Ruby Walsh: Bizarre National with lots of unanswered questions
I left Aintree last Saturday evening wondering what the hell had just happened. How did a race that had improved so much over the previous nine years, with early-fence fallers totalling nine, produce eight in one go?
Why did the loose-running Galvin not take the open bypass routes around Valentines Brook but instead turn 90 degrees and bring Recite A Prayer straight through a running rail with him? Why was there so much commotion?
How did a race with so many experienced horses and riders produce a mile to forget instead of four and a quarter you could watch over and over again?
As we headed for Liverpool Airport and turned onto the M57, we met miles of traffic being diverted on the opposite side of the motorway, and it all began to dawn on me. Animal Rising protestors had glued themselves to the highway at some point in the day, and as I looked across the motorway median, I could feel the rage coming from those stuck in miles of traffic.
Hundreds of people were held hostage in their cars by the protests of a few, and I started to wonder if any of those people were hospital bound, in labour, sick or maybe heading to see a dying relative. All a possibility, so how can anyone think their ideology trumps anyone else’s needs?
But they did - and they do - and they used the Grand National to highlight their cause, but like the motorway, they appeared to overlook what could go wrong.
My daughters were in the car with Gillian and I and were full of questions, but only sought the assurance the protestors would not be coming to Ireland, such was the impact of the drama that had unfolded in the last hour of Grand National day.
Aintree has gone to the end of the Earth to modernise the Grand National. Its attempt to minimise the risk that can never be removed cannot be faulted by the changes it made in 2013, and the results have had the desired effect. It has become a race that has cut in half its non-completion rate by falling, unseating or being brought down.
The first and second fences have been notable improvements. The first fence averages have fallen from 2.6 between 2000 and 2012 to 1.4 from 2013 to 2022. The second has fallen from an average of one per year to one every three years. Yet, in 2023 those two fences exceed the rates before 2000, with eight horses exiting the race. It didn’t make sense to me.
I have come to realise this week that I never faced a starter under the tension everybody could feel last Saturday at Aintree. The unrest was evident on every screen that I was looking at. I can never remember such unrest or charged atmosphere of rage as existed from the crowd last week, and I was only in a truck in the car park watching it all.
The people of Aintree and neighbouring Fazakerly helped security and the police to try and maintain order, but the pace of the developing situation was chaotic. All those preparing to race had to have felt that tension, resulting in a frantic opening mile.
It was reminiscent of the first five minutes in a local derby game as those in the stands vented their rage and opposition to the protestors down the track like they would rival fans. The starting cheer was a roar of triumph, but it all resulted in an environment alien to horses and jockeys. It was fraught, and so far removed from what horse racing is that I couldn’t understand it.
I realised that, as a jockey, I may have ridden in high-pressure and high-octane environments, but they always carried an air of expectation, anticipation and excitement. It was never like this.
Standing up for welfare is undoubtedly an attempt to make things safer - as it should be - but understanding welfare requires you to feel and understand the welfare of who you want it for.
If you understood the welfare of horses but were unhappy about the Grand National, you would not have created an environment that an animal could not comprehend.
Protesting does not permit anyone to trespass or damage property. A protest should be an attempt to raise awareness peacefully and to create debate. That was what I envisaged an Animals Rights protest would be, but I did not expect those participating to go as far as they did.
Everybody is entitled to their beliefs and allowed to be heard, so long as they are law-abiding. Forcing your beliefs onto somebody else is not democratic, so I encourage you to read the Animal Rights movement’s goals and decide if you should be forced to follow suit as they wish.
Their agenda is not based solely on removing animals from sport but on their belief in eliminating all animals from the food chain. I have no problem with anyone who chooses to live on a plant-based diet - that is their choice - but I don’t see why alternative options should be removed from everybody else.
