TURF NOTES.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 183, 2 August 1913, Page 16

TURF NOTES.

(By WHALIiOONB.)

It is the opinion of several trainers in England, that the two-year-olds are rather tetter than usual this 6eason —a not infrequent impression (save the "Times"), -which ie often, proved to be incorrect.

The Union Club of Berlin has followed the example set by the Belgian Turf authorities, and gives stewards every latitude when complaints are made against a. winner for boring, jostling, and interfering to place him second or third, and merely disqualify him as a winner. Herbert Jones, the King's jockey, who was so badly injured when he was brought down by a suffragist in the -Derby, received four letters from women - connected with the suffragist cause, inviting him to attend Miss Davison's "funeral, and offering him a "place of honour" in the procession. ' The following letter has been addressed to Herbert Jones by the Key. C. Baumgarten, M.A., rector of St. George's Bloomsbury, in whose church the memo rial service in connection witb Miss Davison's funeral took place:— "My Dear Sir, —I have just been taking part in the funeral service of the late Miss Davison in St. George's Church, and I wish to write a fen- lines to say that 1 (and I think others) bad you in our minds during the service. I am profoundly thankful that you escaped serious injury, and trust that you will soon be restored to health, and able to return to the occupation that you have chosen. I wish you much success in it, and hope that you may one day be in the proud position of being the jockey of a Derby winner.—Your, faithfully, C. Baumgarten. It is well known to racegoers, of course, that Jones has already won the Derby twice, namely, on the late King Edward's Diamond Jubilee and Minoru. Tt had been surmised that in siring the first and second horses to pass tbe judge in the Derby Desmond lias created a record. The circumstance of the' winner and the runner-np being by the same sire is, however, far from a unique occurrence. On no fewer than eight previous occasions have the winner and the second been by the same horse, and on two occasions all three placed horses have had a common paternity. T give the instances in reverse chronological order: — lOOK—Diamond Jubilee, by St. Simon .. 1 Dale, by St. Simon 2 l-S-asS-—Persimmon, hy St. Simon 1 St. Frosquin, by St. Simon 2 1803—Isinglass, by Isbnomy 1 Raven_bury) by Isouomy 2 IS73—Doncas-er, by Stock well 1 Gang Forward, by Stockwell 2 IS66—Lord Lyon, by Stockwell 1 Savernake, by Stockwell 2 Rustic, by Stockwell 3 1803—Ditto, by Sir Peter Teazle 1 Sir Oliver, liv Sir Peter Teazle .. 2 Bro. to Stamford, by Sir Peter Teazle 3 1783— Sal-ram, by Bclipse 1 Dungannon, by Eclipse 2 1782—Assassin, by Sweetbriar 1 Sweet Rohin, by Sweetbriar ——— - In 1877 the winner. Silvio, and Rob Boy. a singularly good-looking horse who finfshed third, were sons of Blair Athol, and the Derby hero of 1854, Andover, and the third,"The Hermit, were by Bay Middleton. This horse, The Hermit, has sometimes been confused with Mr. Henry Chaplin's Hermit, by Newminster, who won in 1867. The Hermit was the property of the versatile Mr. John Gully, and was only beaten half a length for second place, by Stockwell's half brother King. Tom. In"l 847 the second and third positions were filled by War Eagle and Van Tromp, both sons of I-anercost, Then, in 1836, Gladiator and Venison, both, by Partisan, were also second and third, the winner in this instance being Bay Middreton, who was by Sultan.

For how many years shall we harve racing at Epsom ? asks an English writer. After the experiences of the week, not only in the actual happenings on the course, but in and about the ancient stand and enclosures, it is pertinent that people should be expressing the gravest dissatisfaction. How long more, they say, will they" put up with euch wretched accommodation? Then would anyone contend to-day that were Epsom a new course it would be granted a license oy the Jockey Club? I am quite sure that the inspector of courses would contemptuously regard it as a burlesque of what he regards as his standard and ideals. It is easy to reply that what has' served for so many scores of years must be all right still, but tike present age has been educated to be *aore particular, and, moreover, the modern' method of race-riding, which I am afraid will never be ousted no matter how bitterly it is denounced, is so unsuited to its descents to make the course a positive danger. We have had Dltistrations of that this week, and there, will be more in the future. Fortunately if.will te'~a long time before there will be any necessity to go there again, but it is as certain as anything can be, where racing as concerned, that the dangers of the racecourse will 'be more 'than ever demonstrated. As regards the grandstand, there is far less reason why it should be left unmolested any longer. It is a dreadful place for the public to ■have to pay stiff prices to enter, and during the week which has just passed 1 •have received many and bitter complaints. The facilities for seeing the racing are not only limited, but they are wretchedly poor. There is no consideration for the public; they must pay exorbitant prices for food and drink, and, moreover, the accommodation even for an offday—l will say nothing of a Derby day, when the whole place is more or less chaotic—is hopelessly inadequate. Those entitled to make use of the members' etand are the only people who go to Epsom that are able to enjoy the slightest comfort. The whole place is prehistoric, and monstrously behind the times, and the authorities of the Turf should insist on speedy and drastic reform. That might also apply to the actual racing. What an extraordinary thing it Is that at an Epsom Derby meeting, with all its prestige and renown, there should be an apparent necessity to •Include over-night selling races in its programmes. They are a sign of weakness anywhere, but at a place like Epsom they are a positive disfigurement, and ought to be eliminated." After ail this I need hardly ada, that the omission to publish well in advance any order oE running is duly observed, as, indeed, itis ,at Newmarket. For how long, more, one wonders, wffl such conditions bo tolerated? Epsom will not always be able to: trade $n tradition. "What a relief xfe wfil be <r». got- iiKiAeeotl

In winning the Ascot Gold Cup Prince Palatine set up the record time of 4.22 3-.j. Previously the record stood to Bachelor's; Button, who, when beating Pretty Polly in this event in 1906, accomplished the journey iv 4.23 1-j.

