A few comments on the extremely sad fatalities yesterday and what can/should be done. I am in the camp that believes that the risk of fatalities can never be eliminated but that Aintree and the BHA must do as much as reasonably practicable, without detracting from the unique character of the GN, to reduce that risk.
Some racing journalists are calling for the field size to be reduced to as few as 25. Obviously this would reduce, though not eliminate, the risk of being brought down, as According To Pete apparently was. However: a) it isn’t as though fatalities are unknown in the two other races at the GN meeting over the fences, which both have a maximum field of 26 and b) the Grand National is really about giving the best handicappers, that would never win the Gold Cup, and the small yard and owner the chance of glory. That is an intrinsic part of its unique appeal.
That is already in danger with the compression of the weights and if the field size had been of the order of 25 then 3 of the last 7 winners Numbersixvalverde (possibly), Silver Birch (definitely) and Comply Or Die (definitely) would not have got a run. That is not to mention winners from years ago such as Bobbyjo and even Lord Gyllene or near-miss heros like Lastofthebrownies, Lauras Beau, Just So, Over The Deel, Into The Red, Mely Moss, Supreme Glory, Lord Atterbury, Nil Desperandum, McKelvey, Philson Run, King Johns Castle and Hello Bud, all of whom would have missed the cut.
Reducing the field size at the margin is fine but to avoid seriously risking the character of the race it should not be as drastic a cut as 35%.
As I said in an earlier post, IMHO the primary cause of the increase in fatalities is SPEED.
It is clear that the pace at which the GN is now typically run is much quicker than before and much quicker than would be consistent with the official going description. To repeat, 3 years on the trot that description has been Good (Good-to-Soft places) and yet the times registered have all been comfortably faster than standard. Obviously the weather intervenes but they have all been relatively much quicker than the Foxhunters and Topham run over the course on the prior 2 days, even allowing for the higher quality of runners.
Aside from the greater athleticism and fitness of racehorses these days, what’s causing this increase in pace?
Firstly, increasing quality of field of the GN, resulting from compression of the weights, is one of the contributory factors. Very simply there are more horses in the field capable of running 3m+ at a cruising speed more consistent with a Gold Cup than a 4.5m marathon and which inevitably increases the demands on all runners. It is hardly practicable to place a maximum handicap rating on the GN but I do think that the handicapper should think again about his obsession with biasing the weights in favour of better quality horses, also for reasons of the character of the race.
Secondly, the reduction in the size of the fences has had a counterproductive effect but clearly it would be wrong to reverse this. There should be no further modifications, however, other than where the landing areas may be made safer.
Thirdly, the frenzy of the jockeys at the start of the GN (and indeed other major jump races) seems to be getting worse once again. It is now common for the tape to be broken at least once before a proper start to the GN (twice on Saturday) and, aside from the unfortunate incident with Synchronised, the tension that this shambles creates among the jockies and horses can only add to the notoriously ridiculous pace over the first 6 fences. They simply have to find a better way of achieving an orderly first-time start.
But I believe that the main issue (and over which there considerable control) is the going.
Aintree’s clerk of the course has consistently said that his aim is to produce safe jumping ground and, in his own words, that equates to Good (GS places). The problem is that, while that would be safe jumping ground for most races and courses, for the GN it simply does not slow the pace sufficiently. IMHO, for the GN, safe jumping ground equates to a race time at least 20secs slower than std and that means proper Good-to-Soft at the very least. The GN should no longer be run on ground any faster than that. I know that this means that horses that need top-of-the-ground to get the trip will struggle to win a GN but, conversely, it would mean that true staying chasers (such as Giles Cross and Silver By Nature) would have some kind of chance that recent changes to the race are now usually denying them. Most importantly, it should greatly reduce the fatalities.
Moving the race to be consistently 3 weeks after Cheltenham (2 weeks not 4, if Easter intervenes) would at least give Mother Nature the best opportunity to oblige but, failing natural rainfall, they simply have to water far more aggressively than now, even if that means risking heavy going if there is rain during the meeting. There may be fewer finishers when the going is testing but there are, according to the experts, far fewer fatalities.
As I said in an earlier post, IMHO the primary cause of the increase in fatalities is SPEED.
Speed is a factor, but you argue that reducing the size of the field is unfair. The fast pace and height of the fences causes horses to fall or stumble on landing which in turn brings down others who in a crowded field simply can't get out of the way.
