At the conclusion of the National on Saturday, a strange sentiment came to me - at least it's over now, I heard from somewhere deep within me. It shames me to admit to this damning sentiment of betrayal echoing from my psyche. Two-days later I remain uneasy; as if that unwanted and uncalled-for message from deep within was a signal to some sort of termination. I will not, though, be divorced from the National, no matter my misgivings on its new look.
I Am Maximus will now go down in National history, deservedly so, as one of the greats. Yet I cannot accept that he can be so easily parachuted into the same league as Red Rum or even Manifesto.
Someone should sit down and determine the start and end of the different ages eras of the National. It is obvious that the age in which Abd-El-Kader (1850/51) Peter Simple (1849/1853, when he was 15 years of age) The Lamb (1868/1871) and The Colonel (1869/1870) differed from the 1897 and 1899 victories of Manifesto. And the years in the thirties of Golden Miller and dual winner Reynoldstown, when the fences remained upright, though without the walls, plough and the open ditch at the Canal Turn, were different to era of Red Rum in the 1970's. And the victories of Tiger Roll and I Am Maximus were not gained over the same fences or the same distance as in years gone by.
In short, the history of the National should be divided into the different eras of its evolution. Why, at this point in his Aintree career, I Am Maximus is being spoke about in the same sentence of Red Rum but not Manifesto, is because no racing journalist has any conception of Aintree before 1960. I am not critical of the achievement; to win two Nationals, one with 11st 12Ibs on his back (Red Rum carried 12-stone to victory and beat Crisp, the horse who achieved the greatest round of jumping in the history of the race and nearly pulled-off the impossible fete of trying to give Red Rum 23Ibs) and to be second, is a brilliant record, but with the National being what it is, it is an achievement that is likely to become more commonplace in the future. It is not comparing apples with apples to associate the achievement of I Am Maximus with what Red Rum achieved. In the same way it is erroneous to compare Red Rum's achievements with the record of Manifesto. Different eras with different course configurations and different sizes and shape of the fences should have their own champions and those champions should not be compared with the champions of following eras.
To remain with both the history of the National and this year's renewal, Toby McCain-Mitchell was suspended for ten-days for failing to pull-up Top Of The Bill when he was, by assessment of the vets present, out on his feet, resulting in him falling at the last fence. Considering he was briefed before the race by one of Walsh, McCoy, Geraghty and Johnson (I think) on what is expected of jockeys riding in the race - pulling-up a fence too early rather than a fence too late, being perhaps the key advice - I believe his punishment should have been double what it was.
That said, The Chair fence is so named as there was a time when an official would sit in a chair by the wing of the fence and signal to jockeys to pull-up if the winning horse had already finished the race. To prevent a similar incident in the future, I would suggest a steward or senior veterinary officer be stationed in a similar position with a flag and whistle to signal to jockeys to pull-up if it is believed they are in danger of falling at the last fence, as did McCain-Mitchell on Saturday. On occasion, history speaks to us, and when it does, the B.H.A. and Aintree should listen.