The traditional annual Grand National horse race was watched by millions on Saturday (14th April), but was marred by the deaths of two racehorses. This has led to the other annual tradition of soul-searching among horse racing supporters amidst condemnation from their animal welfare counterparts.
In truth, the 2012 Grand National is not one that either Aintree Racecourse or supporters of the jumping game will want to remember for any length of time. The race was already under intense scrutiny due to two horse deaths the previous year, therefore the last thing they wanted to witness was the death of the popular 2012 Cheltenham Gold Cup winner Synchronised, along with According to Pete.
The death of Synchronised was compounded by questions of whether or not the horse should have taken part in the first place. Prior to the start of the race the horse became wound up, throwing experienced jockey Tony McCoy to the turf before going for a canter. Horse and jockey were eventually reunited, but Synchronised was edgy. These events have given those who campaign against the race an open goal for criticism, one which is nigh on impossible for the organisers to defend.
Those who follow racing more extensively will be aware that a horse being worked up prior to a race is nothing unusual, and is a known characteristic of some racehorses. Many have actually gone on to win their races. This will not make the understandable public anxieties any less relevant. There are now direct criticisms regarding the running of Synchronised that must be addressed.
Many people and organisations will simply call for a ban. This is highly unlikely, but it is interesting to note that even some ex-jockeys and racing journalists have started to question whether there will be a Grand National in twenty years' time.
For my part, the Grand National represents a huge moral dilemma. I loved the race as a child - captivated by the horses and jockeys going around a unique track. For many others, the race remains a national institution.
As a child, I knew nothing of the punishing outcomes of the race on the horses - I doubt many people did. We now live in the information age, and everything is reported, analysed and dissected. This has helped make us a more critical society, which is good. It has also exposed us to the unpleasant aspects of life.
We are learning the race Britain loves has a dark side. This has been reported by the press for years, but for whatever reason we are now more aware of it. Eventually, as with the case this year, the deaths become such big news that BBC News, and other news services are compelled to report them.
However, to think it is only the Grand National, and campaign solely against the deaths related to this high-profile race, is to deny a truth that hangs over the whole of jump racing like a dark cloud.
Scarcely a day goes by without a horse being killed at one of Britain's many jump racing venues. It is not meant to be part of the entertainment as such, but it is the price paid by the horses for the entertainment they provide. Far from being an explicitly more cruel race than any other, the Grand National is only a snapshot of the deaths that regular race-watchers are already familiar with. Even the flat racing scene has horse deaths, as was visibly the case in the Dubai World Cup last month.
It is not only Aintree's Grand National course that will need yet more modifications in order to make it safe, but the whole of the jump game, and perhaps the whole of racing, requires an image makeover. Questions are being floated on why the Thoroughbred racehorse is so fragile. What could be done to strengthen the animals without losing race ability? Probably not much. Some are also asking why horses are put down for having broken legs. Is it because of welfare, or are there more sinister reasons relating to the cost of looking after an economically valueless animal? Is there an insurance payout to be had on a dead thoroughbred? What is the horse's value as meat? Many of these things probably have nothing to do with why injured horses are put down, but someone in the industry needs to come forward and communicate with the public, or these theories will continue to circulate.
Going back to the Grand National itself, I have a number of questions. Should there be a minimum time span between horses racing, such as six weeks? After all, it was only last month that Synchronised triumphed at Cheltenham. Could the length of the Grand National be shortened by about half a mile without losing its appeal? And what about the fences? It is to this last question I now turn.
There is much debate as to how the fences could be made safer. One of the discussions involves the lowering of the fences. It has been pointed out that lowering the fences could result in horses approaching the fences at higher speed, and result in more fatalities. Given the number of recent fatalities at the notorious Becher's Brook fence, it is arguable that the modifications made to the fence have not made it safer, but on the contrary made it more treacherous.
Often, owing the the spruce used to decorate the fences, one forgotten aspect of the fences is their stiffness, as underneath lies solid timber that is very unforgiving if horses come into contact with it. This has to be the starting point of any safety modifications. In what would appear to be contradictory exercise, I would suggest each fence is built high to ensure they are respected by horses and jockeys, but with a more forgiving structure if horses come into contact with them. Maybe then they will come away with their legs intact. The spectacle of seeing horses jump grand obstacles would remain, with the pointless risk of contact with solid timber diminished.
Action needs to be taken. The classic excuses peddled by owners, trainers and jockeys no longer wash. The old chestnut that 'horses are doing what they love' becomes increasingly difficult to justify when a horse that did not seem particularly keen to race was killed in action. The other nonsense that 'all sport carries risk' is hardly applicable to a horse which has less agency and power to make its own choices in life. Trying to justify it using the argument that 'meat eaters are hypocrites' does not wash either as there is a difference, although neither would appeal to vegetarians, between killing animals for food and killing animals in the name of entertainment. This, coming from a nation that looks down its nose at how the Spanish treat bulls.
The argument that 'the race is justified by the millions that watch it' is accurate though, which is why it is important that racing gets its house in order and makes the race more palatable to those who enjoy their once-a-year flutter.
