Grand National - I Was Wrong

I’m more than happy to shout this from the rooftops  - I WAS WRONG.

After the last two years I was dreading the 2013 National and as I said two blogs ago I had some reservations about the changes bought in ahead of this years renewal.

My fears were wholly unfounded.

Although  I could not face watching the race live my relief was palpable when just after 16:25 on Saturday I received a text which simply said “all seem to be back OK”.

When I later watched a recording of the race I can say, for the first time in years I enjoyed watching the race. The fences certainly looked to be more forgiving and that all the runners were still standing coming to the Canal Turn must be unprecedented.

The race did not look to be any less of a spectacle, so well done to Aintree, the BHA and all those involved in the latest changes – all credit where credit is due.

Let us not get too complacent though, this is but one year, but the signs are good and hopefully the more extreme critics will quieten down now.

I was also wrong in my estimation of the number of viewers who would watch the race on Channel Four. The viewing figures were actually better than those of the BBC in recent years.

I did record the Channel Four coverage and, for me, it was like the Curates Egg.

Some of the background articles were excellent, it was good to see the excellent Gareth O’Brien being used.

There were some oddities though, quite why they went through the runners in reverse order is beyond me.

There was barely any coverage of the runners in the parade ring.

I also found the coverage of the race itself disappointing. It wasn’t their best performance. Too many of the shots were from too far away and it was difficult to identify runners.

It also seems that having gone to the expense of installing a flying camera, it was going to be used to the absolute maximum. To use the camera to show the 14^th fence when the view was blocked by a big screen is absolutely unforgivable.

The shot of The Chair was also poor.

As for the commentary, Richard Hoiles sounded as if he was wearing a muffle and the usually excellent Ian Bartlett just sounded as if he wasn’t really that interested.  Also why did Simon Holt cover the section after Valentines. He clearly had to do it off a monitor, it seems more sense to have had Richard cover Valentines to the Melling Road.

The re-run analysis of the race was unbelievable to the point of embarrassment. It seemed Nick Luck was trying to second guess what was going to happen . At one point he said “We’ll freeze it there” and the VT carried on running.

 
By contrast the RUK coverage with the course commentary was far better. The camera angles were far superior and it was much easier to follow what was happening. The commentary was good and Stewart Machin rose to the occasion was the lead commentator, even resisting his trademark puns.

A Seaside Walk

So what will you be doing 16:15 this Saturday afternoon?

If the weather is fine I’ll be taking in the sea air along the seafront at Southsea, what I won’t be doing is watching the Grand National.

I strongly suspect there will be a great deal fewer people watching the race this year, not necessarily due to any moral concerns about the race but due to the terrestrial coverage moving from mainstream BBC 1 to the backwater that is Channel Four.

My prediction is around 2-3 million, at most, will watch the race at its new home. I’m pretty certain very few viewers will have been attracted by the ridiculous and wholly inappropriate trailer for the event being broadcast on Channel Four.

I didn’t watch the National live last year either. On that occasion I was at Chepstow and, as happens across the board, there was a huge gap in their race program to accommodate the showing of the Grand National. So last year I took advantage of the hour and five minute break to leave the course roll into Chepstow town for a walk.

In a way it’s surprising I no longer want to watch the race. The National is my earliest racing memory, 1961 and Nicolaus Silver was the winner.

I hardly missed a year thereafter. I had every race since 1990 on video tape or DVD but in the past few years I have begun to fall out of love with the race.

Perhaps as I get older my sensibilities have changed. Perhaps it’s because I go racing far more regularly than I used to and I am exposed to the darker side more frequently?

I fully accept there is an inherent risk in horse racing both to horses and riders. The thorny question is at what level does the risk become unacceptable?

I, like 99% of those who follow the sport, hate it when a horse is hurt or pays the ultimate price.

There are, sadly, those morons who still cheer when a horse falls and if I had my may I would have them ejected from the course and banned for life.

Everything in life carries a risk but it’s a very personal matter as to where the line is drawn.

For better or worse, and I believe it is for the worse, the Grand National is the “shop window” of racing in the eyes of the wider public. It is the biggest race of the year in terms of betting turnover and that makes many more protective of the race – after all who wants to kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

But what if that goose has the potential to cause more harm than good in the longer term? What if the race has the potential to damage the wider sport?

By it nature the race will carry a higher risk, but has that risk become unacceptable?

Over the years the authorities have tinkered with the race but have these changes worked in the interests of the race?

The fences have become easier. Bechers Brook is all but a shadow of its former self. The drop fences have all but gone but has the “softening” of the fences actually created more issues?

Now the fences are less challenging are they being treated with less respect?

The greatest damage to the reputation of the race came two years ago when the BBC coverage featured some appalling camera angles showing stricken horses in the worse possible way.

