This year’s Grand National meeting attracted an exceptional amount of press attention, much of it due to a number of changes which were introduced in a bid to make the race safer. As a reaction to calls from animal welfare charities such as the RSPCA and Animal Aid – the latter of whom run a ‘racehorse death-watch’ website – Aintree organisers changed the cores of the fences from wood to flexible plastic, levelled out a number of the landings on jumps, and moved the start of the race away from the crowds.
So did the changes make a difference to the race? Saturday’s Grand National race was for many an unqualified success, and fortunately no horses died -which indicates that the race was indeed safer than in previous years. But perhaps the people most disappointed by that were the anti-hunt race lobby, many of whom are desperate to prove that the race is too dangerous to continue.
But is it just the animal welfare charities who are trying to get the National banned, or are there other forces involved as well? In this week’s Spectator, Peter Oborne argues that too many racing correspondents have an anti-National Hunt agenda, and are ‘not quite what they seem’. Whilst pretending to report objectively on events, they are in fact promoting ‘the agendas of political parties and interest groups’. Here’s an extract from Oborne’s piece:
‘For [Chris McGrath, racing correspondent of the Independent], there was only one event that really mattered: the heart attack suffered by Katie Walsh’s mount Battlefront after the Fox Hunters’ Chase.
‘The tragedy represents an excruciating start to the meeting for Aintree officials,’ claimed McGrath. He gloated how the officials ‘had been hoping that Walsh would generate redemptive headlines’ but instead found themselves forced to explain away Battlefront’s death. The incident gave McGrath an opportunity to list the names of two horses (Synchronised and According to Pete) who died in last year’s Grand National. The Independent’s back page was devoted to the Battlefront story, under the stark headline: ‘Tragedy hits Grand National meet as Walsh’s mount dies’. The subhead stressed how Battlefront’s collapse occurred ‘after being pulled up during race over controversial big fences of Aintree course’.
The Fox Hunters’ had in truth been a wonderful and stirring race, won in the last stride by the 100-1 outsider Tartan Snow. But as far as the Independent was concerned, this was now irrelevant.’
Is this really fair? It can’t be denied that many of the headlines – particularly the ones which Oborne picks out from the Guardian and the Independent – focused on the horses’ deaths rather than the action and result of the race. Perhaps not fair or balanced reporting – but did Oborne pick the right target in Greg Wood and Chris McGrath? You can make up your own minds; here’s what Peter has to say.
Comments