RACING INQUIRY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 411, 21 January 1909, Page 9

RACING INQUIRY.

Sir, —In Lis letter appearing in your is- ] sue of January 14 Mr. Watt sheds consider- : able light not conveyed in the official report of the inquiry held at Palmerston into Mr. Hcnrys's handicapping of Mr. Watt's horses. It is regrettable that the committee of the Manawatu Club should attempt to whitewash Mr. Henrys at Mr. Watt's expense, as it has caused a disagreeable feeling in the .minds of many horseowners, not to mention the injustice to the parties concerned. I failed to seo that, Mr. Watt found any faultwith Muskerry's weight in tho Manawatu Cup. He certainly complained of the,way Mr. Henrys handicapped her with Stylish at the Dannevirko meeting after tho form shown by those horses at-Rapier Park meeting. Tho English of Mr. .Henrys's reply is, "Muskerry was not 'fit' when Stylish beat her." As Mr. Watt, asserts, through the "New Zealand Times" of January 14, that Mr. Henrys was not present "at the Napier meeting, how can Mr. Henrys know about Muskerry's 1 condition there? At Feilding Muskerry. won'the Manchester Handicap in fast time, carrying 7st. Mb. with Truganini,. 7st. 91b., third. Both those horses were unplaced in the Cup at Palmerston, oyer one mile and a half, but in the President's Handicap, over the samo distance as the Manchester Handicap at Feilding,Mr. Henrys puts ,Bst. 41b. on Muskerry and 7st.. 21b. on Truganini, and he has the audacity to state that there was only one pound of difference in dispute. Mr. Henrys hardly goes far enough. Re his . handicapping of Separator and Eclogue for the third day at. Palmerston, and tab day following that at Ashhurst, it would be interesting to 'hear how he arrived at his adjustments for each place. A further peculiarity, in Mrl Henrys's explanation is that"; ho gives the form of Osiris at Wairarapa, but he carefully omits to mention Eclogue's running at Rangitikei in open company.. ' Mr. Henri's accuses.. Mr. . Watt of- complaining of nis handicaps. I would remind Mr.-Henrys that Mr. Watt is not singular in this, although he is man enough to express his disapproval of Mr. Henrys's work to that gentleman's face. Is it not' notorious that several large stablesi owned bythorough sportsmen are ceasing to : nominate their horses, at meetings ifhere Mr. Henrys is handicapper, because they cannot win a handicap race Under him? Why were there no handicap horses. from the strong Porirua stable at the ..recent Manawatu ,meeting? Or how was it that tho Hon. J. D. Ormond engaged, none. of his norses .at Feilding, Dannevirke, ~'oi. Palmerston? I saw a row.of his horses.at Woodyille, where they failed_ in the handicap races; •; Moral won the principal race, one mile and a quarter. Riders in tho.race state Moral.could have won from seven furlongs up. Woodhey was second. Mr. Henrys for the second day increased Moral's weight 101b. for winning, but he also put Woodhey up 101b; for . allowing Moral to beat her. What, chance had Mr. Onnond's mare with Moral on the same terms as ho had already beat; her .'at? Mr. Henrys may say Woodhey again ran second,: whereas Moral was unpkeed,- hut ho will not repeat the fact, even if the report reached him ; that Moral's owner, by an error in putting down tho number on his betting .slip, had £100 \>nWoodhey. 'in' place'of. Moral. Nor can we forget Moral's form at: Dannevirko, the week after Wood : : ville. There are many instances . like Kopii, and Husbandman,'but enough'-has .-been/said: ito justify: Mr.■ Watt"iri"briuging-the. matter: -. up; for.; which' -he,.has: the sincere'; thank's'-of' every .truoV sportsman; -in theVDbminiou.t-I 1 : dm, etc., ■':.-■ ••'".'•-.■;'• ,-. ■"-'.'.'.''■ '- :; "-' ; '■•• ■'■ •->■"':'. !. ' - .'/INTERESTED; ; •■ January 16. '..:■'...'■'•■ ' : : -.-■:,'