I would reduce the field to around 30-35, that would give the field more room to jump, fewer horses would be brought down and consequently there would be fewer loose horses.
I'd be inclined to raise the height of some fences - that would encourage a slower pace, but reduce the number on the first circuit.
I'd shorten the race somewhat, the favourite Seabass led over the last but went on to finish five lengths off in third place, carrying top weight cleaely slowed the horse at the end of a long race. Perhaps in a shorter race that is how it would have panned out, but it's along trek from the last fence to the finish.
Becher's Brook needs to be worked on so that there is no significant drop on landing - that is what did for Synchonised who jumped the fence pretty well only to stumble on landing and go over on his neck. I read somewhere that this fence alone has led to the deaths of 15 horses in the race. From my memory I remember Jonjo O'Neill having another horse die at this fence - this time as a jockey - Alverton.
Lastly I'd make it harder to qualify for the race - increase the minimum handicapping to something that encourages only good horses who have a bit of either course or distance experience and are expected to get round and jump well.
Whilst I don't know much about the course, don't they have to jump some fences twice? If so, why not make the race shorter?
a) One circuit is about 2.75miles. It simply wouldn't be a race for staying chasers anymore, i.e. not a National. b) There are races over the course that are 1 circuit and they're not without fatalities. c) I don't know for sure but probably more than 50% of fatalities occur on the first circuit in the GN - certainly 1 of the 2 this year and both of last year's.
As I said in an earlier post, IMHO the primary cause of the increase in fatalities is SPEED.
Speed is a factor, but you argue that reducing the size of the field is unfair. The fast pace and height of the fences causes horses to fall or stumble on landing which in turn brings down others who in a crowded field simply can't get out of the way.
I would reduce the field to around 30-35, that would give the field more room to jump, fewer horses would be brought down and consequently there would be fewer loose horses.
I didn’t say it would be unfair, I said that a drastic reduction (to 25) would change the character of the race. I wouldn’t be unhappy with going to 34 or so.
I'd shorten the race somewhat, the favourite Seabass led over the last but went on to finish five lengths off in third place, carrying top weight cleaely slowed the horse at the end of a long race.
Seabass was not carrying topweight and what has the length of the flat finish got to do with jumping fatalities?
Mind you, I would be all in favour of lopping 6 inches off the distance.
Mind you, I would be all in favour of lopping 6 inches off the distance.
As would I, as long as it was implemented retrospectively
re the worthiness of a stats model, I've only been following the race myself for 3 years or so; but given the excellent insights of yourself and my mate, I get the feeling that this year was just an insanely competitive field. I presume that's why you had a number of horses in 'near miss' selections, I'll actually have to ask him if had the same. But such a field is always going to work against a detailed model due to reducing the margin of error. What do you reckon? Anyway, let's hope its not quite so competitive next year so that your model can return to the success its enjoyed previously!
As for the speed, I'm inclined to agree but as it's a race, I don't think you can feasibly slow them that much without increasing the height of the jumps. There's a embedded risk to both horse and jockey in racing over 4&1/2 miles and 16 fences, there is only so much that can be done to reduce/manage it. Unfortunately it's a dangerous game, you'll always relying on a bit of luck that nothing major happens - and we didn't have that luck yesterday
I did agree with he could have done more but the horse seemeed to slow slightly after the last crack of the whip, I reckon he may have won without hitting him the last time. Bit harsh to blame jockey after calming down as yesterday I was livid!!!!
I heard a jockey on the wireless this morning saying the enslavement of the horses is ok because they're 'bred for it', and that they 'love it, even those that lose their rider run on and jump several more fences' (I have seen riderless horses go around the outside of the obstacles though), and 'you can't make a horse do what it doesn't want to do'. If that's the case why do horses need 'breaking in', and why do riders need whips? ...and why don't horse whisperers ask the creatures if they really want that lifestyle?
Thanks for the selections again Peanuts, always a great read this thread and very interesting reading your thoughts about the fatalities. Now sort out that model and make us a huge profit next year ;-)
Thanks for the selections again Peanuts, always a great read this thread and very interesting reading your thoughts about the fatalities. Now sort out that model and make us a huge profit next year ;-)
change the date of it, probably upset the welsh, but King George boxing day followed by National day after. Unfortunately with the climate the ground is just too fast in April.
