Athletics. The Protest Against the Handicapper.

Free Lance, Volume II, Issue 84, 8 February 1902, Page 19

Athletics. The Protest Against the Handicapper.

Some Cash Runners" have addressed me on the above subject. In the beginmnor they say they did not intend to publish their grounds just yet for making the protest but, apparently the article m this column a fortnight ago lias stared them to action The communication goes on It the statements ot Mr. Shannon's best friends can be relied on, he is only using the casl' runners as a meaais to work his name up in the sporting w r orld, his objecf being to obtain directly the handicapping of the horse-racing. By this is meant the adjusting of the weights at the meetings wheie Mr Heniys is unabV to dot." Anothei cause ot complaint is that .\lr .Shannon does not treat the runnels when he meets them at the sports meeting with the courtesy they desire. The letter goes on — We now proceed to criticise his handicapping from the losers' points of view r — from this standpoint your remarks were certainly not made." [That is so. I only wished to show why certain runners should not lia^-e signed the piotest — TOUCHLINE.] When Mr Shannon started handicapping he gave C. Han cox 10yds m 100 at the Eight Hours Sports. 1900. Hancox ran third, and at Horowhenua w here he next entered, he was put on the back mark — ovds and at Johnsonville the same year he was similarly treated. Did lie have a chance in the two latter events, when his showing m the. first one is fairly considered 9 J Pike, off 9yds, could not get a place at the Eight Hours meeting yet he was brought back to syds at the Johnsonville outing. At Feilding, on Boxing Day, D Wareham was given Byds in 120. Now, Wareham did not get among the first three off the same mark at Feilding two years before, and the scratch man on that occasion was not as good a man as

McLachlan. After his run at Feilding, Wareham also competed unrfucceßsfully at both the St. Patrick's Day and Druids' Sports. 'Collins did not win a hundred yards' race for nearly two seasons — the only success he had being in very meagre company. Yet, Mr. Shannon only assessed him as a 7yds worse man than McLachlan, and syds worse than Somers. Coinpaie Collins with E. Dixon, of Masterton. The latter was given 11yds and 9yds off the same men. Yet, he had won two sprints m the Wairarapa in January 1901, and ran second off 7yds at the Eight Hours Sports, besides winning the Forced Handicap. "R. Digbv one of our youngest runners a mere lad, and one who has not vet won his first race, was put back 2yds from limit on New Year's Day. The reason for such a course is hard to discover. Absolutely the worst, though is the case of C. Morris. This runner won the 100 yds off 10yds last Eight Hours Day, and was r>ut back to the oyds mark at Foxton, Somers being on the mark. Morris did not win, and, for being unplaced, was put back another yard over the 120 yds at Feilding." The next paragraph of the letter, in the present state of the libel law, it would not be wise for me to publish, but I agree with the writers that the tactics adopted on the occasion referred to do not reflect the greatest credit on those who pursued them. ' T. Atkinson, you say, is not known as a runner here. Sir, if you look back your files you will see that not so very long ago he ran at several North Island meetings, and had every intention of starting again, but has decided to await the advent of a new handicapper." If that is a good reason for Atkinson signing the protest lam satisfied. Yet strange to say, I think a man ought to give a sports body a nomination before foie he objects to one of its officers. The same reasons are given for J. McNabs continued retirement, but truth to tell, I think "Jim" is like myself— on the shelf for all time as far as open competitions are concerned. Another argument is that Mr. Shannon's handicapping caused R. Gilchnst to retire. Well, that is news, indeed. From what I know of that runner, he was never given his ri^ht mark : in fact, he was always dissatisfied with the starts he had to give away. And my correspondents know it, too. These last three — Atkinson, McNab, and Gilchrist — do not help the case of the cash runners at all, and an offer to supply further criticism on the handicapping is accepted, provided that the cases quoted are those of men who have been giving regular contributions to sports bodies since Mr. Shannon started handicapping. My statement that cash meetings are not too popular is combatted, and with a deal of success too, for the following figures are given — Eight Hours, 5000 people present Dunedui Caledonian, 16 000 two days, Oamaru. 9000 first da\ Timaru. 8500 two days. When these figures are compared with the 5000 piesent at the Amateur Championship meeting at Auckland the other day, the inference undoubtedly is that cash running is the more popular with the public. A good argument used is that the runners themselves, who have to pay such heavy nomination and acceptance fees, should have a say in the appointment of the handioapper. With this I am in accord, but to mv idea the correct course to obtain that concession is not being pursued on the present, occasion. The real crux of the whole matter lies in the concluding paragraph of the letter before me. 'We know of a far superior man, who has had a running career. .... He only recently gave general satisfaction in the framing of a longdistance handicap " Now , I am quite prepared to admit that the gentleman referred to here has all the qualifications that go to make a good handioapper, but with me, at the present time, before being "off with the old love, and on with the new," good and sufficient reasons must be shown before I will throw the old one over.