TROTTING.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 89, 16 April 1927, Page 15

TROTTING.

HANDICAPPING. ANOTHER OWNER'S CRITICISM. Never in the history of trotting in j Auckland has the work of the handi- j cappers been subject to so much criticsju as this season, and numerous have >ecn the complaints of owners and rainers. In the following letter, Mr. J\ F. Gieson, expresses Ins views upon he important subject and quotes one larticular instance in which he finds limself unable to follow the reasoning if the handicapper. Mr. Gieson vrites: — The numerous instances of inconiistent handicapping that have appeared n the Press during the current season lave been astounding, but as past Mistakes cannot be undone, it is to be loped that by repeatedly drawing attrition to theso matters, handieappcrs will ie brought to realise that they owe a luty to horse owners that is capable of icing much more equitably carried out ban at present. Broadly speaking, the 'act of one or more horses being eniently treated in n race is giving hem a distinct advantage over the )thers. The many instances quoted cave no doubt upon this matter, and me can reasonably ask why should there )e any advantage. Of course, I realise hat very often the well-treated horse loes not immediately win, but he jeeomes placed on a false mark and vheii he does win it is more or less a lift and the connections of the other ilaced horses are expected to feel deased. It is, I think, correct to assume that he duty of a handicapper is to give ■ach and every horse an equal prospect if winning the stake and, further, that : undamental basis of adjustment is on ;ime records. That being so, how can me reconcile the various cases quoted ivith the principles involved. To cxemdify a caso not perviously quoted: 3right Light was handicapped on 12yds ichind in a 3..").") class at Taranaki •ecently, and ran second; a few days ater, in a 3.58 class at Wanganui, he ,vas on the limit, thus meeting all beaten horses and others on four ieconds better terms, and both these idjustments were by the same handicapper. Now, if any reasonable explanation can be produced why this )articular horse was entitled to four seconds advantage over the others, I ivould be pleased to see it in print. This s only one of many similar instances. Unfortunately, when an owner or .miner has a genuine complaint in •egard to handicapping, he doesn't get my thanks or medals for making it, in tact rather the reverse, although in nany cases it means the valuo of a stake to him, and it appears a most extraordinary thing that a field of horses cannot be put on their respective marks without one or more of them l>eing given a distinct advantage over the others, when, as a matter of fact, it is a thing that is so easily capable nf solution. I feel certain that if a handicapper, after making his adjustments, would, for the time being, become the imaginary owner of each and every horse singly, and peruse his work from that point of view, he would most certainly make many corrections before he sent it on to the printers, for I can't imagine even he, feeling pleased to find that as the owner of a beaten horse, he is supposed to accept ind meet on four seconds worse terms, one of the horses that beat him. There ire, of course, occasions when a handicapper is to be allowed discretion »s in the case of a horse having, say, a mile record, and then nominating in a twomile race or vice versa, or in case of heavy tracks, but that is quite another matter. The cases that have been cited ire ones either of inconsistency or great leniency, neither of which should occur in the work of a careful and capable man and can only be classed as mistakes ar blunders and for which, unfortunately, the horse owner has to pay.

The fact that most races result in excellent finishes and reflect to the credit of the handicappcr, is, of course, as it should be, but it is of little consolation to the owner who had to decline his engagements, nor to the one who failed by a small margin due to the matter under review. In many races there would doubtless be an excellent finish between two or three or perhaps more horses if they all started off the one mark, but whilst the conditions under which we race i 9 by handicapping with a time limit one is surely entitled to expect that every competitor will receive absolutely the same treatment, but which, from the numerous cases quoted, proves pretty conclusively that the present system of placing the majority of the horses on their proper marks and the others somewhere else, gives owners genuine grounds for complaint, and it is to be hoped that handicappers will endeavour to see the matter from the owner's point of view, for it is really he who finds the material to keep the sport flourishing and is entitled therefore to consideration.