......There's a embedded risk to both horse and jockey in racing over 4&1/2 miles and 16 fences, there is only so much that can be done to reduce/manage it. Unfortunately it's a dangerous game, you'll always relying on a bit of luck that nothing major happens - and we didn't have that luck yesterday
I completely agree mon ami but there is an anomaly that has arisen in the last 3 GNs between the targeted going and the times they’re posting.
They think "safe jumping ground" is Gd(GS). That’s entirely logical but that would rarely imply consistently clocking times faster than standard. Comply Or Die won the GN in 2008 on officially Good (GS places) in a time 6.6secs slow of std but he was 12.1 secs slower than Don’t Push It in 2010, 15.6 secs slower than Ballabriggs in 2011 and 11.5 secs slower than Neptune Collonges, all on the same official going of Gd(GS). Those time differences imply that Comply Or Die would have trailed in behind them (respectively) 60, 78 and 58 lengths (i.e. at least a furlong), despite carrying less weight than all of them.
Comply Or Die’s time was perfectly consistent with other GNs of recent decades (relative to different goings) but the last 3 have been appreciably faster than they should have been on the ground.
Of course, horses are increasingly athletic, the fences have been altered and the GN fields are higher quality and the better horses are more favourably handicapped but either the official going descriptions are wrong or the professed aim of Gd(GS) as “safe jumping ground” is simply too quick for the current nature of the race.
Either way, we can’t continue to have fatalities at the rate of the last 2 years, however legitimate the refutation of accusations of cruelty etc. It’s a matter of opinion but I’d much rather see some revision to the targeted going to proper Good-to-Soft to reduce the speed than to have more ludicrous and likely counter-productive changes such as shortening the trip or reducing the fences further (both of which would increase the speed) and/or a drastic reduction in field size. Any of these would fundamentally change the character of the race.
Proper GS is not ground that many could complain about but would reduce the pace to around 9m20s (10 secs slow of std, at fastest) from c.9m05s at the moment. That may not sound much but it should then be truly consistent with “safe jumping ground”. It won’t stop fatalities but I believe at this point racing could legitimately say that it has done everything practicable to minimise risk without altering the character of the race.
That’s all I’m going to say on the matter anyway. They’re going to do what they’re going to do. I’m going to start tweaking my model….time for a beer. Get back to you shortly on the questions you posed on the model.
You're clearly very knowledgeable and have considered a lot of variables. However, you keep going back to this thing of not changing the nature of the race. Isn't clear that changing the nature of the race is exactly what needs to happen?
There you go. I'm not the only one that thinks it. I imagine that those of you getting defensive over this, are so because you feel you have blood on your hands. Just stop betting on this race and you'll feel better.
Amongst all of yesterday's excitement, I picked Sunnyhillboy e/w only due to Peanuts. Thanks PM, a thoroughly captivating thread as always. I think that is 3 years in a row I have collected thanks to your amazing knowledge.
Amongst all of yesterday's excitement, I picked Sunnyhillboy e/w only due to Peanuts. Thanks PM, a thoroughly captivating thread as always. I think that is 3 years in a row I have collected thanks to your amazing knowledge.
Too kind Chief - pleased to assist but you deserve the credit for picking the right one. Still can't believe he got collared....UGH!!
PM - Briliant coverage of your model and loved the discussions about the National and recent Cheltenham meeting,,,,out of interest do you cover the Flat in the same way? Anyways if you are ever about in the North stand let me buy you a beer and discuss all things CAFC & racing!!
Glad you enjoyed the GN comments and happy birthday for Saturday davy btw - quite a memorable one. Shame that the Rocker fluffed his lines - got a bit frothy during the shambles before the off maybe but not too old to come back with a live chance next time. I'm not into the flat tbh and there's no other race like the GN for modelling, hence I have to resort to be large but unreliable nose for the likes of Cheltenham etc. Too far away to get to more than a couple of home games a season these days but, when the next chance arises, I'll gladly take you up on a bevvy. Cheers mate.
Comments
Some racing journalists are calling for the field size to be reduced to as few as 25. Obviously this would reduce, though not eliminate, the risk of being brought down, as According To Pete apparently was. However: a) it isn’t as though fatalities are unknown in the two other races at the GN meeting over the fences, which both have a maximum field of 26 and b) the Grand National is really about giving the best handicappers, that would never win the Gold Cup, and the small yard and owner the chance of glory. That is an intrinsic part of its unique appeal.
