellio wrote: »

My point is if anyone was to try and jump over a high wall and didnt realise it was even further down the other side of course you are going to lose balance and fall awkwardly.

The ground the other side of the fences need to be consistent with the ground that they jump from.

This is why I think the falls are so fearce.

Horses hunt safely over drop fences all the time and likewise eventers ride over drops too, so that is not the issue.

Mellio

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Horses hunt safely over drop fences all the time and likewise eventers ride over drops too, so that is not the issue.

None of the above are racing at high speeds over fences so in my opinion yes it still can be an issue.

What do you suggest yourself would help?

Do you think it should be scrapped?

Paul Turner

As the others have stated, I feel that taking more precautions is a far better option than scrapping the Grand National altogether.

hucklebuck

Paul Turner wrote: »

As the others have stated, I feel that taking more precautions is a far better option than scrapping the Grand National altogether.

Get the jockeys to wear condoms? :pac:

finbarrk

There is only one fence with a drop. Correct me if I'm wrong.