THE BOOKMAKER

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8483, 18 July 1913, Page 11

THE BOOKMAKER

HORSE OWNERS AND BETTING ’ f DISCUSSED BY RACING CONFERENCE. The. question of owners and persona having an interest in a raoeliorso betting with bookmakers was discussed at some length by. the new Zealand Racing Conference yesterday. The chairman (Sir George Clifford/ moved that the following new rule be added to nart XV i.: —“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 in the race in which such horse is so entered."

Sir George Clifford said that the conference, had to take the greatest care to comply with the laws of the country and do everything in their, power to purify the snort of racing. Nearly everything which had acted to the detriment of racing had originated from the bootmaker. As soon as they were debarred from the racecourse public support to racing clubs largely increased. It was his firm conviction that the dubs should show they were absolutely in earnest to free the sport entirely, of the incubus which still In a diminished manner tried to influence it. Mr E. R. Guinness seconded the motion and endorsed the chairman’s remarks. He thought that if the proposal was carried it would be a great benefit to all closes in the Dominion, WOULD RAISE THE STANDARD.

The Hon. O. Samuel , said he had very much pleasure ip supporting the motion, which was no mere formal resolution. It was one of the most important motions they could pass, and one that would raise tho standard of the sport. Mr E. W. Alison said that the law was that no bookmakers should exist* but was this not broken even by many members of the conference? The law could not be effectually carried out, and if the conference carried the proposal he wanted to kuoiv what the effect would be. Racing men throughout the Dominion would break the law. and do it in such ’ a , way- that they could not be got at. They would break a rule of racing which they considered was arbitrary and had no ri-ht to be passed by the conference. If tho rule was passed it would be resented very strongly by owners in Now Zealand.. They were going too fair, and if the rule was passed it was not going to purify racing one iota. ' , Mr Nolan said ho was very strongly In. favour of the motion. "TOO DRASTIC."

Mr Hazlett was against the proposal, tor he teit it was too drastic. The conference, however, had done wonders in purifying the sport, and he hoped it would continue its good work. Passing the motion seemed too much like interfering with the liberty of the subject. He wanted to know why the conference should make an “outlaw” of decent people who thought it was no harm to take a double. ljr Vavasour: What penalty would a parson incur if he breaks this rule? The chairman: No doubt it would be disqualification. Mr Vavasour said it was a move in the right direction, for they wanted to eliminate the influence of bootmakers from racing. It had been the policy of the conference for years oast to suppress the bookmaker, and this would do a great deal towards it. He thought it was a stop in the right direction. Mr Speed opposed the motion on the ground that it would increase opposition to the totalisator more than ever. A largo number of small owners liked te have a bet with bookmakers, ami

did not want to encourage those opposed to the totalisator more than they could help. Mr Budge said that he did not bet with bookmakers, but he did not think this rule would have any effect at al' while some good man in the racing world would perhaps bo disqualified under it, Mr Friedlander said that he could no 4 see what objections there were to the proposed rule. If it was not going to have the desired eSect what harm could it have ? There must be some reason why members opposed it. He thought the conference should do everything possible to suppress the bookmakers, and if any owner made a bet with a bookmaker he would have to stand the risk and th© penalties of. the rule. The law prohibited the bookmaker, and he would like the conference to follow this up with the rule. AN EXAGGERATED IDEA, Mr McVay said he entirely supported the motion, and would Tike to see it carried. Some of the members had ■ an exaggerated feeling of what would result if it was carried. They should endeavour to support the law, which was against the bookmaker. Mr Friedlander: The legitimate way

of betting is through the totalisaror. V. ■ aro here to represent clubs who enjuv tho totahsator, and it is our duty to <■'< revenue through the machine. Mr Alison : I want to make ft perfectly clear that sltice the law has been altered I have not had a wager on any race with a bookmaker. Mr Hunter said the motion went iu tho right direction, but ho was sor ■ hear that members of the conference bet with bookmakers. No doubt Mr Alison spoke on the spur of tho moment. Mr Alison: No, I didn't speak on the spur of the moment. Mr Hunter: Well, it is our dub- t< stop it. The chairman said that he brought forward this motion because be considered it bis duty to try and extirpate the I:i«t element of an evil that had hampered the finest sport in the world. In New Zealand they had purified the spoil, aim ho considered it was far ahead of racing nearly everywhere else. They had cot so far that they had banished the bookmaker from their courses, for legislation had rendered his operations illegal. The conference would not be doing thenduty if they did not enforce that wise Act which checked his operations. H there were members of the conference dealing with bookmakers then it was all tho more reason that these restrictions should be placed on them. TTiey could only hope to continue this sport bv carrying it on under pure conditionThey would have a much larger number of supporters if they entirely suppressed the bookmaker. He was not asking the members of the conference to pose as purists. He thought double betting was the curse of racing in New Zealand, and he was surprised any voices should have been raised in opposition to t!r motion ho proposed. The motion was lost, tho voting beimr: For 17. against 10. It had to bo carried by a three-quarter majority to become law