That is already in danger with the compression of the weights and if the field size had been of the order of 25 then 3 of the last 7 winners Numbersixvalverde (possibly), Silver Birch (definitely) and Comply Or Die (definitely) would not have got a run. That is not to mention winners from years ago such as Bobbyjo and even Lord Gyllene or near-miss heros like Lastofthebrownies, Lauras Beau, Just So, Over The Deel, Into The Red, Mely Moss, Supreme Glory, Lord Atterbury, Nil Desperandum, McKelvey, Philson Run, King Johns Castle and Hello Bud, all of whom would have missed the cut.
Reducing the field size at the margin is fine but to avoid seriously risking the character of the race it should not be as drastic a cut as 35%.
As I said in an earlier post, IMHO the primary cause of the increase in fatalities is SPEED.
It is clear that the pace at which the GN is now typically run is much quicker than before and much quicker than would be consistent with the official going description. To repeat, 3 years on the trot that description has been Good (Good-to-Soft places) and yet the times registered have all been comfortably faster than standard. Obviously the weather intervenes but they have all been relatively much quicker than the Foxhunters and Topham run over the course on the prior 2 days, even allowing for the higher quality of runners.
Aside from the greater athleticism and fitness of racehorses these days, what’s causing this increase in pace?
Firstly, increasing quality of field of the GN, resulting from compression of the weights, is one of the contributory factors. Very simply there are more horses in the field capable of running 3m+ at a cruising speed more consistent with a Gold Cup than a 4.5m marathon and which inevitably increases the demands on all runners. It is hardly practicable to place a maximum handicap rating on the GN but I do think that the handicapper should think again about his obsession with biasing the weights in favour of better quality horses, also for reasons of the character of the race.
Secondly, the reduction in the size of the fences has had a counterproductive effect but clearly it would be wrong to reverse this. There should be no further modifications, however, other than where the landing areas may be made safer.
Thirdly, the frenzy of the jockeys at the start of the GN (and indeed other major jump races) seems to be getting worse once again. It is now common for the tape to be broken at least once before a proper start to the GN (twice on Saturday) and, aside from the unfortunate incident with Synchronised, the tension that this shambles creates among the jockies and horses can only add to the notoriously ridiculous pace over the first 6 fences. They simply have to find a better way of achieving an orderly first-time start.
But I believe that the main issue (and over which there considerable control) is the going.
Aintree’s clerk of the course has consistently said that his aim is to produce safe jumping ground and, in his own words, that equates to Good (GS places). The problem is that, while that would be safe jumping ground for most races and courses, for the GN it simply does not slow the pace sufficiently. IMHO, for the GN, safe jumping ground equates to a race time at least 20secs slower than std and that means proper Good-to-Soft at the very least. The GN should no longer be run on ground any faster than that. I know that this means that horses that need top-of-the-ground to get the trip will struggle to win a GN but, conversely, it would mean that true staying chasers (such as Giles Cross and Silver By Nature) would have some kind of chance that recent changes to the race are now usually denying them. Most importantly, it should greatly reduce the fatalities.
Moving the race to be consistently 3 weeks after Cheltenham (2 weeks not 4, if Easter intervenes) would at least give Mother Nature the best opportunity to oblige but, failing natural rainfall, they simply have to water far more aggressively than now, even if that means risking heavy going if there is rain during the meeting. There may be fewer finishers when the going is testing but there are, according to the experts, far fewer fatalities.
That’s my contribution, for what it’s worth.
Shortening it wouldn't help one bit
Speed is a factor, but you argue that reducing the size of the field is unfair. The fast pace and height of the fences causes horses to fall or stumble on landing which in turn brings down others who in a crowded field simply can't get out of the way.
I would reduce the field to around 30-35, that would give the field more room to jump, fewer horses would be brought down and consequently there would be fewer loose horses.
I'd be inclined to raise the height of some fences - that would encourage a slower pace, but reduce the number on the first circuit.
I'd shorten the race somewhat, the favourite Seabass led over the last but went on to finish five lengths off in third place, carrying top weight cleaely slowed the horse at the end of a long race. Perhaps in a shorter race that is how it would have panned out, but it's along trek from the last fence to the finish.
