Dating back to 1839, the Grand National is one of the most popular races in the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is a handicap chase which contains 30 fences and is run over a distance of four miles and 880 yards (7,242m).
The Grand National is a yearly event that captures the attention of many, even those who are not interested in horses and who don't usually bet!
Last night, leading up to the Grand National I knew as a horse lover and enthusiast I would at some point in the next 24 hours be asked my opinions on the famous race. Of course I was right and I was asked whether or not I saw it as a blood sport due to my love for horses or was I all for it.
Personally, I don't have a real set in stone opinion on whether that particular race is cruel or not but what makes it ANY different, really, to another jump race? Yes the distance is longer, the jumps may be a little higher but take a look at show jumping. Horses are entered in to classes to jump in the region sometimes of 7ft.
We could say any form of horse-racing is a blood sport, as with dog racing. During any sport there will be risks and unfortunately that is life. No individiual person or group are going to be able to change the way in which our sports are ran. If horse-racing was banned due to being classed as dangerous then couldn't we say the same about football or rugby?
For example, the whole of the football community were recently saddened by the news that Fabrice Muamba collapsed whilst playing football - a sport that he loved. The intensity of running around a football pitch for 90 minutes after a ball could be classed as dangerous if we were to get picky. Since writing this, I have learned that a 25 year old Italian footballer, Piermario Morosini, has died following a suspected heart attack on the pitch.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that there is a risk in all sports. Everytime you take your car for a drive you are at risk of crashing or being involved in a serious accident. Life comes with risks and we all take them every day.
Although, with yet again another race of fatalities we do ask what can be done to improve the safety aspects of the national and is there a way in future years to come that such results as we saw today can be stopped.
Take the favourite, 'Synchronised', for example: Clare Balding was right in commenting how relaxed he looked in the parade ring, but as soon as he got on to the course it all began to go wrong. Unbalancing A P McCoy as they crossed the starting line at the beginning of the canter to warm up it looked as if both Synchronised and McCoys attempts at this years national was about to end as McCoy slipped and fell off.
Synchronised proceeded to canter steadily to the other end of the course which delayed the race starting by roughly 5 minutes. The question that needs to be asked here is: Was Synchronised fit to run after already clearing a good few furlongs? A quick vet check declared he was and off they went.
Unfortunately at the sixth fence, Becher's Brook, he fell and not long after had to be eunthanised after a suspected broken leg.
As a horse lover I want to ask why he was still allowed to run. Should it not have been more closely looked at whether or not he had the stamina and energy left to run another 4 miles after already becoming lose and running a good few furlongs?
Although, we cannot doubt the decision made as team of vets working at the Ntional are a 5* very qualified team. They checked the horse over and felt he was fne to run and had not at all tired.
Another argument that often crops up when talking about the Grand National is whether or not the horses are forced to run. Those that know horses will already know that if any horse didn't want to run in that race it wouldn't. All horses have very strong characters and no jockey nor trainer could force one to run in a race that it really didn't want to.
Look at those horses that lose their jockeys, most carry on to finish the race without a rider and often follow the rest of the herd to jump the required jumps. If that horse didn't want to be in that race or was forced to then it certainly wouldn't carry on without a rider geeing it on.
It is possible that the goodwill of some spectators could be restored by a ban on jockeys using the whip to make horses go faster.
Arguments for and against this popular race could go on and on, like any other sport it carries its risks and no one can determine the fate of any of those horses and jockeys on that particular race day.
However, if we do look at what could be changed to improve the safety then one area I feel needs to be looked at is the age of the horses.
I would turn away runners as young as seven or as old as 13. Such horses struggle to cope with the National; no seven-year-old has won since 1940, no teenager since 1923. These age limits suggest themselves.
Most horses aren't classed as being matured until the age of 7 and by the time they reach 13 their owner usually starts to slow them down. So why still allow ages above and below these to run in one of the most toughest races?
Sadly, what happened to this horse couldn't have been foreseen, but, once again we end another Grand National day with two very sad losses.
0 comments:
Post a Comment