This may seem like an unusual choice for the next horse to put up in our runners to discuss for the Grand National 2010 series but I’m intrigued by Cerium’s surprise performance in last year’s race. Also, I want to open up a debate as to if horses that appear to be running with little or no chance of winning should have to meet some additional criteria to make the race.
If a horse is in the race primarily to give its owners a day out at the Grand National and this stops another set of owners getting their horse into the race that has a realistic chance of winning, is this unfair and how would you feel if a big ante-post gamble of yours had gone astray as a result of a “fun” horse making the race instead?
Prior to the 2009 Grand National Cerium’s best form has been at up to 2m 3f and his efforts at three miles and above gave little indication that he could potentially get close to finishing placed in a Grand National. Does this performance then entitle any horse that qualifies to run whatever their current form?
Cerium’s owners regularly come under fire for running horses with little chance in top class races but is that their right or should there be some additional check in place to make sure that the likes of other horses they have run such as Arteea and Contraband had won over, say, at least as far as 2miles 6 furlongs or even 3 miles?
I think most of our contributors would agree that horses without at least placed form at three miles or above have little chance of winning a Grand National these days so even horses such as Fondmort and Thisthatandtother etc were really just making up the numbers.
As it becomes harder and harder to qualify a Grand National runner should the entry requirements be tightened up so all the competitors have a realistic chance of winning the race?
Let us know what you think about this general issue and if you think Cerium can improve still further and be involved in the finish of the Grand National 2010.