Becher's Brook needs to be worked on so that there is no significant drop on landing - that is what did for Synchonised who jumped the fence pretty well only to stumble on landing and go over on his neck. I read somewhere that this fence alone has led to the deaths of 15 horses in the race. From my memory I remember Jonjo O'Neill having another horse die at this fence - this time as a jockey - Alverton.
Lastly I'd make it harder to qualify for the race - increase the minimum handicapping to something that encourages only good horses who have a bit of either course or distance experience and are expected to get round and jump well.
b) There are races over the course that are 1 circuit and they're not without fatalities.
c) I don't know for sure but probably more than 50% of fatalities occur on the first circuit in the GN - certainly 1 of the 2 this year and both of last year's.
I didn’t say it would be unfair, I said that a drastic reduction (to 25) would change the character of the race. I wouldn’t be unhappy with going to 34 or so. Seabass was not carrying topweight and what has the length of the flat finish got to do with jumping fatalities?
Mind you, I would be all in favour of lopping 6 inches off the distance.
re the worthiness of a stats model, I've only been following the race myself for 3 years or so; but given the excellent insights of yourself and my mate, I get the feeling that this year was just an insanely competitive field. I presume that's why you had a number of horses in 'near miss' selections, I'll actually have to ask him if had the same. But such a field is always going to work against a detailed model due to reducing the margin of error. What do you reckon? Anyway, let's hope its not quite so competitive next year so that your model can return to the success its enjoyed previously!
As for the speed, I'm inclined to agree but as it's a race, I don't think you can feasibly slow them that much without increasing the height of the jumps. There's a embedded risk to both horse and jockey in racing over 4&1/2 miles and 16 fences, there is only so much that can be done to reduce/manage it. Unfortunately it's a dangerous game, you'll always relying on a bit of luck that nothing major happens - and we didn't have that luck yesterday
Jockey could've done more in my opinion.
Bit harsh to blame jockey after calming down as yesterday I was livid!!!!
...and why don't horse whisperers ask the creatures if they really want that lifestyle?
They think "safe jumping ground" is Gd(GS). That’s entirely logical but that would rarely imply consistently clocking times faster than standard. Comply Or Die won the GN in 2008 on officially Good (GS places) in a time 6.6secs slow of std but he was 12.1 secs slower than Don’t Push It in 2010, 15.6 secs slower than Ballabriggs in 2011 and 11.5 secs slower than Neptune Collonges, all on the same official going of Gd(GS). Those time differences imply that Comply Or Die would have trailed in behind them (respectively) 60, 78 and 58 lengths (i.e. at least a furlong), despite carrying less weight than all of them.
Comply Or Die’s time was perfectly consistent with other GNs of recent decades (relative to different goings) but the last 3 have been appreciably faster than they should have been on the ground.
Of course, horses are increasingly athletic, the fences have been altered and the GN fields are higher quality and the better horses are more favourably handicapped but either the official going descriptions are wrong or the professed aim of Gd(GS) as “safe jumping ground” is simply too quick for the current nature of the race.
Either way, we can’t continue to have fatalities at the rate of the last 2 years, however legitimate the refutation of accusations of cruelty etc. It’s a matter of opinion but I’d much rather see some revision to the targeted going to proper Good-to-Soft to reduce the speed than to have more ludicrous and likely counter-productive changes such as shortening the trip or reducing the fences further (both of which would increase the speed) and/or a drastic reduction in field size. Any of these would fundamentally change the character of the race.
Proper GS is not ground that many could complain about but would reduce the pace to around 9m20s (10 secs slow of std, at fastest) from c.9m05s at the moment. That may not sound much but it should then be truly consistent with “safe jumping ground”. It won’t stop fatalities but I believe at this point racing could legitimately say that it has done everything practicable to minimise risk without altering the character of the race.
That’s all I’m going to say on the matter anyway. They’re going to do what they’re going to do. I’m going to start tweaking my model….time for a beer. Get back to you shortly on the questions you posed on the model.
BARBARIC
How do you thing Fruity O'Ronney will do in the Scotish national on Saturday?
I'm not into the flat tbh and there's no other race like the GN for modelling, hence I have to resort to be large but unreliable nose for the likes of Cheltenham etc.
Too far away to get to more than a couple of home games a season these days but, when the next chance arises, I'll gladly take you up on a bevvy.
Cheers mate.