Sir G. Clifford, who fo roundly denounced Xew Zealand bookmakers some days ago, and praised the stipendiary stewards, was once, it is stated, strongly opposed to the control of being handed over to paid officials. It is never too late to correct an error, and Sir George Clifford is not to be blamed for changing his opinion with regard to .stipendiary stewards. —Sydney Exchange.

After he had won the rich Ascot Gold Cup a few weeks ago Prince Palatine was dubbed by his admirers to be the horse of the century. One London sporting writer went so far as to say that he knew of a breeder who was prepared to go to £45,000 in exchange for Prince Palatine, if Mr Pilkington desired to pan with him. That, of course, would be a record price for a horse, the biggest sum yet paid-being 37,500g3 for Flying Fox. [The above paragraph was written before the cabled news of the sale of the horse.]

After he had won the rich A6cot Gold Cup a few weeks ago Prince Palatine was dubbed by his admirers to be the horee of the century. One London sporting writer went so far as to say that he knew of a breeder who was prepared to go to £45,000 in exchange for Prince Palatine, if Mr Pilkington desired to part with him. That, of course, would be a record price for a horse, the biggest cum yet paid being 37,500g5. for Flying Fox.

The English "Racing Calendar" contains the following:—"The stewards of the Jockey Club having had brought to their notice the case of Aston v. Dillon, called both parties before them. Mr Aston admitted that he had made -bets for Dillon in contravention of the Rules of Racing. The stewards, therefore, withdrew hie licence to train. They also found that Dillon had had betting transactions with Mr Aston, and refused the application for a jockey's licence which he had made, and subjected him to the disabilities laid down under Rule 95 (v.)."

It is mentioned in a Melbourne exchange that S. Ferguson, who for the past couple of years hae ridden with a deal of success in Austria, has definitely left that country, and is going to India. It seeme strange that Ferguson should have given np riding in Austria, but, according to the Continental correspondent of the "London Sportsman," he was , scarcely being fairly treated by a. section of racegoers in Vienna, and that may have influenced him in making a change. The writer I quote saye that no fault could be found with Ferguson's riding, and his crime laid, according to the ''Viennese Jockey," a candid and fearlessly outspoken journal, in hie absolute refusal to have anything to do with the "tipetere" and other gentry who hang on to the outskirts of the Turf. He was continually and unjustly attacked by journals pandering to the unhealthy, morbid mmd 3of those who invariably discover there is something wrong when horses they have backed are unsuccessful. The writer concludes as follows: — "The insults offered Ferguson by yahoos have been amply condoned by the opinjions of all sportsmen, but when these insults developed into violence, too great a personal risk wae involved. True sportsmen have nothing but praise to bestow on a good and honest rider, comttiiserating with him on a state of things which gives irresponsible journals and their supporters power to drive him from the Austrian Turf."

The recent Derby incident has given English writers plenty of copy, and, commenting on the occurrence, a leading writer save: "All sorts of allegations are being made, and if the truth must be told some of the leading sportsmen on the Turf are responsible for making them. Thus I know it to be perfectly true that one bearing an honoured name for strength and integrity as a loader in racing—he is essentially a strongman, and therefore immensely respected—is one of the severest critics of the Epsom stewards. He would be the last in the world to take a strong stand on this occasion were he not convinced in his own mind that an injustice had been done. Then, too, the case for the disqualified one has strong supporters in the moving pictures, the photographs of the finish, and those prominent people who were on Paget's Stand, which is even better placed for giving a view of every detail in the last hall-mile than is D'Arcy's Stand. It is alleged that Piper, the rider of Aboyeur, told Mr. Cunclitfe, the owner of that horse, when he dismounted that he had no grounds for lodging an abjection. This is told to mc on high authority, and if it be true there must be an inconsistency between the statement to the owner and what he subsequently told the stewards when they invited him to give his story. It is alleged, further, that a distinguished owner, who is not one of the stewards, took an aggressive part in setting the inquiry on foot, but as to this I am assured that the owner referred to denies responsibility for the part which is imputed to him. Then it is stated by several prominent bookmakers that when the objection was made one or two persons rushed in to take the fairly long odds that Aboyeur would get the race. The allegation is that they were inspired. It is most distasteful having to mention these things, but why suppress them when they are the common talk in the clubs? Why also stifle the criticism when it emanates from unquestionably respectable and highly respected sources that stewards "who make accusations should jioi; also be judges as to the justice of such, accusations? Obviously their minds are to a certain extent made up, and are, therefore, prejudiced when they come to sit in judgment, and before they have heard a word of evidence. Are we to suppose that each of the three stewards simultaneously made a suggestion for an inquiry, tantamount to an abjection against Craganour? i believe I am quite right in saying that Lord Wolverton and Major Eustace Loder witnessed the race from tfie Jockey Club's balcony, which is only a few feet below the Press Stand, while the Earl of Rosebery was in his own box, some fifty yards farther down the course. The idea may be wrong, but 1 have.always been under the impression that when a steward has thought fit to bring an accusation of this strong character it has been -usual for him to stand apart in the actual investigation. If this has not .been the custom it should certainly be.