SPORTING ITEMS.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9323, 25 January 1896, Page 4

SPORTING ITEMS.

*« Weekly Press and Referee."

We have to commend the Plumpton Park Racing and Trotting Club and the New Brighton Trotting Club for having gone so exhaustively into the enquiries which ultimately led to the life disqualification of tho trotters Hcre-I-Co and Bilbah, geldings with previous histories which had not, in accordance with the rules, boen disclosed. The nominators for concealing Important facts were likewise punished, while others in connection with the cases were also placed under the ban. In the Here-I-Oio case the Club -.vent still further and punished one of the witnesses, by disqualification for two years, for giving evidence which they were fully satisfied he must have known to be misleading. In the interests of iport it is a pity that the stewards of racing institutions cannot be vested with the power of compelling witnesses to give their evidence upon oath, or of taking before a Magistrate any person they might suspect of being guilty of wilful misrepresentation in nominating horses. If some of those gentry who have been making it a practice of fraudulently entering and running horses in wrong names for the purpose of cheating the clubs and their patrons and enriching themselves, could be dealt with under the criminal code we should have fewer of these cases of «' ringing in," which are doing so much to discredit the sport of trotting. Many of the men who have been disqualified for fraudulent practices in connection with trotting horses have been little known in the racing world, and in a majority of instances these are tho very ones that aro the more easily brought to book, while the older hands at tho game escape detection and punishment through being too clever for the average run of racing or trotting officials. Many of the pure adventurers connected with racing and trotting who have no position in society would readily run tho risk of disqualification were they satisfied with the prospect of making money. " What will a year or two or even life disqualification mean to mc," was the remark made some little time ago by a man who had been accused of "ringing in" a horse, " I have not raced a horse tor years, and if I should want to do so again I've no doubt I can get someone to do it for mc, and I suppose I shall be able to see a race when I want to do so." The man never thought of his good name and was quite devoid of shame. Six months in a common prison would do men of that sort more good than all the meaning club disqualification could convey to them.

Unfortunately there are many oases of ringing in that are never exposed, but it is time that the various trotting governing bodies throughout the colony worked liand in hand to put a check to tho wholesalo swindling that is being perpetrated. They will do this if they wish trotting to become a reputable sport. They will neglect to do bo if they are careless whether it lives or dies. If clubs throughout New Zealand will exercise more vigilance, and not hesitate to make thorough examples of the unscrupulous rascals who attempt frauds upon the public the trotting atmosphere will become more pure. Owing to lack of unity there has been much dissension in Wellington trotting circles of late, and while clubs are not prepared to work as one in the best intorest3 of sport, bo long may we be prepared for attempts at •' ringing." What we want to see is justice dispensed without fear or favour. The law is no respecter of persons, and when anyone is found connected with shady transactions he should without any hesitation be, as the Americans put it, "fired out." Clubs need have no fear. If executives are prepared to carry on trotting at all hazards in a purely sportsmanlike fashion, they will in the long run find their support the healthiest and most substantial. It is a great pity that trotting cannot be conducted under one code of rules only, and under the auspices of one thoroughly representative New Zealand Board of Control. While there are so many divisions in tho camp matters cannot be canned on in a satisfactory way.

If there is one question more than another upon which we have from time to time, for months past, been asked to givo an opinion it is as to the intention of the rules relating to the training of horses. Queries bearing more or less directly on the subject have reached us from all parts of the colony, from which it would appear that the rules are imporfeotly understood by those for whose guidance and benefit they have been framed. That some of the Rules of Racing Bhould be mode more explicit most people who have studied their wording are agreed, and with a little amendment the laws laid down by the Conference of 1893 relating to trainers and jockeys' licenses, owners and apprentices' permits it is also believed could be made more workable than they have been in tho past. Of course the licensing question, so far as New Zealand is concerned, is, comparatively speaking, a new thing, and new rules are not always readily learnt and adopted. From the first there has been a reluctance on the part of some ownors to fall in with the idea of their being expected to apply to the Metropolitan Clubs for permits to train their own horses, and there has been some soreness on the part of experienced trainers because any. who applies for a licenso to train can obtain the required certificate by paying a fee. There are trainers and trainers, but the fact of a person holding a trainer's license cannot be accepted as evidence of competency by any means. It is safe to say that many of those who act as trainers have not had much experience, and are quite unfitted to be entrusted with the superintendence of a team of horses, some not being capable of doing justice to one horse, let alone a number.

Ik this connection we may remark that the Btewards of the Wairarapa Racing Club lately had before them some points in raoing law which have been perplexing owners, trainers and members of other clubs in different parts of the colony. Protests wore laid against certain owners receiving stakes won by their horses on the ground that they were trained by unlicensed men. In each instance it was shown that the owners had permits to train their own horses and, though it was submitted by the protesting parties that the horses of these owners were under the control of unlicensed attendants for the greater part of the time they were being got ready, it was contended that the owners, by giving their employees instructions what to do with their horses—how to feed and work them—and by watching them do their fast gallops, were the real trainers of the animals. One of the owners urged that the granting of owners' permits and the licensing of trainers, as at present being carried out, was nothing short of a farce, and his remarks certainly went to show that some of those who had trainers' licenses were not qualified to do their work. The stewards appear to have been quite at a loss how to act, and got out of the difficulty by throwing out the protests because they had not been lodged in time, thus not committing themselves one way or the other as to the merits or demerits of the objection. Ultimately, they arrived at the conclusion that Rule 167 a is so doubtful in its con-

struction in reference to owners' permits that the delegates representing the Wairarapa be asked to have the rules simplified, so as to show precisely the conditions under which a person is entitled to hold an owner's permit. This is in the right direction and no doubt the matter will be brought up, in proper form, in due season. Something should b?. done, however, in the interests of the professional trainer, who, by reason of long experience and successes, should be afforded some protection by the clubs, and not have to compete on unequal terms with stable lads, who, on the plea of acting under instructions from their masters, sometimes train horses without paying a fee at all.