2023 Grand National

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

You can go explain this weeks road traffic deaths one by one while you're at it. 

No, its the Grand National we’re discussing here, it’s been suggested we’ve accepted the horse deaths were because of protestors.

I was speculating why all the others died.

 

Never known a thread like it for whataboutism.

Edited April 17, 2023 by chrisp65

[tomav84]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

No, its the Grand National we’re discussing here, it’s been suggested we’ve accepted the horse deaths were because of protestors.

I was speculating why all the others died.

no, it's just a theory on the basis that a larger number of horses than usual fell at the first fence and the trainer himself said they were fighting to calm the horse down because he was anxious during the delay

no one is suggesting it's not a dangerous race, but often in jump racing the horses die due to a tired jump near the end. to have a fatal fall at the first fence was unusual

Edited April 17, 2023 by tomav84

[CVByrne]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

No, its the Grand National we’re discussing here, it’s been suggested we’ve accepted the horse deaths were because of protestors.

I was speculating why all the others died.

 

Never known a thread like it for whataboutism.

I'm just pointing out how completely ignorant you are of basic things. Jumps racing has fatalities, some days no horses die some days horses die. One race or one day is too small a sample to answer anything from. I flip a coin 10 times and I get heads 7 times and tails 3 times. What does that tell me about anything? 

You need large samples of data to draw conclusions. You seem fixated with why one race had a specific outcome. Go watch the opening game of a football season and predict the entire end of season table. 

You prattled on for pages with nonsense in here. Nobody has any idea what point you're trying to make or what the purpose of the numbers you are quoting are meant to mean to anyone. 

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

no, it's just a theory on the basis that a larger number of horses than usual fell at the first fence and the trainer himself said they were fighting to calm the horse down because he was anxious during the delay

Not so anxious as not to race though.

It’s a bogus argument, they didn’t have to run the horses, the owners and trainers have free will even if the horses don’t.

It was suggested:

Quote

As stated numerous times, their objective on Saturday failed drastically imo.

They did more harm to the animals on that occasion which counters what they were actually trying to set out to achieve/raise awareness over.

If that’s the case, if the animals were that unsettled and they were still raced then those in charge are clearly incompetent. We’re they worried they’d lose their Tv money so took the risk?

[chrisp65]

Just now, CVByrne said:

I'm just pointing out how completely ignorant you are of basic things. Jumps racing has fatalities, some days no horses die some days horses die. One race or one day is too small a sample to answer anything from. I flip a coin 10 times and I get heads 7 times and tails 3 times. What does that tell me about anything? 

You need large samples of data to draw conclusions. You seem fixated with why one race had a specific outcome. Go watch the opening game of a football season and predict the entire end of season table. 

You prattled on for pages with nonsense in here. Nobody has any idea what point you're trying to make or what the purpose of the numbers you are quoting are meant to mean to anyone. 

I’m ignorant again?

look at the thread title, 2023 Grand national, why are you so determined to deflect away from this?

Yes, one race is too small a sample, I completely agree.

How about 5 dead horses in 4 runs of the race?

Howe about 40 dead horses in the last 50 years?

Tell me what bit of that is ignorant prattling nonsense? I’m not sure why you’re making it so personal with your insults?  

[tomav84]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Not so anxious as not to race though.

It’s a bogus argument, they didn’t have to run the horses, the owners and trainers have free will even if the horses don’t.

It was suggested:

If that’s the case, if the animals were that unsettled and they were still raced then those in charge are clearly incompetent. We’re they worried they’d lose their Tv money so took the risk?

well they obviously couldn't have predicted what the outcome was going to be could they? races are never delayed like this so it would've been a first for all concerned.

i guarantee the trainer is regretting not pulling the horse from the race now. it's massively underestimated how much love the owners/trainers have for them.

[mrchnry]

Needs to change or stop. 

[chrisp65]

11 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

well they obviously couldn't have predicted what the outcome was going to be could they? races are never delayed like this so it would've been a first for all concerned.

i guarantee the trainer is regretting not pulling the horse from the race now. it's massively underestimated how much love the owners/trainers have for them.

I’m quite ignorant of horse racing, but surely there must be someone involved in the sport that could look at some sort of statistical record of previous races and work out the likelihood of a horse being killed this year, and then make a judgement on whether those statistics were sufficiently safe for them depending on exactly how much they loved their horse?

I bet you could build a whole side industry around horse based statistics. If you love your horse, would you put it in a race with a 1 in 40 chance of it needing to be destroyed? 

 

[CVByrne]

16 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m ignorant again?

look at the thread title, 2023 Grand national, why are you so determined to deflect away from this?

Yes, one race is too small a sample, I completely agree.

How about 5 dead horses in 4 runs of the race?

Howe about 40 dead horses in the last 50 years?

