INCONSISTENT FORM

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 18, 19 October 1936, Page 13

INCONSISTENT FORM

A SURPRISING STATEMENT

"In Australia a horse that runs badly one week may be commissioned and win easily .in the next, but no questions can be asked, as retrospective inquiries are not allowed." Such is the surprising assertion credited by a southern writer to the Oamaru trainer T. Hobbs, who returned this week with Silver Streak from Sydney. It is probable that Hobbs has been misreported, but the statement is'-'one that cannot be allowed to pass, as it is a reflection on the conduct of racing m the Commonwealth, and indirectly in the Dominion as well, as the New Zealand rules do not expressly give such wide powers as to holding - inquiries as the Australian do. What Hobbs probably meant to,imply when relating his impressions is contained in the last sentence of his reported statement, that "Australians cannot ''bet on form, but have to follow the money." . Even after making due allowance for the known vagaries of form, however, the assertion rather states the exceptional, for in the great majority of cases the money follows the form, and in following form one follows the money, or vice versa. Form in Sydney, it may be mentioned, has been decidedly easier to follow recently than it has so far been during the present season at meetings in the North Island of this Dominion. During only the last twelve months in Australia there have been important cases that have confirmed the principle of retrospective inquiries into form, a power that is expressly given by the Australian Rules of Racing, but is implied only in the New Zealand rules. One of the cases concerned the former New Zealand, trainer' J. T. Jamieson, who was disqualified, along with owner and jockey, for twelve months following the winning performance of Country Party in the Batman Stakes on the final day.of the last Melbourne Cup Meeting. The Country Partycase occurred at Flemington, but the A.J.C. rules are -the same as the V.R.C.

The success of Country Party in the Batman Stakes prompted ah inquiry by the stipendiary stewards of the club into the running of the horse'in the Kailway Highweight Handicap .on Melbourne Cup Day four days earlier. In his prior start Country Party went out at odds of 50 to 1 and finished near the rear of a large field. In the Batman Stakes he was backed down to second favourite at 4 to 1 and won easily. - . The investigation before the' V.R.C. stewards was taken, not under, the rule (corresponding to the New Zealand rule) that states that the stewards may disqualify if a horse has not been run under its merits, but under another rule (not in the New Zealand rules) that states: "The stewards, if satisfied that the winner or any placed horse in any race has not been permitted to do its best in any other race at the meeting, or at any other meeting at which they, or a majority of them, had officiated as stewards, may disqualify the horse for the first-men-tioned race, and, in addition, fine, suspend, or disqualify the owner, trainer, and rider (or any of them) in either or both of such races" (rule 8, p).

The rule applied in the Country Party case covers retrospective inquiries at the same meeting, or at an earlier meeting at which the majority of the stewards officiated. But the next sub-rule (rule 8, q) extends the power to cover previous meetings on other courses, the case then being referred to the A.J.C. or V.R.C, committee for consideration. This rule reads: "The stewards shall have power to report within 14 days • after ■ the holding of any race meeting to the committee (i.e., A.J.C. or V.R.C.) the running of any horse at such meeting which in their judgment is inconsistent with any previous or subsequent performance or performances of such horse at any time, either on the isame or on any other course."

There is therefore ample power to hold the fullest possible inquiries into form in the Commonwealth, the power expressly given being wider, than in the Dominion, where the power to hold a retrospective inquiry is only implied in the rule as to a horse's being run on its merits. The power may not be often exercised, but that is not because it is not available, but because so much has to be conceded before it can be assumed that a variation in form may have been dishonest. Inconsistencies in form . occur (every week of the year, but it is only rarely that a reasonable explanation may not be given for such variation from one race to another, or from one meeting to another.