TROTTING TO-DAY

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 62, 6 December 1930, Page 14

TROTTING TO-DAY

Events at Ashburton HANDICAP CONTROVERSY (By “Overcheck.”) Two trotting events are Incorporated in to-day’s programme of the Ashburton County Racing Club’s meeting. These are as follow: — MELROSE TROT HANDICAP (in harness), of 105 sovs. 4.50 class. Two miles. Belle Somerton scr Gold Chips ... 12 Captain Heath scr Lord Matchlight 12 Cora Locanda scr Nyallo Silk ... 12 Fleet Arrow .. scr Great de Oro .. 36 Little Victor .. scr Mister Pointer 36 Logan Fraser scr Derry Pointer 48 Oinadora ... scr Flying Cloud . 72 Tatsy de Oro . scr Play Wave ... S 3 Zane scr Torchlight ... 84 Elfi’elton 'Lass 12

Not many of those in the Melrose Trot Handicap have gone the distance. Belle Somerton won at the Banks Peninsula meeting in 5.2, and is now on 4.56. Fleet Arrow ran third over thirteen furlongs at Wellington in the race won by Nyallo Silk, who is again preferred. Little Victor has three placed performances to his credit, and at Methven ran second to Flying Cloud, who now has to concede 72 yards. Eiffelton Lass was third at Ashburton in this race last year, registering 4.43 1-5, -while this year she was second to Ruth Logan at Geraldine over twelve furlongs and . 120 yards., Gold Chips is speedy, but she has not run up to her two-year-old form so far this season. Lord Matchlight was three times third at Geraldine. Great de Oro went 4.46 1-6 at Hororata in April, while Mister. Pointer registered 4.41 3-5 at Ashburton, when he finished second to Regal Voyage in this race last year. Derry Pointer is a fair sort with a record of 3.26 over twelve furlongs. Flying Cloud won at Methven and South Canterbury in October, and is a good youngster. Play Wave and Torchlight do not appeal. Possibly Little Victor and'Mister Pointer will do best. SELMA TROT HANDICAP (in harness), of 105 sovs. 3.2 class. One mile and a-quarter. Ayr Lass .. scr Zoneaphone ... scr Audo Dillon .. scr Gold Chips ... 12 Captain Heath scr Llewellyn .. 12 Com Locanda ser Master Don . 12 Doll Dance .. ser Rafa .. 12 Esternioa .. scr Kollo .. 12 Goldworthy .. scr Sea Mist 12' Madam Locanda scr Snowy Huon .. 12 Alatehlight Jr. scr Tiny Bingen .. 12 Tatsy de Oro .. ser Checkers 24 Tiger Lily ... scr Albina .. 60 War Bird scr Arcthusa lOS In the Selma Trot, Madam Locanda, on her Forbury running, reads well, as in the Advance Handicap there she ran third to Great Chenault and Herod in 3.26 4-5. Gold Chips has the speed, but as Stated above, has so far not reproduced her two-year-old form. Llewellyn should go well, though it has to be admitted that his form has not been up to expectations so far. If right again, Sea Mist should be hard to beat. Last season she ran third In this rape registering 2.56 2-5. Of the next three/ Checkers may receive most support. Arothusa won at Ashburton in September in 2.51 3-5, and is now on 2.53. She will be bracketed with Sea Mist, anfi the pair will no doubt, be the favourite selection. Madam Locanda, however, should keep them on the move all the way. \ GREAT NORTHERN DERBY The Final Payments ■ By Telegraph—Press Association. ~ Auckland, December 5. After final payments the following remain in the— . GREAT NORTHERN TROTTING 1930, of 1000 sovs., second -00, third 100. One mile and a half. Kewpic's Triumph Arethusa T? ien l “?y, a5 ’ Flying Cloud R a Y h J.V ro , a Worthy Chief Red Shadow Great Faun ’ HANDICAPPER’S POWER Difference of Opinion CASE OF RED SHADOW

