The Grand National, first run in the middle of the 19^th century, developed into the ultimate test for horse and rider, over a long distance and across what used to be described as “a stiff country.”

That’s what it was there for, and perhaps that is still what it is there for: a test to cater for horses of superb soundness, bottomless stamina, and the ability to negotiate big fences and terrain which is more complicated than that which is found at what are called “Park” courses.

There came a time when it was suggested that, to encourage “the best” horses to run in the Grand National and to reduce the risks to horses and riders, changes should be made to the fences. In hindsight, possibly a mistake. The “best” horses do not have bottomless stamina (and it probably does them more harm than good to run over four and a half miles), and they jump fences far too quickly to be comfortable over “a stiff country.”

By and large, a negative reaction to the changes was quite common among owners.  The all-time champion ARKLE, for example, was never asked to run in a Grand National. Conversely, the King of Aintree, RED RUM, was a little below top class over a lesser trip and over easier fences, but absolutely superb when faced by the test which Aintree provided in his era.

The other feature of the “old” Grand National was the test of horsemanship which it served up. I have no doubt whatsoever that all the jump jockeys were immensely keen to prove themselves capable of handling the Aintree obstacles as they used to be. Winning, in this context, was not the point. What I am referring to is all top sportsmen’s burning desire to become proficient at the most demanding level of their chosen sport. At that time Aintree served up a test of horsemanship that was demanding, and different.  Since the changes, it seems to have lost much and gained little in that respect.

 As for the recent suggestion that further changes be made, largely as a reaction to recent fatalities, there is one avenue of  research which could be helpful. The Aintree authorities might invite a number of horsemen of the highest quality to a meeting of the minds. I am thinking in terms of John Francome  (9 times champion jump jockey and one of the most intelligent men in racing), Yogi Breisner (who has taught more horses to jump properly and more riders to present their horses at obstacles properly than any other instructor), Enda Bolger (who is the godfather of Ireland’s cross-country tradition), Ted and Ruby Walsh (because both are intelligent and articulate and are thoroughly familiar with the Aintree experience). People of that quality, and not too many of them, please.

Let good judges sit in comfortable chairs before a large screen and feast their eyes on the flickering black and white images from days gone by, and compare them with the less flickering coloured pictures of more recent times. With access to information about going, and race-times, and size of field, and weather and so on, there might be scope for conclusions. They might conclude, for example, that, if the fences were restored to the shape and size which were normal several decades ago, horses and jockeys would treat them with more respect and go at a more circumspect pace, thus reducing the chances of calamity.

If that was a majority view, it would be food for thought for anyone who was thinking of reducing the size of fences even more. I have no idea what the experts would suggest. I simply recommend that Aintree listens to them before servicing the chainsaw.

One other point. In recent years racing people have tended to jump every time the RSPCA sneezes. This reaction is to be deplored. The RSPCA does marvellous work in the fields which attract most of its endeavours, and its interest in racehorses is understandable (all animals are of interest to the RSPCA). However, as long as British racehorses continue to be extremely well looked after, the industry has no need to be unduly frightened of the society. The RSPCA would have one believe that it is the ultimate authority in the world of animal welfare, but in fact this is not the case, and its powers are extremely limited. As far as any changes at Aintree are concerned, it would be polite for the racing authorities to listen to any suggestions that might come from that quarter, and it would be delightful if great minds thought alike, but fundamentally changes (if any are proposed) should be made for the sake of improving the race and not as a means of appeasing critics who will keep coming back for more if they sense any weakening in racing’s  basic philosophy. Fundamentally, racing’s philosophy and that of the RSPCA are incompatible, and the best that can be hoped for is that the two sides can agree to disagree.

Andrew Simpson

2nd June 2012