TURF GOSSIP.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1202, 15 March 1895, Page 23

TURF GOSSIP.

By “ Gipsy King.” THE STARTING AT THE MANAWATU MEETING. As there has been mush discussion in racing circles anent the starting at the Manawatu Autumn Meeting, at which I was present, I am in a position to write a few particulars about what took place in connection with the introduction of the starting machine on the second day. On the first day the starting was performed satisfactorily by Mr E. Woods with the flag, but Mr Murtagh having arrived with his “patent portable starting machine” (a description of which was given last week), the club, to keep up with the times, decided to have a trial of the apparatus at the conclusion of the races on the first day. The trial duly took place, and was considered satisfactory enough to cause the stewards to decide that the machine would be used for the first race, and if it proved satisfactory it would be used throughout the day. On the second day it was placed in position to start the horses for the Fitzherbert Stakes, of seven furlongs. The horses were given a trial first, and all but one got away pretty well together; then they were lined up for the start, standing about twelve or eighteen inches from the “net barrier.” The official starter gave the word “Go” and touched the lever simultaneously, but Zanella, who. bounded off the mark quickly, caught the net before it had got clear away, and some portion of her bridle catching in the meshes of the net, the latter was carried away; but, being made of very fine twite, no damage was done. King’s Bowman and The Shrew jumped round, and of course lost several lengths. A large crowd had gathered at the starting-post, and for a time we did not exactly know what' had gone wrong. The inventor says the starter did not let the lever go ; but that can hardly be correct, .as the end of the net at the opposite side to the lever went up, but through Zanella’s bridle being caught in it ou the same side as the lever, it prevented that side going up. The inventor can only assume that the lever was not released, as he was on the opposite side of the course to the starter, and directly the horses moved off it was impossible for him to see the starter until they had passed. I was close by the starter, but when he gave the signal to go I could not see -Mr Murtagh on the other side. My opinion is that the horses were too close to the net, and as it goes straight up, it is necessary for the horses to be placed about half a length away from the barrier. With Crawford’s or Gray’s machines, the action of? the barrier is different, and the horses dan almost touch the tapes with their nose, and there is no fear of catching the tapes once. they are released by the lever.

This was a most regrettable occurrence, as to sensible people, especially those who had seen the other starting machines, it was plainly seen that Mr Murtagh’s patent is a most ingenious contrivancer’”’Ho wever,the stewards felt that the machine,' perhaps, had not received a fair test, and it was placed in position to start the Second Hack Flat, Handicap, and the, field were despatched on even terms, although the advantages of the machine were, not thoroughly tested, as the horses were, too far away from the “ net.” The machine was again used in the High Weight Handicap and Consolation Handicap, and performed its work satisfactorily, although, through want of previous experience with starting machines, the official starter had the horses too far back, and in the Consolation Handicap lie was standing in front of the horses, who were moving about,, arid, by arrangement, when he said “ Go,” Mr Murtagh released the lever. I am sorry to say that a considerable amount of illfeeling was imported into the discussion as to whether the patentee of the machine had received fair play. Mr Murtagh was loud in his denunciation of the official starter, especially after the start for the Fitzherbert Stakes, which should not have been permitted'; and, writing to the Manawatu Standard, says that the starter viewed 'his patent “ with ah unfriendly eye.” This thinly veils a) more direct insinuation. I have known Mr Woods for many years in his capacity as official starter for a number of racing clubs in the Manawatu .and Rangitikei districts, and lie has always carried out his duties strictly and impartially, and until proved to the contrary his friends and many. like myself who know him officially will never believe that lie could be guilty of purposely trying to damage Mr Murtagh’s invention in the eyes of the public. Mr Woods could, have no ulterior motive in acting in such a selfish manner, as even if the’machine wore adopted he would still be retained as .starter. There was some little misunderstanding as to whether the starting machine sliould have been used to start the horses in the Autumn Handicap, and after this race had been decided a meeting of the stewards was held, and it was decided, in deference to some of the horse owners who were not aware when nominating that a starting machine would be used, that it should not be used any more that day, but that. Mr Murtagh should be given an opportunity during the week of trying the machine with the horses training on the Manawatu’ course. The starter heard this resolution passed, but when he mingled with the crowd outside he heard insinuations passed that he was trying .to make the apparatus a non-success, and in the face of the resolution, and jeopardising his position as starter, he allowed the starting machine to be used again, so as to • prove as well as he could that he was not viewing the machine with an “ unfriendly eye.” The plain facts are,, judging by “ocular demonstration,” that the official starter; never having seen a starting- machine before, did nut quite get the “hang” of things, consequently what mistakes were

