not changing the date of the grand national.

​I am not someone who normally sits on the fence on any given subject. When arguing, which I dislike being goaded into, I have a habit of taking the dispute directly to the precipice. Fannying around is a waste of time and energy. Yet the decision not to change the date of the Grand National to accommodate the reopening of betting shops has left me understanding both sides of the debate.
To get me off the fence I need to know if the B.H.A. has gone to the government and reminded them that in running the Grand National two-days before the reopening of betting shops will deny the exchequer a good wad of betting tax, whatever that amount adds up to. I suspect it would be a far higher figure this year than years gone by simply because the public are in dire need of the buzz of anticipation that comes with backing a horse in the Grand National. If the B.H.A. haven’t thought it worthwhile reminding the government of its incompetence then that in itself is reason to side with those who wanted the Grand National run on the 17th rather than the 10th to take advantage of betting shops being open to the public. God knows the sport could do with a boost to its finances.

If the government, by the way, have not acted incompetently in this matter, then one can only conclude they have acted with malice aforethought towards the public. If betting shops are to open on the 12th, it would have been an act of kindness to both the beleaguered betting industry and the lockdown-fatigues general public to allow dispensation for them to open two-days ahead of the other beleaguered non-essential shops.
I can understand the difficulty in changing the date of the race from the 10th to the 17th. The proposal was, I believe, to bring forward the Scottish National by a week. But the Scottish National meeting, as it is with Aintree, is not a one-day meeting but three. Sponsors are involved and they might not all agree to the change. Owners may not be allowed back on a racecourse in time for Aintree but Scotland may decree they can attend race-meetings again in time for the Scottish National. A week is a long-time in politics, especially when a small victory might be easily won in the one-upmanship rivalry between the S.N.P. and Westminster by allowing owners back on Scottish racecourses ahead of their British counterparts.
Also, there must be financial consequences of changing the date. I suspect satellite links have to be booked well in advance and foreign t.v. companies would not be best pleased if their schedules were to be messed-up by a late change in date. And there must be a hundred-and-one other considerations to be taken into account.
As this will be the first year since I was but a child that I have not had a bet on the Grand National it should put me firmly on the side of those who campaigned for changing the date of the race. Although I have booked the weekend of the 10th as holiday from my gainful employment and talk of changing the date panicked me into the booking the following weekend off as a kind of safety-net. As you might surmise, the Grand National holds great importance to me. It is almost – no damn it – It is a reason for living, especially in such depressive times as we face at present. The scars from the ‘Grand National that never was’ have yet to fully heal. I doubt if they ever will.
Without crowds, this year’s race will not be the same. Some might think it a unique running of the race. But if this is what is termed the ‘New Normal’ you can stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. The Grand National needs and deserves to be run in front of a packed house. Humans have a duty to pay homage to the heroic horses and jockeys that take part in the great race. The winner being led into the winners enclosure to the silence of an empty parking lot will be an injustice to the victorious. Imagine if racing and sporting history were to be the main story of the race: Tiger Roll being the first horse in Grand National history to win three in a row. Or if Rachael Blackmore or Bryony Frost were to win? History requires the applause of the multitude; not sterile echoes of racing plates on concrete or tarmac.
But at least a decision is made; the fannying around and short debate concluded before there were calls for a petition. And I remain squarely on the fence. I don’t know if it is the right decision or not. Not in the circumstances.