MUST BOOKIES BET?

Northern Advocate, 23 February 1926, Page 6

MUST BOOKIES BET?

The question whether a bookmaker can please himself whether he bets or not has been considered by the Australian Jockey Club Committee, and they directed- a prominent fielder that in future he must get' up on his stand and bet, whether he wished to do so or not, says the “Sydney Sportsman.” About fifty different questions arise in considering this point, among them the right of any man to conduct his own business in his own way; but on the maxim oi the greatest good to the greatest number it is fairly clear that a bookmaker is, to all intents and purposes, a servant of the public, and he must be prepared to carry on his business, op hand in his license and make room for those who do wish to bet. The accommodation for bookmakers at Randwick is limited, and a license to bet there is very keenly sought after. There are dozens, nay, score of men who would be only too delighted to get the chance to pay the license fee to bet at Randwick, and the more men that bet the brisker the competition will be, and the better prices the public will get. If a leading bookmaker is to say that he does not feel inclined to bet on any particular day, or on any particular event, then there is nothing to stop half a dozen other leading men from acting in a similar way. The competition, already restricted through want of space, would become more restricted through the absence of leading men, and the congestion in the ring, already great, would become even greater as the crowd milled round the bookmakers that were continuing to operate. The Jockey Club is justified in saying to a bookmaker: “If we license you to come in here and bet we expect you to help things along by doing your share of the betting. If you don’t want to bet, then don’t take out a license.”

It is, of course, impossible to prevent a bookmaker from calling several points tinder the odds, and thus dodging his responsibilities, but any- action of this sort should be treated as a practical refusal to bet, and should, if persisted in, involve forfeiture of the bookmaker’s license. Following on the question of refusal to bet is the practice much indulged in by bookmakers nowadays of leaving their stands and turning punter for one race. It may mean nothing more than a desire to have a flutter at the expense of their brethren .of the ring, but in this censorious world it raises a 'suspicion - that the bookmaker knows something. It is not at all consoling to the backers of a favourite when they see a prominent bookmaker walking round the ring taking all the available odds about the second favourite. In olden day-s it was well known that certain bookmakers had owners and jockey-s “in the hag,” and could control the running of certain horses -as completely- as, if they held the reins. It is unsafe to say- that this state of affairs is altogether unknown nowadays, and the bookmaker who puts in half his time pun Mng. lays himself open to the suspicion that he is not exactly betting in 1 the dark. " j There should be no room at Randwick ] for the bookmaker who doesn’t want to | make a book, nor for the bookmaker I who is half the time a backer of horses. I