made were clue to want of knowledge of the patent, and not to “malice aforethought.” Mr Murtagh claims, and rightly so f think, that his patent did riot receive a fair trial. On the day of the races he asked for permission to work the machine himself, but this request was declined by the stewards. Messrs Ellis (Gray’s patent) and Crawford claimed the same privilege when they exhibited their starting machines on the Hutt Park racecourse, but their claim was not entertained, and in this conclusion I thirik the Wellington Club were right, because if any patent is so intricate that it requires the inventor or his representative to work it, its usefulness is not apparent. Besides, the official starters have to become accustomed to these innovations, and the sooner they make themselves conversant with the working of thenl the better it is for all concerned. If an official starter fails to have the horses in line and releases the lever, and the field get away in a straggling order, that is no fault of the starting machine, and the British public have sufficient discernment to know upon whom to lay the blame in such cases.

DISPERSAL OF ST. ALBANS STUD. The announcement that Mr W. R. Wilson, the well-known Victorian sportsman, was retiring from the turf came as a surprise, especially to many of us who have cherished the idea that the St. Albans horses have been having more than an ordinary share of luck. However, it appears that Mr Wilson’s mining interests in Western Australia require all his attention, and in deciding to dispose of the farfamed stud, Mr Wilson has selected what I may term a most popular way of disposing of the estate and the horses by placing the matter in the hands of Mr George Adams, of “ Tattersall ” consultation fame, who has been engaged to arrange a monster “art union” or “distribution,” and the drawing will take place in the presence of subscribers and the public at Brisbane, Queensland, as soon as the “ Grand Distribution ” is filled. As many New Zealanders will be glad to avail themselves of the opportunity of probably being lucky enough to win one or more of the valuable prizes, I will quote the prospectus : 125,000 Tickets, of £1 each; divided into 130 ; ■ prizes, as follow The St. Albans Estate, consisting of 842 acres The stallions Trenton, Eiridsford (imp.), Robinson Crusoe, Bill of Portland (imp.), and Strathmore 57 thoroughbred brood mares i 10 racehorses, including Carnage, Havoc, Wallace, Steadfast, Bradford, Nada, Dillon and other good performers 9 selected thoroughbred yearlings 31 thoroughbred foals 7 draught fillies Four-in-hand team chestnuts (late Lord Onslow’s) French drag and harness American buggy Four-wheeled dogcart Dairy herd (about 40) Many purebred Alderneys &c., &c. Forms of application may be obtained from George Adams, Telegraph Chambers, Brisbane. LINDSAY’S DISQUALIFICATION.

It was expected that the Hawke’s Bay scribes would make a fuss about the disqualification of Lindsay for two months at the Manawatu Meeting, and like the Wellington correspondent of an Auckland contemporary, they are quite sure there has been a “miscarriage of justice,” and that the “ wrong man has been hanged.”