I would like to think it was simply an inept editorial decision but I am not 100% convinced on that front.

This year has seen some further tinkering to the race. The most significant being changes to the structure of the fences and the second being the distance of the race.

The changes to the fences are, on the face of it, no brainers. The removal of solid wooden stakes from the core of the fences makes sense.

I have a concern though, will the removal of the wooden cores again reinforce the attitude in the jockeys minds, even subconsciously, that the fences can be approached more aggressively.

I have a greater concern about shortening the distance to the first fence. The previous long approach allowed the field to spread out in terms of width and from first to last, allowing most of the runners to get a good sight of the fence.

With the shorter approach there will be less time to get that important space.

I know some will argue other races have a shorter approach to the first. Yes they do but other races don’t have 40 runners.

The number of casualties at the first has been relatively low in recent years, usually one or two.

I hope I’m wrong but my fear is there will be more runners falling or bought down at the first.

The last two years have been bad for the National with two runners paying the ultimate price in each renewal. Defenders of the race will offer explanations in “defence” of the fatalities, for example Synchronised fell when running free and not in the race.

Those explanations are irrelevant – what is relevant is the number of injuries or fatalities not how they happened. In the eyes of the wider public two horses died in each of the last two runnings.

Consider this, if 20% of runners in all races were killed there would quite rightly be a public outcry to ban the sport and there would be no sane defence of the sport.

Yet when people point out a 20% fatality rate in the last two Grand Nationals they are dismissed by moat of the racing fraternity as tree huggers and activists.

That is condescending and patronising. I love the sport of racing and I am not alone within those who follow the sport closely in having concerns about the race.

I’ve seen comments in the past few days, from journalists who should know better, exhorting the racing media to rally round and support the race and not criticise the race.

Does that mean they are now panicking, forming the wagons in a circle, and coming to the realisation they are beginning to defend the indefensible.

I sincerely hope every horse and rider comes back in one piece on Saturday and I hope my worries and concerns are wholly unfounded.

I’ve also just noticed it has been confirmed Imperial Commander is an intended runner in this year’s renewal, I hope he isn’t 2013’s Synchronised.

I’m personally at a stage where I’m indifferent towards the Grand National. I hope this year’s renewal isn’t the final straw that has me actively calling for its abolition – time will tell.           

For Sale - One Poisoned Chalice

Quite a few people have expressed surprise that John Smith’s have decided not to sponsor the Grand National after next year’s renewal.

My only surprise is that people are surprised at the decision.

John Smith’s will have sponsored the race for ten years and it is a sponsorship which does not come cheaply and they cannot deny their association with the race has, generally, been well worth the investment in terms of publicity.

Times, however, are changing and it is very easy to see why pouring so much money into the race is looking to be an investment which makes poor business sense, indeed it is in great danger of becoming a liability.

I don’t always agree with the BBC’s racing correspondent Cornelius Lysaght but in an analysis piece on the BBC Sport website he wrote:-

“With the ex-course boss Julian Thick out after the re-structuring of Aintree's parent company, and the British Horseracing Authority's articulate top vet leaving too, this news just adds to the difficulties facing the home of the Grand National.

"It looks like John Smith's has made what is a surprising decision mainly for commercial reasons, though the public image of the race - in which two horses have died in both of the last two runnings - must have been in the brewer's thinking as well.

"With that in mind, it remains to be seen how easy finding a replacement turns out to be."

Whilst the first paragraph may not be a fundamental reason for the withdrawal it is a consideration. If they have had a good working relationship with Thick a new appointee could well change the dynamics of the relationship between the sponsors and the racecourse. Personal relationships in business should never be underestimated.

The departure of Tim Morris from the BHA is also a bad move for Aintree and the Grand National. Morris has been a credible defender of the race in the face of vociferous and mounting criticism of the Grand National – indeed he is probably the only credible spokesman the BHA has available to field. Yet his services are no longer required.

Now I have been the first to argue that the BHA needs to cutback in the face of diminishing income but I have to say the removal of Morris and before that Paul Scotney does, along with other decisions made this year, seriously call into question the judgement and competency of BHA chief Paul Bittar.

More pertinent in Lysaght’s analysis is the public image of the race. I know this topic has been done to death and I have no intention of rehashing the arguments again here but, like it or not, the Grand National does have a serious perception issue in the eyes of the general public.

Now it is completely and utterly irrelevant if said perception is right or wrong – it is there and, thus far, racing has done little to dispel the perception and with the departure of Morris it looks as though the BHA is giving up on the PR front.

With such a poor perception is it any wonder sponsors are going to look again at committing huge amounts of money to a race which has the potential to alienate so many members of the public? Members of the public who ultimately contribute  to the profitability of the organisation.

