ANCIENT RACING SCANDALS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15521, 31 January 1914, Page 5

ANCIENT RACING SCANDALS.

who focus opinions always on the present regularly go about shouting that the scandals of to-day" (says an English writer) "in racing are worse than ever. But there always were scandals, and I think we are moderate now compared with

ather times. Some of the ancient ran

would stagger the young man of to-day. I was recently looking through a copy of the Sporting Review of 1839, and the first thing that caught my eyes was an article by the

editor, entitled 'The Crisis of Engl

Racing.' He affirmed that' the game was going to the dogs owing to increasing | scandals. In that year the Derby-winner was objected to on an allegation that hoi was a four-year-old, and some heavy losers tried to get the Oaks heroine disqualified on a technical point. Aristocratic owners also made books for obvious-looking winners of big races, and then scratched their horses at the last moment. A month prior to Doncaster a notice was posted in the subscription rooms at Tattersall's to the effect that Elis (a prominent colt) would not run for the St. Leger, nor bo sent north at all, unless, in the first instance, the odds to £1200 could be got on at 12 to 1 against. The owner was duly accommodated, and Elis ran in and won the Leger. I also note a Jockey Club communication declaring that bet* over a mure named Pauline should not be paid, as the owner admitted that he ordered the jockey to lose the race at old Hampton—the Hurst Park of to-day— to prevent his mare being claimed. I can trace nothing happening to the owner. Yes, my masters, we might live in worse racing times 1" It is not considered infra dig. to make an amateur book in England, I but evidently the proprietary clubs are not in favour of it, as a recent cablegram to I hand from London shows: —"A proposal of j the executives of the Kempton Park, Sandown Park, Gatwick, and Hurst Park Racing Clubs to prevent amateur bookmaking outside Tattersall's enclosures has caused a dilemma. Amateur bookmakers declare that their expulsion will be tantamount to an admission that the executives permit betting within a specified area, and they will therefore bo liable to an anti-gambling prosecution."