If these scribes had been at the races they would then no doubt be competent to give an opinion as to whether the stewards were right in their action. But there are cynical and ill-natured people in the Colony who will be prepared to accept the views of those who were present at the meeting, in preference to the opinion of the aforesaid scribes, who were very probably awaiting the result of the race which Wheriko did not win. Of course it is extremely unlucky for any jockey, if the stewards of a race meeting are distributed at different parts of the course, and when they compare notes, after a race, they find they are unanimous in their opinion that the jockey they have been watching has been steering his mount in an erratic manner. It is lather a singular coincidence that the last time the Manawatu Racing- Club had to confer the “ order ” of disqualification it was upon a Hawke’s Bay owner, jockey and horse for not being anxious to win. It was all a mistake, as the jockey did not know he was so close to the judge’s box and steward’s stand when lie was tugging at the animal’s head; but the Hawke’s Bay scribes (who as usual were not at the meeting) were quite certain the Manawatu stewards should never have even suspected any Hawke’s Bay owner, jockey or horse. Judging by the press notices, Mr Douglas appears be dreadfully “ cut-up ” about the disqualification of his horseman, and has decided to give up racing, which does not exactly agree with Mr Douglas’ statement to the stewards at the Manawatu Meeting. When Mi Douglas was informed that he and liis trainer had been exonerated from any complicity in the erratic running of Wheriko* he said lie would be glad if that were made public, as he. intended taking some horses to Australia shortly, adding- that he would not like his many friends over there to think he had been mixed up in any turf misconduct. Mr Douglas may be perfectly satisfied with Lindsay’s riding, but with all due deference to Mr Douglas as an honest sportsman and liorseowner, the opinion is that the Manawatu stewards know just as much, and perhaps more, about the actual running- in a race on their own course than Mr Douglas does. Personally, I regret to hear of anyone being punished in any way, but I

think, when the stewards of a racing' club are doing their best to prevent crooked running, arid take every precaution to avfert a. “ miscarriage of justice/'’ t think they should at least have the confidence of the sporting press. I am sorry for Lindsay, especially when there are so many meetings to be decided, as he would have had several mounts at each meeting.

CURTAILMENT OF RACING,

“ Mazeppa ” of the Otago Witness in a friendly way traverses the arguments I adduced iri writing on the above subject recently. He rerriafks that I stated a case from the Premier’s side. Tli'rit was certainly rot my intention. My object was to prove, as far as possible, that “ some of the racing clubs” who are recommended for disbandriierit by the Racing Conference “ have a good case to submit to the Premier/’ Ido not even anticipate what the Premier will do when the first ease is stated to him'. “ Mazeppa ” ivishes to know “ why should it be admitted that the Conference were partial in effecting reductions.” From a reliable source (one of the delegates) I learnt that there was a lot of “ pricking the card ” business, and in seveial instances it was purely a question of “you vote for m}' club and I will vote for yours,” and this was a noticeable feature of the Marton Conference. Everyone felt that the Racing Conference had an unpleasant duty to perform, and that it was imperative that the number of totalisator licenses had to be reduced, but if the.. Conference had wanted to tackle the subject thoroughly, why did they not select say half a dozen clubs over and above the number of clubs they intended to reduce, and request each'of these clubs to furnish the Conference with a balance-sheet, say for a period of three years, or even more if desirable, also a statement showing the buildings, etc., erected for the convenience and comfort of the public, horse-owners, etc., and then, in preference, allow those clubs to remain that could show the best results. That, 1 venture to say, would have been the most impartial way to deal with the subject. Writing re the granting of totalisator licenses, I remarked:—“Notwithstanding

the resolutions of the Racing Conference, the Colonial Secretary still has full control. Shortly a case is to be staged to the Premier, arid if the recommendation of the Conference is quietly set on one side those that comprised the last conference will have only themselves to blame for not instituting a representative racing club, such as the New Zealand Turf Council would h«ve been, instead of the patchy district racing committees/which are neither one thing nor the other.”

To this “ Mazeppa ” says: —“Down in Otago, and in other parts of the Colony, the feeling'is pretty general that the Conference, as at present constituted, ia just as effective for all purposes as a New Zealand Jockey Club would be 5 and to say that the Premier, who would override the Conference, which is fully representative of the whole Colony, would have stayed his hand and doffed his cap to the same body had it chosen to assume a grander title, is—well, rather difficult to understand. What value can be attached to a name or title in a democracy ?” 1 am well aware that one title is as good as another as far as that goes, but I hardly think that “ Mazeppa ” can claim that a “ representative racing club for the Colony ” has been established in terms of clause 7 of the Gaming Act, 1894. If such club or council (or whatever title you please) were established, the “ President ” (vide clause 7) would have hack the control of issuing totalisator licenseslrand then there could have been no appeal from the decision of Ihe Racing Conference, as they would have had the business in their own hands. However, the opportunity was missed. In connection with this matter, I notice it has been stated that the Premier has granted a license to the Town and Suburban Club. This information is rather premature, as a special license has not yet been granted to this club.