A difference of opinion, on an important nature, arose at Forbury Park on Saturday last over the handicapper’s power to rehandicap Red Shadow after winning the Brighton Handicap. A southern writer makes the following remarks: “The rules state that ‘all winners of any race after the handicaps are declared may bo rchandlcapped.’ There is no qualification attached to the rule. It is a clear-cut authority. In the Tainul Handicap Red Shadow was on the limit in a 3.30 class, but, because handicap was sacrificed to get into tjie class, some held that the horse could not be rehandleapped. If an owner elects to sapriflee handicap to get into a class that does not dhpinlsh the handicapper’s power to impose a rehandlcap In the event of a win. The handicapper is merely restricted as to how far he may penalise a* horse. After the owner had elected to include Red Shadow in a 3.30 class, and the horse won prior to the race coming up for decision,, the handicapper had ’ power to impose a penalty on rehandicap. In. a 3.30 class the penalty is restricted to two seconds, or 24 yards, so that Red Shadow could have been sent back to 3.28 in the Tainul Handicap. “This is, so far as the writer can see, a logical interpretation of the rules which allow a handicapper to penalise any winner after the declaration of a handicap, irrespective of class. There is no mention of class in the rule giving power to indict a penalty. It is a dominating rule, and the restriction of penalty is a secondary consideration. At one time the writer stood absolutely alone in protest against the present castiron system of handicapping which attempts to balance a field on figures, but not on form. Here we have a horse In Red Shadow stepping 2.45 3-5, which automatically pans out near at 2.12 speed. Red Shadow is handicapped in a subsequent event at a 2.20 speed and yet •it is held that he cannot be rehandicapped. No greater instance could be quoted where mere figures dominate actual form or where a misinterpretation of the rules has taken place. The rules clearly state that the handicapper has full power to rehandicap winners. He has absolute power to rehandicap within, however, certain limitations. "Cases such, as the one under notice have created the opinion among many who go beyond superficiality in balancing form that the present system will have to be dropped. The writer has held that opinion right from its inauguration. The principal. reason for holding that opinion is due to the fact that it is based wholly and solely on commercialism and not on a sporting chance based on a rebalance of form. Suppose the track, by bad weather, had been 10 or 20 seconds slow, would the handicapper still have power, according to the rules, to rehandlcap winners. Some say no, but such an idea seems opposed to commonsense, because if a horse wins off anv mark, no matter how he got there, he is, according to rules, entitled to a rehandicap." .. . . ■ . The rule referred to certainly states that ft winner of ft race after the declaration of a handicap may be rehaudicapped; but it surely must be read in association with that which fixes the maximum penalties. The penalties are fixed by scale according to classes, and in the case of a horse winning a mile and a quarter race in a class under 3.2 the maximum penalty is 36 yards. Red Shadow won in a 3.0 class, but as he was on 2.57 he would under normal circumstances be entitled to be placed on a 2.04 mark in his next outing nt that distance. Now this works out at approximately 3.-9 for 12 furlongs, so that to my way of lookin" at it Red Shadow could not possibly have been placed on a tighter mark than that even if the’ handicapper had not been prepared to make any allowance whateve for the fact that the second race was a longer one. It seems to me that the southern writer is basing his argument on wrong premises, for he states: In a o..iu class the penalty is restricted to 2 seconds or 24 yards, so that Red Shadow could have been 4 eht back to 3.28 In the Tainul Handicap?’ The’ penalty he mentions is the maximum for winning tn thatclass, whereas Red Shadow was mere y nia 'l f ’ n ” his debut in that class, an entirely differ ent thing. Sodium and Kelp were Penalised 24 yards and 12 yards respectively for running 1 first and second on the opening dav of. the meeting, when they recorded 328 2-5 and 3.28 3-5 respect vely, and. In the circumstances, the handicapper coiilld hardlv have placed Red Shadow on the same mark as Sodium and asked him to give Kelp 12 yards merely because his owners had given away some seconds to enter him in a 3.30 class race.