disruptions can be triumphal, apparently.

​To say, ‘It is what it is’, when something cannot be changed, even when you think it wrong, is to take the road of least resistance. Occasionally, waving the white flag, turning the other cheek or simply accepting your opponents’ argument may, in the long-term, prove stronger than your own, is the easiest position to accede to.
In bowing allegiance to the protestors’ hymn-book, Aintree has accepted credence in the opinion that the Grand National is too severe and diverted the race and the sport down a path to possible extinction. National Hunt racing is barbaric, cruel and an affront to public decency, the unwritten headline now reads. A win for the protestors; disruptions can be triumphal.
It is comforting to know I am not alone in believing the real essence of the Aintree Grand National has been sacrificed in order to placate the minority of the public who would wish our sport to go the same way as bear-baiting and cock-fighting. Yet, apart from registering our disquiet at the latest batch of alterations to the race, there is little to be gained from fighting the inevitable. Suleka Varma will not back down, especially when so many people of influence voiced their approval on national t.v. of the neutering of the once great race.
What is at stake, though, in diverting the race and the sport so far away from its roots, is the very possibility that we are entering the beginning of the end. It must be remembered, even if the first recorded ‘steeple’ chase was in Ireland when two local dignitaries raced to win a bet between themselves, horse racing as a spectator sport began in 1839 with the Liverpool Grand Steeplechase, won, of course, by Lottery and Jem Mason. For historical clarity, in 1843 the race became known as the Liverpool and National Handicap Steeplechase, won by Vanguard and Tom Olliver, only becoming the Grand National Handicap in 1847 when Matthew and Denis Wynne were the winners.
We live in different times, of course. The values and beliefs of 1847 were different to today, the horse then was a beast of burden, where the horse now is known to be a sentient being and worthy of not only of our affection but a duty of care. In the early days of the Grand National there was plough to contend with, a stone wall and huge ditches at Bechers and Valentines; nothing we would contemplate today.
The popularity of National Hunt racing stems from the Liverpool Grand Steeplechase; that is where the roots of the sport can be traced to and I would argue the further the sport drifts from its birthplace, the closer it comes to its final years. That is what I find so repugnant about the latest round of alterations, that the race is now but a shadow of what it used to be.
I understand, and appreciate, the overall feeling that the Grand National of 2024 was a race apart; the relief that there were no equine fatalities, though when the ground is soft, the race is always run at a slower pace and this makes jumping errors less common. But when a Grand National has no fallers, no incidents for the experts to unpick, you can be sure the excitement of the supreme test of horse and rider is diluted to the point of ordinariness and the Grand National should never be ordinary. I do not want fatalities at Aintree, as I do not want to witness fatalities at any racecourse and my heart skips beats until I see a horse rise from the ground uninjured. But to accept that making the once fiercesome Aintree fences smaller than the ones to be found on the Mildmay course, is to admit to our accusers that they were right all along, with the logical conclusion that if Aintree can reduce and diminish their fences, then so the same principle should be applied at all racecourses. And here I must return to where I began: it is what it is.
My solution, without wishing or expecting Aintree to backtrack from their position, is to reinvent the Liverpool Grand Steeplechase, to modern-day standards of welfare, of course.
I suggest the Becher Chase should be shelved (again) and replaced by the Liverpool Grand Steeplechase and run over the same distance as the Grand National. I would restrict entry to horses rated below the minimum mark to run in the Grand National, giving greater opportunity for jockeys, trainers and owners outside of those at the top end of the sport, to allow the minnows a chance to dream and triumph, as once was the case with the Grand National. My proposal might also encourage owners and trainers from the U.S., France and afar to try their luck at Aintree, another grievance of mine, that we shall never see the likes of Tommy Smith or Charlie Fenwick at Aintree again.
What I want to see is the real essence of the Grand National returned to Aintree. It will never be experienced anymore in April but perhaps in November/December it might be revived. 
This is not an inconsequential issue. I believe the neutering of the Grand National is on a par with Mirabel Topham announcing she was to sell Aintree to developers. I understand the Grand National is a shop window for the sport and the need to attract a larger audience, with emphasis on not offending the sensibilities of the urban and inner-city viewer with no experience of horses and racing other than reading ‘National Velvet’ and ‘Black Beauty’ as a child.
But what about the racing enthusiast, the racing professional; is it okay to offend the people whose very heart lies within the sport?
My position is that we must allow Aintree to do as it pleases with the Grand National without challenge or argument but for Aintree to give in return a race run not in memory of what went before but a race to celebrate what went before and for the ‘Liverpool Grand Steeplechase’ the fences returned to the height they were in 2013-2023. Allow completing the National course to be an achievement once again.
Let me be clear; I am not championing two Grand Nationals in one season. I am advocating two different races as the Liverpool Grand Steeplechase will evoke memories of Red Rum, whereas the Grand National will look like a sanitised video game.