“ WHEN DOCTORS DIFFER, &c.”

A few years ago the Turakina Jockey Club had on their programme a “ Maiden Plate " (on the flat) “for all horses that had never won an advertised race at time of nomination " This particular race was won by Colonel (Cap-a-pie—Candour), the second horse being Donald (Patriarch —Flora McDonald). A protest was lodged by the owner of Donald against the stakes and dividend going to Colonel, on the grounds that Colonel had won a race (Hack Hurdles) previous to the date of nomination. There was much discussion, amongst the stewards at the time, as to whether the conditions of the race could debar the winner of a hurdle race from starting, as such an animal was virtually a “maiden ” on the flat. However, the s ewards decided that they could not get away from the conditions of the race —as stated above—and the race was awarded to Donald. The owner of Colonel appealed against this decision to the Wanganui Jockey Club, and the latter body decided that Colonel was entitled to the race, not exactly because he was a ma’den on theflat, but for the reason that the Turakina Jockey Club had no right to tack on any extra amendments, as it wore, to the Rules of Racing, by calling the race a “ Maiden Plate,” and then adding that the race was “ for all horses that had never won an advertised race at time of nomination.’' In their decision the Wanganui Jockey Club were right, as without this condition Colonel was eligible for the race according to the rule book definition of a “ maiden, ’ which reads as follows : “ Rule 4.—A * maiden ’ means a horse which has never won an advertised plate or sweepstakes on the flat. ' The Rules of Racing do not give a racing club any power to add any conditions to a race the meaning for which is already provided in the rules. However, the Turakina Jockey Club considered that the conditions of the race precluded Colonel from obtaining the stakes, and refused to pay the stakes to the owner of Colonel, notwithstanding the ruling of the district Metropolitan Club.

The case caused considerable discussion in sporting circles in the Wanganui district at

the time, opinions being evenly divided!. But backed up by the decision of the Metropolitan Club the owner of Colonel sued the Turakina Club for the stakes which had heera awarded to Donald, and after a lengthybearing the presiding magistrate agreed with the ruling of the Wanganui Jockey Club r and gave judgment for the owner of the Colonel. Now here ia a similar case with a different decision. At tho Danevirke Meeting one event on the programme was a “ Maiden Race./” (race and plate are synonymous) “ for all horses that have never won public money.” Brooklet won this event, Starlight being the second horse. It appears that Brooklet had secured second money in a race at Woodville, and the owner of Starlight claimed the stakes for the Maiden Race at Danevirke on the grounds that Brooklet had won public money. The Danevirke Club,- be it said to their credit, impounded the money invested -oa Brooklet and Starlight on the totalisator,;. and referred the matter to the Metropolitan drab for the district—the Hawke's Bay Jockey Club—and the latter body .decided that ritarfigbt was entitled tc the stakes. If it were not permissible for the Tnrakina Jockey Club to ssmend the meaning of a race as provided for in the Rules of Racing, it appears inconsistent that the Danevirke Club should have that privilege ? There is orie conclusion that may be formed; from the decision of the Hawke’s Bay Jockey Club, and that is t'krit the Metropolitan Club» are unreliable as a “ court of appeal.” IS there had been a “representative turf institution ” for the Colony, the decision of the Wanganui magistrate would have been recorded, and could have been referred to aa a precedent. If a Turf Council for the whole of the Colony, composed of men who have given considerable thought to the better government of the turf# and have made some study of the Rules of Racing,, were elected on the same lines as our legislative Councillors, their decisions would be recorded in the same way as is done in the law courts, which would prevent a similar exhibition of inconr sistency as mentioned above, and certainly ' inspire more confidence, j It does not appear necessary, to me, thafe ’ Such turf governing body should be composed I of men who are members or executive officers' of racing clubs," as there will be found men | (for example, the principal haudicappers 1 and sporting writers of the Colony) who by. reason of their professions are daily brought in contact with the intricacies of our racing law.