TROTTING Remit On Driving Fees Will Be Widely Debated

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30178, 9 July 1963, Page 5

TROTTING Remit On Driving Fees Will Be Widely Debated

The remit sponsored by the Franklin Trotting Club, seeking the payment of losing driving fees to trainers, is expected to be the most widely-discussed of the 11 remits to be considered at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Trotting Conference in Wellington on Thursday.

The remit will bring forward one of the subjects which has been widely discussed in trotting circles for many years. It is five years since a similar remit was considered by an annual meeting of the conference. On that occasion, after a lengthy discussion, it was defeated by 32 votes to 11 following a secret ballot.

This year supporters of the remit have put much more effort into the preparation of their case, and while the success of the move is by no means certain, it appears that support for it will be much stronger than in the past.

The prime movers in this year’s remit have been members of the committee of -the New Zealand Horsemen’s Association, Mr J. K. Hughes, of Pukekohe, and Mr J. D. Litten, of West Melton, assisted by Mr D. G. Jones, of Templeton, and others have waited on officials of all trotting clubs in New Zealand and presented their case. The horsemen have been well received wherever they have gone and a number of clubs have premised to support the remit. However, in the Canterbury district, support for the remit has not been as good as was hoped.

Owners’ and breeders’ organisations in Canterbury and Southland have announced their opposition to the idea, but their counterparts in the north have been unanimous in their support.

The arguments piit forward by the horsemen appear to be more logical and betterprepared than those of the opponents of the scheme, but that alone will not ensure the success of the remit.

One of the main arguments of the horsemen has been that driving is a separate contract to the training of horses. Apart from the hazards of driving is the point that trainers have to go out in all types of weather and, drive beaten horses for nd payment other than training fees, which have been increased only slightly in the last 10 years. The necessity for trainers to be paid losing driving fees was emphasised at winter meetings this year in Canterbury and Nelson. At a number of meetings horsemen were required to drive in rain, in low temperatures, and with mud and slush flying. That they received no compensation appeared ridiculous. Possible Benefits The passing of the remit could have beneficial effects on trotting as a whole. It has been argued that some trainers would seldom receive a drive behind members of their team because owners would possibly secure recognised “top” reinsmen whenever possible. If that results, the over-all standard of driving in races should improve. Another argument has been that costs of campaigning slow-class horses at West Coast and Nelson-Blenheim meetings would be too high. At some two-day meetings horses have four starts and losing driving fees would add £l6 to the costs of racing a horse.

If owners had horses capable of winning races within a reasonable time, the extra cost of losing driving fees would not stop them racing at distant meetings. In fact, some owners might be convinced earlier than at present that their horses are not worthy of perseverance. That, too, could do much to tidy up unwieldy fields of poor class which have been so obvious at a number of meetings this season. Not all trainers are in favour of the remit, but they are among a small minority. They claim that trainers have it in their own hands to increase training fees, something which is almost certain to follow the defeat of the remit at Thursday’s meeting. If trainers do increase their fees, owners will not be able to quibble, even though such an increase could

cost more than the payment of losing fees to trainers. Eight of the other 10 remits to be considered will be sponsored by the executive of the conference. Most of the eight remits are aimed at correcting anomalies which have appeared during the last »12 months and the majority of them are unlikely to arouse much debate. One of the other two. to be sponsored by the Franklin club, is a consequential amendment to the remjt seeking losing driving fees for trainers. The Auckland club will sponsor the remaining- remit. It seeks to amend Rule 59 (1) to enable the annual levy on clubs to be approved by the annual meeting of the conference rather than the executive as at present. The present system has been followed for years and has never been greatly criticised. The Auckland remit, if passed, could cause endless haggling at annual meetings, and could well have a strangling effect on improvements planned by the conference executive. Any change in the present system could have a harmful effect on trotting as a whole.