THE REHANDICAP ISSUE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23108, 6 February 1937, Page 21

THE REHANDICAP ISSUE

WHICH PROGRAMME COUNTS? There has been a considerable amount of argument over whether Mr A. L. Canter, the handicapper for the Dunedin Jockey Club, was within his rights in rehandicapping Martara for the Dunedin Cup after his win in the Taranaki Cup, consequently the following article, from the Evening Post, should be read with a great deal of interest: — The position that has arisen concerning whether or not horses who win after the declaration of handicaps may be rehandicapped for the Dunedin Jockey Club's autumn meeting next week has an interesting genesis, and it also illustrates how things that have previously been may continue for some time to be accepted as such, without further consideration or inquiry. Under a reasonable interpretation of the Rules of Racing it is very doubtful if horses engaged next week may be given any rehandicap for success at the current Taranaki meeting or at the Canterbury Jockey Club's meeting on Saturday. Until two years ago programme.* for Dunedin meetings, when advertised as required under rule 235 of the Rules or Racings, always included a condition as follows:—" Winners after declaration of weights are liable to rehandicap." Following this short paragraph was another long paragraph, commencing: "Rule 256 (1) By the entering of a horse for any race, every person .. ." Twelve months ago both these paragraphs were deleted from the advertised programme, which was apparently being abridged to bare necessary requirements, and they have been omitted from all subsequent programmes.

Apparently it was the intention to delete only the paragraph commencing "Rule 256 . . "; and it was by accident only that the two-line paragraph dealing with liability to rehandicap was also taken out of the advertised programme. It was fairly clearly jn accident, for the hand card of the programmes distributed to owners and trainers likely to be interested still contained the full particulars and conditions as previously and rehandicaps have been declared as usual during the past 12 months and accepted by owners whose horses have incurred them in ordinary course. At the autumn meeting 12 months ago, for instance, Arctic Star, Concertpitch and The Surgeon were all rehandicapped for winning at Riccarton the previous Saturday. Concertpitch and The Surgeon both started on the first day with their extra weight and Concertpitch won, while The Surgeon ran third. It now seems quite probable that neither Concertpitch nor The Surgeon were legitimately rehandicapped. The same position prevailed at the club's last winter, spring and summer meetings.

Now that the omission in the advertised programme has been noticed, the point requires settling whether winners during the next few days may be properly rehandicapped. It the advertised programme be accepted as the official programme, then no power has been reserved by the club to impose rehandicaps. and there is no rule of racing that gives such power. In other words, a horse may be rehandicapped for a win subsequent to the declaration of weights only if there is a special condition permitting this in the official programme. At a Hawke's Bay meeting held six years ago at Trentham. as an example, Kozan was able to start again in the last race after winning the second race on the card without a penalty for his first win. because a rehandiqap condition had been omitted from the programme, and he duly completed the double. In this case the condition was omitted from both the hand card sent out to owners, etc., and from the advertised programme.

There is a conflict in the case now under consideration between the hand card and the advertised programme, in one of which there is the condition and from the other of which it is omitted. Undoubtedly all owners who have nominated horses for Dunedin hava had a copy of the hand card sent to them. But if the advertised programme is accepted, as it is believed it must, be, as the official programme, then the club is probably stopped from asserting that in spite of the omission owners were well informed that the club meant a rehandicap condition to apply It is necessary at this stage to consider what the Rules of Racing have to say on the position. Rule 235 is:— The approved programme of every meeting at which the totalisator is to be used . . . shall, together with the approval of the District Committee, be advertised in full. once at least in the Official Calendar, and such advertisement shall state the dates on which the meeting is to begin and end, the names of the judge, starter, clerk of scales, handicapper, and secretary, and any special conditions not appearing in these rules.

Under the preceding rule (rule 234, 1) no approved programme, or any of the conditions thereof, except in respect of stakes in division races, may be altered by the club or any official of the club without the permission of the District Committee.

The Dunedin programmes during the last 12 months have been approved as they have appeared and still appear in the hand card. Such programmes have been lodged with the New Zealand Racing Conference and so this point needs no disputing. But the programmes have not been advertised in full as required by rule 235 and the advertisements have also not complied with the later portion of that rule, enjoining that "such advertisement shall state . any special conditions not apnearing in these rules."

By what programme is the club now bound? If it was a matter affecting its own immediate interests, then it might be held that the club was bound by the originally-approved programme, even though an important condition had been omitted in the publication subsequently in the official racing organ. But as against owners who have entered their horses, the club is apparently to be bound by the programme that has been advertised as reauired by the Rules of Racing, for it is on the programmes that are advertised in the Official Calendar that owners map out the campaigns for their horses, and clubs should clearly be stopped from claiming that owners might have known more than appears in the advertised programmes if they had sent for the hand cards or made inquiries

from the district committees concerned about the programmes as actually approved. The rule of racing is explicit that the full programme as approved shall be advertised as directed, and that'any condition such as a condition for rehandicap or penalty shall be stated in the advertisement. An owner who knows. his rules would not thus be concerned to look beyond the advertised programme, for it is practically made unnecessary to do so by the rules, and therefore if there ' is' an error or omission in the advertised programme, especially one that is not obvious on its face, it should be the advertised programme and not ' t .any brochure or approval in conclave that is acted upon. A club may not even make any alteration after publication without special consent, and such consent has clearly not been obtained (for it was never regarded as needed) in this case. " *.' - Now that nominations have been taken, the Dunedin Jockey Club is apparently finally and irretrievably compelled to adhere to its advertised programme, and this programme, gives no power to adjust the weights of winners during the next few days by means of rehandicaps.