PURITY OF THE TURF.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15663, 17 July 1914, Page 8

PURITY OF THE TURF.

BETTING WITH BOOKMAKERS.

OWNERS FORBIDDEN.

DECISION OF CONFERENCE

[BY TELEGRAPH. ASSOCIATION.]

Wellington, Thursday. One of the most important decisions that has ever been arrived at by New Zealand Racing Conferences was reached to-day, when it adopted a rule preventing owners betting with bookmakers. "The position of New Zealand in tho world of racing is absolutely unique," said Sir George Clifford, during his presidential address. "Elsewhere bookmakers are an acknowledged part of the machine. Here they are banned from courses. Their dealings are unacknowledged and mostly illegal, but a rer.ir-int of their influence is undeniably pernicious. The privilege conceded to racing clubs of using tho total;.sator implies a duty on our part to exert ourselves strenuously to curtail illicit operations and to minimise in this and every other respect whatever may tend to impair the confidence of the public in the purity of racing. You cannot hunt with the hare and run with the hounds, and I have uo symathy with those who accept from tho Legislature the benefits of the totalisator and shatter what ie at any rate the spirit of tho law by fcraffiickuig with bookmakers. Sportsmanlike owners realise that danger of outside interference with their chances of success, which is the natural outcome of heavy betting. Mercenary ones may well bo saved from the delusive pursuit of an imaginary road to fortune. Elevation of Racing. " If tho New Zealand rules can be altered to debar owners as well as trainers and jockeys from speculating outside the totalisator, it will achieve the ambition of this conference by giving racing an elevation which we can without presumption claim as an example to the world. la return the Legislature might well remove tho vexatious or ridiculous fetters such as undue limitation of permits, in this scattered community." " Unthinking people are apt to regard the volume of totalizator investments as an evil. We, on the contrary, hail it £fi a tribute to the excellence of the sport and to the public confidence in its increased purity. It lurther testifies that we have succeeded in speculation from less innocent channels. My definition of a gambler" is one who unjustifiably squanders money or time which his duty binds him to spend otherwise." When the remits were being considered. Sir Georgo Clifford moved that the following new rule bo addeQ to Part XVI.: —" By the entering of a horse, every person having, or subsequently acquiring, an interest in such horse ( shall be deemed thereby to undertake, neither ,directly nor indirectly, to make any wager with a bookmaker in connection with such horse or any other horse in the race in which such horee is so entered." Aiding the Law. Sir George said that "this was by far Iho most important resolution that had been submitted. It was most desirable that they should do everything to show that they complied with the law in spirit and in Act. If among themselves they tolerated betting with bookmakers, and permitted those, subject to the control of the conference to do it, there might be very fair room for complaint that the conference was not acting as it should do in the direction of assisting the Government to suppress the evils which the Government thought it was most desirable they should legislate against. They all knew it was a ' moat serioua obstacle to the purity of of the turf when jockeys and trainers, and other people connected with the turf were liable to be influenced by market considorations and by those outside the scope of ordinary turf operations, who had no legitimate interest in what was going on. He knew that the objection would pro-; bably bo raised that they could not control the general public and, therefore, there was no reason why they should control owners, who were providing the sport. The general public were controlled and limited in operation by act of Parliament, which made certain restrictions.

The Spirit of the Act. The conference should go further and show that it was determined, as far as possible, to obey.the spirit of the Act. and deal with those whom they controlled It would be of advantage to owners themselves. Owners should set an example to refrain from speculations outside the totalisator, which gave the best—and certainly the most circumscribed—means of investment, and the public would know that owners had no ulterior motives and no reason other than running straight on the day of the race. Mr. E. W. Alison opposed the motion. Fe said he did not think they could prevent betting with bookmakers. The conference would find that owners would bet and set the rule at defiance; therefore, it would become worthless. If the Act would not prevent betting with bookmakers, the n a rule of racing would not do it, and they did not want to encourage owners to be deceptive. Sir George McLean, Messrs. Vavasour, Samuel, and Hugo Friedlander supported the motion.

Mr. Buckley thought the motion was going too far and would only lead to trickery and deception. Veneer and a Sham. In reply Sir George Clifford said that if the conference did not carry the motion the delegates would be guilty of the greatest hypocrisy, and a great deal of their expressed desire for purifying the turf would be more or less a veneer and a sham. ' It was absolutely necessary they should do something to convince the people that they, the guardians o* racing and the representatives of tho clubs, were unanimous to put down abuses. Of all abuses he knew of betting by owners, trainers, and jockeys was the greatest and most dangerous. They had been warned by the Government not to allow it, and they looked to the conference for assistance. It was said the conference could not.catch the owners. Moral Obligation. He hoped there would be no necessity for if they passed the resolution they would be imposing a moral obligation on owners, and among honourable men that would be far more serious than being caught like schoolboys. That moral obligation would restrain them and would have an effect on the public generally. The public would follow the example of the owners, and it would be a help to get rid of the parasites who were in their midst. He hoped that the motion woud be carried, and prominent clubs would not vote in a way that would be so deleterious to the interests of racing. The motion was carried bv 29 to 4 It was afterwards decided that it' be an instruction to licensing bodies to require from all licensed trainers and lookers an undertaking neither directly nor indirectly to make any wager with a bookmaker while so licensed.