Kevin Blake

Analysis of the changes to the Grand National

Earlier this year, I described the Grand National as the problem child of horse racing. We love it dearly, but we have to manage it the right way or it could threaten to tear our racing family apart. It is our greatest shop window, reaching a worldwide audience that is the envy of almost all sports, yet in statistical terms it is the highest risk race in the entire sport. It can just as quickly veer from being our greatest advertisement to our greatest enemy. 

This year’s Grand National was a particularly dramatic and controversial one. The threat of protests and an illegal attempt to stop the race altogether dominated the build-up to the race came to fruition and proved to be very disruptive. The disruption resulted in a notable interruption to pre-race protocols and led to the race being delayed. When it eventually got underway, the fatal fall of Hill Sixteen at the first fence ensured that the conversation regarding the risks of the race would continue in the days following the event.

Once the furore and mainstream focus had moved on, it was left to the Jockey Club to decide what if any changes would be made to the race going forward. 

Of course, one must always be cautious of acting rashly based on a small sample of information. We shouldn’t forget that pretty much the same Grand National as this year’s race went six consecutive years without a fatality just a few short years ago. Was that just a lucky streak or have the last few years been an unlucky run? It really is difficult to know with any certainty, but the Jockey Club and the BHA have access to far more detailed and pertinent information to guide them on the question of what action if any was to be taken.

My own view at the time was that I wouldn’t be knocking the Jockey Club if they decided to take action in an effort to further reduce the levels of risk in the race. The race has already changed greatly in recent decades without seeming to lose its mass appeal, so the notion of more evidence-guided changes wasn’t one that I found objectionable. 

For the traditionalists that will always be inclined towards railing against change, I’m afraid this particular battle has already been lost to a great extent. Whether one likes it or not, the Grand National is no longer anything like what it used to be, so why resist further change that is rooted in the broader interests of the entire sport?

Today the result of the evaluation of the Grand National by the Jockey Club and supported by the BHA has been announced, with multiple changes being made to various aspects of the race including:

• A reduction of the field size limit from 40 to 34.
• Moving the first fence 60 yards closer to the start.
• Changing the starting protocols to enforce a mandatory starting start.
• Bringing forward the start time of the race to reduce the possibility of drying ground.
• Raising the minimum rating of runners from 125 to 130.
• Reducing the size of Fence 11 by two inches (from 5ft to 4ft 10in) on take-off side, with some ‘levelling off’ on landing side to reduce the height of the drop.
• The creation of the Grand National Review Panel, a group of industry experts who will assess the suitability of every horse entered to run over the Grand National fences. They will closely scrutinise horses entered in the races, paying particular attention to those that have made jumping errors in 50% or more of their last eight races, before deciding whether to allow them to run.

Opinions will differ on many aspects of these changes and there are likely to be strong views on both sides of the argument. My own view is that all of the changes appeal as being evidence driven and sincere in intention. As we all know, risk can never be eliminated, but it can be reduced. These changes will not make the Grand National immune to equine injuries and fatalities, but they promise to reduce the risk of them. Just as importantly, it shows the world that the race and our sport is ever evolving with horse welfare at the forefront of our decision making.

In my view, the first three bullet points in the above list are the more important changes. Reducing the field size has been a regular proposal for the Grand National for many years, but only now has it been utilised. The data around the correlation between field size and fallers is compelling and in the context of what they seek to achieve, it appeals as being the right call. Will a 34-runner Grand National be notably less exciting than a 40-runner Grand National? I don’t believe it will be.

The relocation of the first fence and in particular the switch to standing starts will seek to address the issue of excessive speed and bunching on the way to the first fence. Standing starts are a regular source of frustration when they are utilised within the current starting protocols when attempts at a rolling start fail. 

However, it is certainly worth trying as a mandatory protocol in the Grand National which has the luxury of such a wide track. Knowing that a standing start is mandatory, trainers and jockeys will be able to prepare for it and hopefully execute a more orderly start than we often get in the Grand National. It is also likely to serve to spread out the field across the width of the track before the first fence is jumped which will reduce bunching. The relocating of the first fence will also serve to reduce speed.

To conclude, I’d like to retreat from the specifics and return to a more general point. In amongst all of the discussion and debate around the changes being made to the Grand National, please don’t fall into the trap of believing that these matters relate to just one race. There is a far bigger picture that has to be considered in this debate and that is the reality that the Grand National is the front line of horse racing’s battle to retain its social license in this part of the world. 

As long as the Grand National remains, jump racing will remain. As long as jump racing remains, Flat racing will remain. That is the order the dominos are arranged in, so the importance of us as a sport getting it right with the Grand National is of crucial importance. Opinions will differ, but in my view, these changes can only help extend the healthy life of the Grand National in what is a rapidly changing world.