Tell me what bit of that is ignorant prattling nonsense? I’m not sure why you’re making it so personal with your insults?  

What. Is. Your. Point? 

You seem completely incapable of making a point. What is the point you are trying to make. Type out the words. 

[chrisp65]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

It’s designed in. We all know that, because the proof is that it would be so easy to design it out, but they haven’t.

Let’s just stop pretending it’s anything else but part of the entertainment.

 

 

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

40 horses dead in the last 50 years.

how is it not possible to design a safer race.

 

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

5 dead horses in the last 4 runs of the race would suggest they should maybe re examine exactly how they’ve made it less unsafe.

 

 

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

That’s actually 5 dead horses in the last 4 runs of the race.

I bet I could improve on that. 

 

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Less runners, less dangerous fences.

 

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

We’re discussing the Grand National. It’s a race run purely for entertainment and most years a horse dies, five horses in the last four runnings.

I’m not saying I’m for or against it, I’m just suggesting people need to be honest with themselves. The race could be safer, but it would be less exciting. 

People that like the Grand National shouldn’t pretend otherwise

 

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Perhaps its a question for the defenders of the Grand National, in what way would designing a safer race with less death detract from the event? 

 

40 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

What are we blaming 2022’s dead horses on? I seem to remember there had been a particularly negative letter in the Sporting Post.

2021’s dead horse? Well I think someone had beeped aggressively in the car park.

2019’s dead horse? Pretty sure someone had a CND badge in the main stand.

Why can’t people just be honest with themselves?

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

What. Is. Your. Point? 

You seem completely incapable of making a point. What is the point you are trying to make. Type out the words. 

You seem completely incapable of spotting a point even when I’ve typed out the words many many times. Does. This. Help?

The race could be made safer but they’d rather sacrifice the horses than the spectacle. 

I’m going to struggle to make it simpler than that for you.

[AvfcRigo82]

22 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

If that’s the case, if the animals were that unsettled and they were still raced then those in charge are clearly incompetent.

Not really no, as this stupidity has never happened before!

It's only in hindsight that the solutions of what should and shouldn't have happened come flooding in from people like yourself.

The protestors stated they didn't want to bring any harm to the animals at this meeting.. But yet, They waited until the horses lined up and in their 'zone' ready to race when they started with their stupidity. 

If these idiots had a clue about what they are protesting over, they would have executed their plan at any stage up to the lead up of the race - not when the horse is out on the track and in their 'zone' and charged up. 

Do they have any idea what that does to a horse? Of course they don't. Too stupid and ignorant whilst probably also off their faces on controlled drugs to have a damn clue about the shit they caused or even have the slightest clue about equine welfare!

But maybe you're right.. Everyone should have just pandered to these 130+ idiots instead 

[CVByrne]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m quite ignorant of horse racing, but surely there must be someone involved in the sport that could look at some sort of statistical record of previous races and work out the likelihood of a horse being killed this year, and then make a judgement on whether those statistics were sufficiently safe for them depending on exactly how much they loved their horse?

I bet you could build a whole side industry around horse based statistics. If you love your horse, would you put it in a race with a 1 in 40 chance of it needing to be destroyed? 

 

Complete, gibberish, nonsense. 

I'll explain for you. Horses jumping fences has risks. Horses race 4/5 times a season for years. There is nothing particularly dangerous about running your horse in the National vs the general racing. 4 horses from the 400 who ran in the previous 10 years had died in the National so a ~1% chance. The average fatality rate over "Jumps" (which is hurdles and chases) is 0.4%. So conservative estimate would put that as sat 0.3% over hurdles and 0.5% of Fences.

So if you run your horse in two races over fences the fatality rate is equivalent to running the horse once in the Grand National. Horses race about 40 times in an average career. So a horse who races in 39 races and one of those is the Grand National has statistically the same risk of fatal injury as a horse running in 40 races. 

The issue is we've a plethora of completely ignorant people such as yourself who have no idea what so ever about the sports general risks. So have zero context to quoting numbers because you lack any knowledge to provide context to them. 

It's exactly like me saying the following sentence. "21 Cyclists Died in London in January this year". 

 

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, CVByrne said:

Complete, gibberish, nonsense. 

I'll explain for you. Horses jumping fences has risks. Horses race 4/5 times a season for years. There is nothing particularly dangerous about running your horse in the National vs the general racing. 4 horses from the 400 who ran in the previous 10 years had died in the National so a ~1% chance. The average fatality rate over "Jumps" (which is hurdles and chases) is 0.4%. So conservative estimate would put that as sat 0.3% over hurdles and 0.5% of Fences.

So if you run your horse in two races over fences the fatality rate is equivalent to running the horse once in the Grand National. Horses race about 40 times in an average career. So a horse who races in 39 races and one of those is the Grand National has statistically the same risk of fatal injury as a horse running in 40 races. 

