SPORTING ITEMS.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9438, 9 June 1896, Page 2

SPORTING ITEMS.

Os • Weekly Press and Referee" (June 4th.) i ollowing the death of every racing man of prominonco in England who ha 3 horses engaged in important events come 3 a wail of discontent from the Press at the existing lule of the Jockey Club whereby nominations are voided, and it does seem a matter for 'surprise that no member of the Jockey Club will attempt to obtain a repeal of this longstanding custom. Why it is not done we do not understand. The value of racehorses often depends upon the number and value of their engagements, and if they are of high-class, and likely to fulfil those engagements with credit and profit, any rule which at one fell stroke tenders them next door to valueless, cannot be calculated to bo of b.neiit to the turf. Men who have .pent fabulous sums of money in the rearing or purchase of young thoroughbreds for the purpose of racing thetn in important events have died just at a time when th .ir stables have been turning out good winners, and on the eve oi their running for big classic honours ; and though it might be the dying wish of an owner that his horses should b. allowed to fulfil their engagements, yat the prohibitive rule stands in the way. And, again, an owner might dosirein the event of Im death that a menr.ber of his family or relatives should have the privilege arid benefit, if any, of racing his horses, which by the rule alluded to, however, would not be qualified to compete. It was only a fortnight since we had to record the deaths of two leading patrons of tho sport in the persons of Baron de Hii-sch and Colonel North, and wo have been reminded that about nine years ago, when the son of tlie former died, the papers commented upon the fact that such a rule should have then been in force. Ifc was argued that owners raced for a variety of reasons, many doing so for the pleasure it afforded themselves aud their -.milics and friend*, while others did so for pleasure and possible profit, in which they and their families expected to share,- and further, that such a rule was detrimental to the interests of breeders, inasmuch as it was a drawback to the buj-ing of racing stock at big values, and consequently a drawback to racing, many a valuable stud having become next to worthless and broken up in consequence of the operation of tho rule. How the result of some of tlie big classic events has been affected in the past, and how they may be in the future, it is not difficult to foresee. Past experience should be quite sufficient to cause the powers that be in England to get out of this one of the old grooves in which they have so long been travelling. We have no desire to stille discussion, if kept within reasonable bounds, on any matter of importance that comes within the scope of this journal. Hence wo gladly give space to the lottor signed "J. H. Pollock" which appears in another column of this issue. In the interests of racing and pure sport we have never faltered in our advooacy of the totalisator as the fairest of means of betting for those who chose to speculate on the chances of a horse race. It is also to the majority the most acceptable. At the same time we have never had a word to say against the business of bookmaking when carried on legitimately. We know there have been and are still reputable bookmakers in this colony who command the confidence of their clients and who as citizens cannot be considered inferior to their fellow men. To the calling of a bookmaker there may be an objeotion in the eyes of some, but if the mutallician carries, on his affairs in a straightforward and honest manner, we can see no reason why he should not be entitled to respect. We do not, however, consider a man who does nothing but lay totalisator odds a bookmaker. Suoh an individual carries on a business which a special Act of Parliament has made illegal, and those trafficking in "totalisator odds," we need hardly once again say arc liable to three months' imprisonment in the common gaol. Of course it is the infringement of the law and tlie illegal diversion of the legitimate revenue of racing clubs' funds that have brought about the exclusion of such men as Mr Pollock refers to from the racecourses. Those our correspondent particularly refers to may not be in the habit of laying totalisator odds for aught we know, but though it shonld not be so, the innocent often have to suffer for the misdeeds of others. However that may be, the bookmakers and others who are known to make a business of laying totalisator odds were given every chance before the extreme course of refusing them admission to racing grounds was resorted to. And now that they find, after doing their utmost to defy the law and the clubs, they are getting the worst of the bargain they aro beginning to cry out. Wo cannot admit for one moment that the clubs are wrong in taking any legitimate means to protect their revenue, and illicit raid 3on it require stringent action. If a man is known to follow the business of laying totalisator odds, wo do not consider that because he may own a racehorse he is entitled to admission to a racecourse move than any other layer of the odds. It would not be very difficult to get a horse nominated in a layer's name for that matter. A licensing scheme such as Mr Pollock suggests might be adopted probably with advantage