Grand National Review: Simon Rowlands gives his verdict

Simon thinks the BHA have their figures wrong over the Grand National
The BHA may have done a reasonable job in keeping many on board with its latest Grand National review, but it is skating on thin ice with its citing of statistics, according to Timeform's Head of Research, Simon Rowlands.
Last Thursday saw the publication of the BHA's latest Grand National review, which will result in a number of modifications to the historic race after a further two fatalities in the latest running in April.
Your view of these modifications is likely to vary according to your personal idea of what constitutes acceptable risk and your personal idea of the importance of certain traditional aspects of the race.
There is no definitive "right" or "wrong" course of action, or inaction, in other words: it is a matter of preference.
That the BHA has managed to make fewer changes than they might have, but without quite alienating the RSPCA or World Horse Welfare, may be seen as catering for as many personal preferences as could reasonably be expected.
It still did not prevent them from being branded "appeasers" and "spineless cowards" from one quarter.
What is not, or should not be, a matter of preference is how facts and statistics are used in the support of, or refutation of, arguments, a point I made with regard to the whip debate and the RSPCA in an earlier blog.
In this respect, the BHA seems to have been given a remarkably easy ride.
Jamie Stier, Director of Raceday Operations and Regulations for the BHA, put up an unconvincing performance when interviewed on dedicated racing channel ATR on Friday and only a slightly more convincing one on Channel 4's Morning Line on Saturday, despite facing questioning that was - shall we say? - much more "The One Show" than "Newsnight".
Stier's claim that there is no compelling evidence to suggest that a reduction in field size would result in a drop in non-completion rates and fatalities is either ignorant, or disingenuous, or both. And it seems to rest on the specious truth that the Grand National - with up to 40 runners - is a special case for which statistically significant evidence can hardly ever be established.
You don't easily prove the significance of rare events - and even two fatalities in each of the last two years constitutes rare events - in isolation but you can go a very long way to proving them by proxy.
Wider evidence shows that fatalities and non-completion rates are strongly correlated, and non-completion rates and field size are strongly correlated, too. For the BHA to pretend otherwise invites their other pronouncements to be treated with increased scepticism also.
Another claim made by the BHA is that Becher's Brook is not a standout problem where fatalities are concerned.
Again, fatalities are too rare an occurrence by which to judge such things, for all that fatalities are above all what should be avoided, as you will (hopefully) never get a sample size big enough to be "statistically significant".
But we do know that Becher's is a standout problem in terms of non-completions, as it is far and away the fence at which the highest percentage of horses still standing depart through one means or another.
The figures for this century, both circuits combined, are 2.5% per fence for the course overall but 6.8% for Becher's. Next in, in terms of severity, is the first/seventeenth fence (4.1%), followed by the Canal Turn (3.9%).
A horse facing Becher's is nearly three times as likely not to get to the other side as at a "normal" fence on the course, in other words. This figure rises to nearly four times (8.8%) for Becher's on the second circuit.
You really should not need "compelling statistical evidence" of what may happen to non-completers at the fence to realise that the fence is an issue, though one that racing may feel it can continue to live with. The BHA is skating on thin ice in pretending otherwise.
Contrary to what some commentators might have us believe, disquiet about the Grand National is not merely the preserve of "animal welfare zealots". It is very apparent that many within racing are concerned about the safety of the race and of how the race is perceived by the wider public.
Still, what is done is now done. Everyone in racing, and with the genuine welfare of horses at heart, should hope that the 2013 Grand National passes without serious incident, though they should also understand that neither this, nor the opposite, is likely to "prove" anything in isolation.
For a Grand National to happen without serious incident, the BHA will require a bit of luck (and not just Luck) on its side. And luck, as we all know, can be a fickle mistress.