• Hi and welcome to Betnod. Please register for even more tips, analysis and chat.

Grand National

G

Gavster

Guest
Spent much of today reading up on who might do what. I read various forums and looked down the form guide. Some punters and tipsters are still playing for a wet race (soft/heavy). The weather report indicates otherwise in my opinion.

Anyway, my selections are as follows...

Chicago Grey
Sunnyhillboy
Shakalakaboomboom
Rare Bob

I'm still deciding on a possible fifth selection and for that I'm avoiding fallers, so I've narrowed it to On Your Own, Killyglen or Seabass. That's a decision for the morning.
 
What a deathly hush on yesterday's tragedy of Cheltenham Gold Cup winner Synchronised and another thoroughbred According To Pete;two threads here,yet a conspiracy among bookies, punters,owners,the useless vets,all of whom have put commercial interests before the welfare of the horses,and have turned the Sport of Kings into what has now become a sadistic annual ritual.
 
Go on then Steve, enlighten us as to what you would like to happen in the Utopic world that you strive for:ohwell

Do you want the nasty men to ban the national, jump racing, or horse racing altogether?

I'm intregued
 
We are told year on year that safety has been improved which has been exposed as a downright lie. The drop on some of the fences is just too steep,the field of 40 needs to be reduced along with the 4 mile length of the course. Last year's winner Ballabriggs was too tired to make it to the winner's enclosure. It's high time Animal Aid was listened to,and its advice acted upon.I'm wondering if the RSPCA with its dependency on Royal donations has become too close to vested interests to be an impartial observer of this event.
 
Just off to shoot myself as i sort of agree with Steve :frown
 
Me too, sort of.

There are two sides to the argument as far as I can see. On the one hand, we have a test of skill and stamina which is probably the second hardest horse race in the world as far as I know. That's the reason why it's become THE race that most of the population get involved with by at least watching it, even if they never place a bet on it. Make it easier (and, by the way, reducing the distance is a complete load of bollocks Steve. A shorter distance means that the jocks won't need to keep as much in reserve which in turn means that the horses run faster = more falls. The horses will still be as jaded when they finish - If they aren't then the jock hasn't done his/her job properly) and an easier race makes it just another horse race.

As Ted Walsh said on TV yesterday, Shackleton struggled to get to the South Pole, now people are going there for the weekend. Make it another horse race and it's no longer special.

On the other hand, in a so-called civilised society, can we condone putting animals through this kind of test. Humans are stupid and they chose to take part in activities that they know could kill or injure them. These horses aren't given that choice.

I'm not a big believer in tradition for tradition's sake and I'd rather do without the fuss that this race causes every year if there's even a remote chance that the end product will be that the do-gooders get to end jump racing altogether. If anyone thinks that's not a possibility, they should consider that many said the same about a smoking ban ever being introduced in the UK. Also, I believe that some countries have already banned jump racing.

I'm on the side of reducing the size of the field and/or the size of the fences if it helps to save the lives of horses.
 

National has never really held any massive appeal for me, but rather than changing the course, I think the field size needs to be looked at. Also think the marketing people at Aintree have probably done too good a job in promoting the race. A Gold Cup winner gets 284k and the National winner 547K and the 2nd 206k. I remember a time when the race was at risk due to lack of sponscership, but with the switch to C4, it will probably get stronger unless anti campaign get any success.
Click to expand...
I know the flat program has the same problem but there does seem a massive inbalance in prize money.​
Click to expand...
​
The betfair market was in excess of 10 million matched and all these turnover figures are really bare minimums, as the system never works most times on National day. basically crashed out again yesterday.​
The reality seems to be we turn a blind eye on our reservations about the race, for a few days/hours before the off, then all go into campaigning mode again. ​
2011 £8.1m​
2010 £7.2m​
2009 £7.8m
2008 £9.3m
2007 £6.5m
2006 £5.2m
 
The analogy with the South Pole,where there are now base camps and a gift shop where you can buy T-shirts is completely false and shows how out of touch people have become with reality. The thoroughbred horses have less capacity by their very nature to jump these monstrous fences such as Becher's Brook and four and a half miles exhausts them. I'm surprised that the betting fraternity don't realize that it's just not in their interests any more to stick with a race which in its current form is simply cruel.They should modify the course and keep the general public on board,or face protests next year similar to the one which occurred in 1993.
 
I agree with Beamer in that they need to get the field size down - I haven't got any stats to show where the majority of horse deaths occur but I know for a fact that the vast majority of falls/unseats/brought downs happen over the first 6 fences where there is little room for manoeuvre and at the height of the frenetic pace, so presumably this is the area most fatalities occur.

