A SUGGESTION

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 113, 14 May 1902, Page 3

A SUGGESTION

(To the Sporting Editor.)

Sir,—With your kind assistance, now that another prominent racing fixture is close to hand, I think it opportune to call attention to a form of robbery which it is quite lime the public emphatically declared has existed long enough. I refer to the absorption, annexation, or other

"mild" term, of the moneys invested on a totalisator on a winning horse that is disqualified for inconsistent running. I understand, and have always done so, that there can be no bet or wager where there is no chance of both winning and losing. Therefore, if a winning horse is disqualified for inconsistent running, the investments on that horse should certainly be refunded, as presumably the horse was only allowed to start as the stewards were of opinion it had no ciiance of winning, and consequently backers stood to lose their investments, horse win or lose. Take a case which I am afraid many readers will only too readiiy call to mind. The Austerlitz-Northum-berland appeal, where some weeks after the race, the dividend having been paid on Northamberland, the filly is awarded the stake (after having won the race), showing a very glaring case of "annexation" of tote investments. I have no sympathy with "inconsistent runners," I would like to see them "shot out" for life but I have a deal of "fellow feelingfor' the punter who, after backing a winner, finds it disqualified for something that took place days previously, when very likely the unlucky investor was miles from the course. While on the "pipes" might I suggest to the racing authorities that no horse be allowed on the course until all the horses have paraded in the bird cage.—l "THE CTOTE LOVETH A CHEERFUL GIVER." ,

P s.—What about your correspondent who lately wrote, "Bets always follow the stake."