The issue is we've a plethora of completely ignorant people such as yourself who have no idea what so ever about the sports general risks. So have zero context to quoting numbers because you lack any knowledge to provide context to them. 

It's exactly like me saying the following sentence. "21 Cyclists Died in London in January this year". 

 

Again with the weird personal insults? 

Are you ok, mate? I can’t be dealing with the weird personal insults, so I’ll leave you with your statistically acceptable 5 dead horses in 4 races.

[AvfcRigo82]

32 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The race could be made safer

Safety. Let's talk about safety then..

• The BHA have stated they will again analyse the races to understand what caused three horse fatalities at the meeting this year.

• 5 fatalities from 395 runners in the last 10 Grand Nationals raced since safety changes were introduced in 2012.

• The start has been moved approx 90 yards closer to the first fence to help slow the speed the horses arrive at it.

• The start has also been moved further away from the crowd to reduce noise that can distract the horses.

• In the last 9 years since the course had been modified there's been an average of under two fallers at the first two fences in the GN. (Coincidently-This year there was 8 fallers at the first 2 fences)

• Many of the fences have been redesigned with a reduction of between four and five inches to the drop on the landings.

• The height of some of the fences has also been reduced by a number of inches.

• Changes to the fences core material have changed. A plastic centre now replaces the wooden stakes which traditionally supported the structure of the fences. This adaptation has now made the fences more flexible and less likely to cause dangerous falls and injuries when hit by horses.

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by AvfcRigo82

[AvfcRigo82]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

Nothing in Sport has meant as much to me as those two moments. Kauto's 5th King George too. 

Let's not forget the amazing story of the best 2 mile chaser ever, Sprinter Sacre. Seeing that horse come back from everything it went through was a real eye watering moment.

[AvfcRigo82]

1 hour ago, tomav84 said:

it's massively underestimated how much love the owners/trainers have for them.

Exactly Tom.

Here's Nicky Henderson - trainer of Consitution Hill - at Cheltenham this year.

Listen to any one of this man's interviews and you hear him more often than not stating how he just wants the horse to have a sound round of jumping and everyone to return safe and well.

[AvfcRigo82]

4 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

Is 5 deaths in 10 years acceptable for entertainment purposes? 

Could more be done to prevent unnecessary harm?

It's not acceptable.

I think one positive to take is that the number of fatalities is getting less each year.

Many things have been done to prevent unnecessary harm (as posted above) and I dare say that more will be done to keep making sure the race is safe in the future for everyone involved.

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by AvfcRigo82

[blandy]

11 hours ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

If these idiots had a clue about what they are protesting over, they would have executed their plan at any stage up to the lead up of the race - not when the horse is out on the track and in their 'zone' and charged up. 

Do they have any idea what that does to a horse? Of course they don't. Too stupid and ignorant whilst probably also off their faces on controlled drugs to have a damn clue about the shit they caused or even have the slightest clue about equine welfare!

But maybe you're right.. Everyone should have just pandered to these 130+ idiots instead 

I listened to one of them being interviewed, she was arrested on Saturday and later released without charge. She was eloquent, informed, realistic, not on drugs and very aware of equine welfare. She also said she’d spoken on Monday morning with the owner of the horse that was killed after falling at the first fence.

That’s not me taking sides, by the way, just reporting what I heard. She was pretty impressive in putting their case.

[The Fun Factory]

Why is the field so large for the national? If it was 25 to 30 horses would that help?

[AvfcRigo82]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I listened to one of them being interviewed, she was arrested on Saturday and later released without charge. She was eloquent, informed, realistic, not on drugs and very aware of equine welfare. She also said she’d spoken on Monday morning with the owner of the horse that was killed after falling at the first fence.

That’s not me taking sides, by the way, just reporting what I heard. She was pretty impressive in putting their case.

I know you're not taking sides pal.

It's sad that she couldn't educate the rest of her tribe into conducting themselves the same way she did maybe?

I think if they had all behaved in the manner you describe from her interview, then they may have got their point across much better.

Had they kept the peace and continued peacefully protesting how they started to outside at the beginning of the event then I think people might have gave their protest a bit more thought in what message they wanted to get across.

The minute they started throwing ladders onto the course (resulting in a horse cutting it's leg), scaling security railings, attaching themselves to fences and causing unnecessary harm to the horses at the start because of their actions, they lost all credibility in the point they were trying get across and showed themselves to be nothing but ignorant and careless idiots with their wrecklesss behaviour.

Had the well spoken lead protestor informed her fellow comrades of equine welfare, they would realise what harm they were doing to the horses by delaying them and getting them worked up even more. 

In the end, they just pissed everyone off instead and caused more harm to the horses than good.