It is commercial suicide to be so intrinsically associated with a product which has already alienated many and could well continue to alienate people further.

There was one other factor which Lysaght, understandably, failed to mention.

That is, of course, television coverage of the race moving from the BBC to Channel Four.

Even though the viewing figured on the BBC have plummeted over the past  thirty years, the race still attracted a domestic TV audience of around nine million ….. a tasty prospect for any big name sponsor.

It is highly unlikely the viewing figures when it moves to Channel Four will be even half that number, I predict they may, if they are lucky, attract around 2m viewers. Channel Four’s biggest ever viewing figures are 11.2 million and that was for the Paralympic Opening ceremony which came hot on the heels of the main Olympics (and bear in mind the BBC picked up a record 26.3 million viewers for the Olympic closing ceremony).

Channel Four’s best ever racing audience stands at a relatively paltry 1.4 million.

Also the BBC gave massive advance advertising to the race across its television and radio networks – C4 may well also run trailers but to a far smaller audience. The BBC trailers reminded viewers the race was coming, it bought the race into the public consciousness.

So from a sponsors perspective the move to Channel Four from the BBC is a massive negative.

Aintree and John Smith’s may well reach their aim of a £1m Grand National next year – if they do I suspect it will be a one-off.

I think Aintree will struggle to find a sponsor prepared to commit the same amount of money John Smith’s were, indeed I think they will struggle to find a sponsor who wants to be associated with a potentially damaging product.

My strong suspicion is the new sponsor will come from within the industry and if I was tempted to have a bet (which I’m not) my money would be on the Betfair Grand National in 2014.

Tinkering, Rebuilding and Diesel

Well I go away for a week and come home to find the powers that be have once again tinkered with the Grand National – this year’s grand plan involves shortening the race by around 90 yards to take the start away from the crowds and to shorten the run-in to the first fence.

Is this a radical move or another shuffling of the deckchairs as the ship sinks?

I suppose all will be revealed next April.

There is no change to the field size which, in my view, is a major issue. It would still be as spectacular a contest were the safety limit to be reduced to thirty.

I also note no changes have been made to make the runners respect the fences more, although I do welcome the decision to review the structure of the underlying structure of the fences. I think if people saw a “naked” National fence, before the spruce is added, they would be shocked.

Work is also going to be undertaken to ease the landing side of the fences – will this make the fences more inviting to jump and in the process increase the risk of falls.

Again it’s just my view, I think the fences should be higher so they are approached with more care and respect.

As I have previously written I have, in recent years, fallen out of love with the Grand National. Sod tradition but I think it is becoming a liability to the sport as a whole and I would happily see it sacrificed if it was for the betterment of the sport as a whole.

Others disagree with me and they are entitled to their view as I am to mine ….. time will tell as to which view turns out to be the right one.

It seems Newbury were unlucky with the cancellation of the Lionel Richie concert planned after racing yesterday, or should I call them “The Racecourse Newbury” as in a fantastic piece od spin they have announced a partnership with a building company to re-develop the site basically adding a couple of housing estates and a Hotel. Of course the announcement has been crafted by the spin doctors but it cannot disguise what is a crass decision.

One of the great “innovations” is moving some of the car parking to the centre of the course – how will that be accessed – by a tunnel then it may be OK, although there will be a pinch point. If not a tunnel then it will involve crossing the track which will a) potentially damage the track and b) restrict times when racegoers can arrive and leave the course.  When will courses learn that centre course parking does not work.

Also can you imagine the disruption there will be whilst all the construction work takes place?

Time for a non-racing rant now. I’ve just spent a week driving on the continent and one thing that struck me was the disparity in fuel prices between the UK and Europe. Before setting off I filled up the car with diesel and I paid £1.429 a litre at my local supermarket.

Whilst on the subject of fuel prices what is the point of the 0.7p or 0.9p that is added onto a price of a litre. If I bought one single litre of fuel would I be given 0.1p change?

Anyway in France, Belgium and The Netherlands the price of a litre of diesel was between the equivalent of between £1.09 and £1.17 a litre …. why the disparity in this country?

The other thing was just how good the motorway service areas were on the continent. The services visited in both Belgium and The Netherlands put ours to shame. They were spotlessly clean, including the toilets and the food prices were no different than in the local towns and the food was edible and they were relatively close together.

Whereas our service areas are "fast food” outlets and/or food I wouldn't feed to an animal, never mind eat myself, sold at an extortionate mark-up. Unfortunately motorway service areas are an occupational hazard for me, although I tend to use them only for "relief" stops as it were.

When I lived in The Netherlands the food in the service areas was so good people actually went out for dinner in the service area restaurants.

The only decent service area in the UK, in my experience, is Tebay on the M6 in Cumbria - it's still quite expensive but it does serve decent food.