to many. If such licensed men had an enclosure set apart on the racecourses for the transaction of their . usinesa and were content to lay their own idds, those who so desired would be provided with another means of betting, while be reputable mombers of the ring would •tot havo to be banished from the racecourses for the faults of others. Of course, in the case of one of the licensed men being found to have laid totalisator odds, cancellation of the license and banishment from the enclosure should follow. In the meantime, however, we would be failing in our duty if we were not to lend our support to every attempt to uphold the law of the land. We have had much to say in favour of the totalisator, and wherever the machine has been legalised the result has been the same— it is generally conceded to be the fairest and safest means of betting for all concerned. We have only to peruse the journals of those countries where the totalisator has been established to find how popular it is with clubs and the general racegoer. In India the machine is in great request, as the following from one .of that country's most influential journals, the Pioneer, will show : "It is satisfactory to learn that the Stewards of the Calcutta Turf Club seem determined to do something definite before the next racing season towards establishing an extended system of totalisator., and it is highly possible that next year we shall see the unaccustomed sight in this country of a race meeting minus the bookmakers, and, if so, the knights of the pencil will have only to thank themselves for their extinction. The action of the stewards has been forceon them by the general outcry against the absurd prices given. Unfortunately there is not sufficient competition in India to ensure fair odds. The bookmakers, on their part, will probably urge that their outstandings are so large that they cannot afford to give liberal prices; but why should they give unlimited credit to plungers ! The totalisator means readymoney transactions, and they will serve to check gambling to a great extent, which is very desirable in the best interest of the Indian Turf. A letter has been sent to the stewards, numerously signed by the principal -wners, and racing men generally, pointing

out forcibly the evils of the present system. Mr Boteler wrote an interesting article last racing season describing the system of pari mutuels in force at the Paris meetings, aud it seems likely the stewards will ask him to report more fully on it during his forthcoming visit to Europe. It is quite certain some radical change is required, and the matter now can safely be left in the hands of the stewards." Again in France much the same state of things as exist in New Zealand were to be found, but now we observe the law has been put in force to some tune. The following from one of our exchanges will show that Now Zealand is not the only place in the world where it is punishable by imprisonment to indulge in illicit betting :— A decision rendered on March 1 .th by the Court of Appe.il, if upheld by the police, will compel bookmakers in France to close their books and their clients either to stop betting or to put their money in the oificial pari mutuel. The case that cams up to the Court of App3-1 was that of a- bookmaker named Tible, arrested last September on the .Saint Oucn course for keeping a book. A law was passed in 1891 to give the pari lnutiiel a monopoly, but the bookmakers' clients raised such protests against it that bookmakers were winked at so long as they kept in the i-nclosure. Tlie charge against Tible was of taking odd 3 of persons. The defence was that ail his clients were known personally to him. as proved by the fact that accounts were never settled up on the course. The court, ruling that he was professionally engaged in betting, sentenced him to a fortnight's imprisonment and a fine of 3000 francs. Tlie Court of Appeal has confirmed this sentence. W_ have before stated that it is only a matter of time for the totalisator to bo legalised in Victoria and New South Wale-3, and tho leading Australian journals all agree and recognise what its benefits must be when it is established. In this connection the Bulletin of May 23rd says :— • One N.S. W. breeder says there is not and will not be anything in the game until clubs endow rich two-year-old stakes. Higher prices would then be offered for yearlings on the chance of securing probable trump cards. Present ordinary club revenue won't permit the proposed extravagance. Under the rule it would be more than po3sible. The machine must come. The Australasian is a great advocate for the totalisator, and all those who have studied the matter out prefer it to any other system of betting. We hope to see it retained in New Zealand for many years to como. Fo*. some time past trotting clubs, and leading clubs too, have adopted a very peculiar way of dealing with case 3 of• inconsistent running. A horse starts in a race and fails to show form, but later on in the day, or wihin few days perhaps, comes out on the same, o * on another track, as the case may bo, and wins in easy fashion. Then a protest follows and the inconsistency of the two performances is proved. The punishment that follows in nine cases out of ten is to award the prize to the second horse, and pay over the totalisator moneys to his backers. The horse is only disqualified for the particular