RACING REFORM

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7020, 7 January 1910, Page 10

RACING REFORM

(To the Editor N.Z. Times.") Sir, —“An Advocate of Reform,” writing from Foxton in connection with what he terms “ the inconsistent running of horses on New Zealand racecourses,” makes some sweeping assertions, some of which may bo warranted by recent turf doings; but when he writes that “a race run on its merits is as rare as feathers on a frog,” he obviously allows his zeal to outrun his discretion. I cannot, of course, vouch for what takes place on the Foxton racecourse, but 1 have no hesitation in declaring that ninety-nine out of every hundred race-goers can, if required, come forward and most emphatically combat your Foxton correspondent’s rash assertion. That some horses are not ridden to win, especially at provincial meetings, cannot be disputed. Few people, however, attribute such tactics to our owners of racehorses in a general way. Unfortunately for racing, there are some unprincipled individuals who acquire racehorses, more often as lessees than as owners. These men connive with their jockeys and. with bookmakers, and race their horses in whichever manner is most profitable. This class of owner has no scruples whatever, and when he and his clique manage to hoodwink racing officials and handicappers, they appear very proud of their cleverness. That such occurrences should take place in broad daylight, with a number of racing stcivards looking oh, is surprising until the racing experience and knowledge of such stewards are taken into consideration. The “clever” racing division are shrewd enough to confine their corrupt practices to courses where they feel sanguine that the lack of racing experience on the part of the officials will admit of their nefarious doings being overlooked. On the ' opening day of a recent meeting the stewards’ attention was drawn to the peculiar manner in which a horse was ridden. Had expert racing men taken the matter in hand after witnessing the race, a decision would at once have been arrived at. The result, however, was that after many adjournments,; those who are entrusted with the supervision of the racing appeared unable to trust their own eyes, and what was really a simple question of fact has not yet been determined. “ An Advocate of Reform ” rightly states that. “ the need for the stipendiary steward increases.” Had competent men been asked to give a verdict in connection with the occurrence under notice, there would have been no occasion for any delay, and justice would have been meted out to those under suspicion forthwith. I witness as much racing as anyone .in the Dominion, and unhesitatingly declare that such cries as “Are they on it?” and “Is he a trier?” only emanate from ignorant persons who measure others’ corn by their own bushel. The honest racegoer attributes nothing unclean to the reputable owner or jockey, and why should men holding good social positions-be even suspected of desiring their own horses to lose rather than win? The stakes in most instances are worth winning, and unless it is assumed that such owners are in league with bookmakers to bet against their horses, they gain nothing by racing their horses to lose. Then, again, are we to assume that reputable racing men place their ‘ reputations the care of jockeys, who in most instances are only casually employed by them? Such suspicions can only originate in a disordered brain, and are absolutely without the slightest foundation.—X am, etc., , OLD SPORT. January 6th.