i wish i could let go of the aintree debate.

​If, and it is a big if, so big it needs to be italicized, were to accept that the latest batch of tinkering with the Grand National was necessary, I would also have to accept that since watching my first Grand National, which I believe was 1964, won by Team Spirit at his fifth attempt, I am guilty of supporting and championing a race, that to use the emotive words of the ignorant opposition, is cruel and barbaric, with jumps made purposely difficult, and that would weigh very heavy on my heart. I admit that I fall into the category of ‘animal lover’, preferring the company of animals to humans and I abhor violence and neglect of all animals, even snakes, which I dislike intensely. Though we are presently down to five-cats that live at our expense, we have housed up to nine-cats at one time in the near-past. Though, of course, the extreme ignorant opposition believe that keeping any animal as a pet should be banned.
To take to the illogical conclusion, though it will be seen as logical to the ignorant opposition, that the rationale of the latest tinkering to a once magical race has foundation, then, at the very least, every steeplechase fence at every racecourse should be lowered and made softer, as an equine fatality at any racecourse can be construed as an ‘avoidable accident’. If, for example, a horse was to die falling at a fence at Ffos Las today, the ignorant opposition could argue that if Aintree has taken steps to reduce risk, then Ffos Las is guilty of not following Aintree’s lead. The tinkering of Suleka Varma has removed horse racing from level ground of debate to the slippery slopes of god-knows-where!
Of course, the argument of ‘avoidable accident’ has far-reaching consequences. The thoroughbred breeding season is in full-swing at the moment, with the unavoidable twist of fate of the occasional mare dying while giving birth or foals born dead or dying soon after. These cruel events happen, even to human mothers. Yet the ignorant opposition might argue that the death of a mare or foal is avoidable as the mare’s pregnancy was not natural as it was arranged and facilitated by human interference. To my mind, by responding to protestors by accepting part of their argument and instigating changes based on their opposition, we are both encouraging them to come harder at us, while at the same time giving them the armoury to eventually defeat us in the courts of both law and public opinion.
Aintree should have held the line. We hold the public licence, remember. Aintree should have run this year’s race in replica of the 2023 race, though without protestors, I would have hoped, even if it meant crossing all fingers that no repetition of Hill Sixteen’s fate would occur, a fatality that can legitimately be put at the ignorant opposition’s feet.
When a horse meets its end on any racecourse, even if I do not witness it and only read about it in the analysis of the race in the Racing Post, my heart skips beat and I wish it was not so. I also know that far worse things happen to horses, even in a world where, apparently, social licences are part of society, where there is real cruelty and direct neglect, just ask Brooke Hospital, than ever occur in racing where the horse is our friend. If only the ignorant opposition would turn their attention to erasing direct cruelty and neglect of horses around the world, the racing community would then stand hand-in-hand with them.
Not that the supporters of the ignorant opposition care 100% in the welfare of the horse as I am quite sure a good proportion of their opposition to horse racing is based on politics and the false view that it is a sport only for the upper-classes, when in fact it is a sport of the working-class, though it may be underpinned by the wealthy and the mega-wealthy.
I believe Suleka Varma and those who advise her have done horse racing a great disservice and placed the whole sport in what will become an increasingly difficult position. If Aintree can reduce and diminish, why cannot every racecourse. When Aintree publicly verbalises the danger of the sport, then it must prove that horse racing is a danger to the welfare of horses. We defend our sport now while standing at a precipice. 
I would hope I am a fair man. Suleka Varma and her ground-staff deserve huge praise for the condition of the racecourse and the quality and spectacle of the three-days of racing was, to my mind, better than the Cheltenham Festival. And not all her tinkering was detrimental. Having the first fence closer to the start was an intelligent decision, though why this was not done in 2012 is a question in need of an answer. Of course, the changes in 2012 ensured Grand Nationals would thereafter be run at a faster pace than before and to address the bunching on the inside of the course that was a direct result of those changes, the race needed to be slowed-down, with the number of runners allowed in the race also reduced.
Having no parade in front of the stands was also acceptable, though I do wonder if horses could leave the paddock in race-card order, perhaps in pairs, their names and jockeys announced to the public over the Tannoy.
But the neutering of the fences and the overall sanitising of the race I cannot and will not accept. I will not accept that for the past 170-years the Grand National has been the sporting equivalent of cock-fighting and bear-baiting.