RECORD REFUSED

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 133, 2 December 1936, Page 9

RECORD REFUSED

MEASURING OF TRACK

BOOT'S CASE AGAIN

A move to reopen the question ot the application as a record of the hall-mile performance of lmin 53 2-5 sec by V. P. Boot (Canterbury) and for rescission of the resolution declining the application was made on behalf of the Canterbury Centre by Mr. H. I. Austad at the meeting of the Council of the New Zealand Amateur Athletic Association last night. Mr. Austad's recommendations we're rejected. It was held that the rule requiring that the track must be measured after the race and on the day of the race had not been complied with and that there could be no departure from the rule. Boot's time was made at an evening sports meeting at Christchurch on March 24. The information finally obtained by the council after inquiries and the lapse of considerable tirhe was that the track was measured during the afternoon prior to the race and the following morning. MISREADING SUGGESTED. It was contended by Mr. Austad that the rule was open to misinterpretation and that it had been misread by the Canterbury officials. His submission was that the rule was open to misinterpretation that the track could be measured some time during the day before the race and on the day following the race. That was the way the Canterbury officials had read the rule. "I submit," said Mr. Austad, "that a reasonable interpretation of the rule is that the track may be measured after the race on the following day." The chairman (Mr. R. W. McV.illy): You cannot interpolate "the following clay." Mr. Austad: I am making allowance for misreading. Mr. McVilly: A person who misreads that rule would be incapable of reading any other rule. The clear intention of the rule, continued Mr. McVilly, was to make doubly sure that the measurement of the track was correct. If it had been a bona fide case of misinterpretation of the rule then the Canterbury Centre would have promptly told the council. Instead' of that the council had had no end of trouble in getting the information. If there was any hardship to Boot the Canterbury Centre and the officials, must take the responsibility. The duty of the council was to control and administer the sport in conformity with the rules. The council had done that and he was not prepared to whitewash Boot or anyone else. Mr. Austad said he thought it was rather a wrong attitude to suggest that Canerbury had endeavoured to hide the true position by neglecting to reply to the correspondence. It was pure assumption and an unkind assumption. Mr. McVilly: No, it isn't. It is a statement of fact which is borne out by the documents on the file of this council. ' ' In reply to Mr. L. A. Tracy, the secretary (Mr. H. McCormick) said that in the case of C. H. Matthews, another Canterbury athlete, his application for a record for a Napier performance had been declined on the ground that the track had not been measured after the race and on the day "of the race. The survey was made some days later. • Mr. A.. Urquhart congratulated Mr. Austad on "putting up the'best case he possibly. could," but said the fact remained that the Canterbury officials had not complied with the rule. : BOOT AND THE RULE. Mr. F. M. Reid also opposed the granting of the record, Boot,, he contended, knew the rule. Mr. Reid said that when Boot made his other record he got on a bicycle and went for the surveyor to ensure that the track was measured on the day of the race. Mr. G. S. Leeder said it might have been impossible for the surveyor to check over the track after the race and on the day of the race, but the Canterbury Centre had not raised that point. Another point, said Mr. Urquhart, was that the certificate had not been put in within the regulation time. Mr. Austad's motion was defeated, but in view of the popularity of evening sports meetings and the possibility1 of difficulty in measuring tracks, it was decided to ask Mr. Leeder to submit a report as to what would/constitute a reasonable survey.