event, and the rider is not even admonished, but is allowed to go on riding throughout the meeting. The stewards feel that they have done their duty by depriving the owner of the stake and the backers of the horse of their dividends. Now, in the case of a horse running badly- in a race at a racing club's meeting and romping home in his next, the owner and rider are usually carpeted and questioned and, failing a satisfactory explanation of the inconsistency, disqualification for more or less lengthy terms follow. Therein is the difference. The racing clubs almost invariably—though it should be said there have been exceptional cases—make an example of the riders, while the trotting clubs allow them to get off scot free. Wo admit that it is a difficult matter to judge when horses are ridden improperly, but we do know that in trotting in particular it is impossible to find one out of twenty horses that wiil register performances approaching uniformity; and, though the system in America of running their trotting events in heats, and the courses and general conditions are more favourable for securing perfor- ] mances that can be compared one with the other for closeness, still we have only to take the time records as a guide to find that these contradictions do occur. A horse wins a heat in 2.18, and is beaten in another immediately afterwards, through a break or a bad start, in 2.20, but later on comes out and trots over the same ground in 2.17. This by some clubs in New Zealand would be called inconsistency. We could multiply many instances of this kind, but our object in writing is to point out to stewards that they should not ba too hasty in arriving at conclusions to take races away from horses that have performed indifferently one day and won a few days later on. We have only to instance the race for the Juvenile Stakes at the reient successful meeting of the Canterbury T.C. to show how inconsistent trotters, especially green one 3, appear, even in the hands of the best of reinsm .n. The final heat was trotted by Dictator, the winner, in three seconds and a half slower time than he did his first, and by Peak, who finished within half a length of him, in six seconds faster time than in his fii*3t heat when defeated by Imperial, who in the final was last of all. Now, here is a difiUrence between two performers of 9_sec in a mile contest, and something surely worth pausing to consider over. There is no suggestion, we are sure, that any of the starters in those heat events were not legitimately sent to win, but there was inconsistency all the same. Reasons for this no doubt could be advanced, and so they could probably in two cases that formed the subject of enquiry on the second day of the meeting, and which were dealt with in opposite ways. The following, from a writer in the London Sportsman on the question of inconsistency of running may not inappropriately be quoted here :— To people who are always on the alert to find sinister reasons for a horse not always running up to his form, or his supposed form, I recommend a perusal of the following questions and answers from the wellremembered arbitration case of Sir George Chetwynd and Lord Durham. The answers quoted are Sir George's :— Would it be a .round for making a charge against anyone if you saw a certain horse not running always up to the same form ? No; I think not. I have suffered too much from it myself. To what cause wonld you principally attribute the in and out running of horses ? The character and nature of the course and of the ground, the distance, and the state of health tho horse was in. Horses are like men, they are not always well alike. The above answers convey a simple truism which is obvious enough to anyone who will take the trouble to think. The average backer cannot be driven out of his belief that a horse is a sort of machine, and tbat any failure to show his form with mechanical certainty must necessarily be due to those who control him and not to the horse himself. The result of the prosecution in the case oj the Geraldine Trotting Club against the nominator of the " ringer" Moody, who formerly had been trotted in the name of Sultan, was not received altogether with surprise by those who have studied the legal aspects of the case. From the first it has been questioned whether our laws were so framed as to get at the class of men who have followed the nefarious practice known as " ringing," and it was because of such a doubt that some of our turf legislators have been aiming at having a clause inserted in the Gaming and Lotteries Act to meet such cases. Capt. Wray, who was on the Bench in the case under notice, however, while

not committing himself to a decided opinion as to whether the law would hold a ringer liable, was evidently influence:! in his decision by the fact that no case had been made out against the accused, as the prosecution had failed to bring proof that he knew that the horse had trotted in another name. In order to have madeouta.prim.i/«ci« case, it would have been necessary to prore a knowledge on the part of the accused that he was acting wrongfully. Had this been done the chances are that the prosecution would have resulted differently. A weak point in the prosecution was disclosed when proof of the accused's knowledge that the horse had trotted in the name of Sultan before being trotted by him in the name of Moody was not forthcoming.