A smaller field would guarantee less fallers and therefore fewer fatalities.
 
Seen said:
......but I know for a fact that the vast majority of falls/unseats/brought downs happen over the first 6 fences where there is little room for manoeuvre and at the height of the frenetic pace.....
Click to expand...

Which is why any talk of reducing the distance is bollocks. How stupid do you have to be to not be able to understand that aim of the jockey is to get everything out that the horse has to give? If you finish the race in tenth position with a horse that's fresh enough to go around again then you're a useless cunt. Reducing the distance means that the horse will be worked harder (i.e, made to run faster) over the course of the race. All other things taken into account, faster races = more falls.

Reducing the field is common sense. One horse falling at an obstacle with 39 horses following it is likely to cause more trouble than the same fall with 29 horses behind it. As I said earlier though, with every concession you give for safety, you reduce the prestige of the race (although I agree that safety is the most important thing) and I would be in favour of reducing it to 30 runners as a trial but reduce it to less than that and lower the fences even more and it probably becomes just another race.
 
I really don't have a problem scrapping the National, as it's not really a race that holds any great appeal to me. However, it comes nowhere in terms of real stamina test. Newcastle and Towcester on bad ground are far more grueling in terms of horses hitting the brick wall.

The press will always highlight the injuries, but the anti brigade don't really seem to make any impact as the race is becoming more popular to my eye, even though there is a reaction for a week after the race.

There are plenty of modifications that can be made, but there will still be the fatalities.

I'm not sure whether it was 2 or 3, but we had at least 2 destroyed in one flat race at Meydan, two weeks ago. No public uproar and no press headlines.

It's sad, but I can't see much change.
 
beamer said:
I really don't have a problem scrapping the National, as it's not really a race that holds any great appeal to me. However, it comes nowhere in terms of real stamina test. Newcastle and Towcester on bad ground are far more grueling in terms of horses hitting the brick wall.

The press will always highlight the injuries, but the anti brigade don't really seem to make any impact as the race is becoming more popular to my eye, even though there is a reaction for a week after the race.

There are plenty of modifications that can be made, but there will still be the fatalities.

I'm not sure whether it was 2 or 3, but we had at least 2 destroyed in one flat race at Meydan, two weeks ago. No public uproar and no press headlines.

It's sad, but I can't see much change.
Click to expand...

Well said Beamer, yes for the average betting man he does not hear about how many horses that get it between the eyes over the course of the season. I am very involved in racing and it amazes me how many people do not see or know what is happening back out the course from time to time or even after the horse passes the post. Its unfortunately part of racing, its a massive gamble getting involved in a horse, it takes very very little and the horse is worthless, I was at Tramore last year, 4 horses were shot in one day, a bit of noise for a few days and then all forgotten about. This bit of noise will pass too.
 
The following table summarises the total number of equine fatalities by each of the 16 fences on the course, and includes the current height of each.

gnat.jpg
 
a bit of noise for a few days and then all forgotten about. This bit of noise will pass too.
Click to expand...

I was amazed how easy it was to get a spot at Cheltenham. It seems plenty are happy enough to watch from the bars and Parade Ring, so they would be non the wiser to any accidents.

The cruelty campaigners were outside as usual, but I'm not sure what they expect you to do; tear your ticket up ?

I am an animal lover, but it's an industry/ sport and I've still haven't heard a valid explanation of what would happen to these animals.

Seen, when does that date back to ?

And to be a total pain in the ARSE, i don't suppose you have a breakdown from 1-30, which would show the fatalities by circuit.

And finally, how many greys are in those stats :p.
 
A site gives a breakdown of horse racing deaths, but the filters don't seem to work for me for some reason.

http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/index.php

There stats in the leading paragraph also seem a little misleading.

As mentioned earlier, the most recent Newcastle NH raceday had two fatalities, exactly the same as National day. That is in no way trying to justify/ excuse the Aintree deaths, but I can't recall much fuss regarding the Newcastle deaths or any other for that matter.

The 1929 National featured the most starters in the race when 66 horses lined up.​
Click to expand...

The office sweep must have been a nightmare.
 
Our research indicates that around 420 horses are raced to death every year. About 38 per cent die on racecourses, while the others are destroyed as a result of training injuries, or are killed because they are no longer commercially viable.​

 
Whoops. don't know if you can read that. So how about we just ban horse racing tomorrow and kill the rest of them because they automatically become "no longer commercially viable"
 
That AP McCoy bloke seems to kill a lot of horses. Maybe they should just ban him instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top