THE JUMPS AT FLEMINGTON,

Otago Witness, Issue 2425, 5 September 1900, Page 40

THE JUMPS AT FLEMINGTON,

The Australasian says: We have got through the jumping- season without any fatal accidents lo horses at Flemington or Caulfield. It is a wonder that with so much tumbling as there was in the Grand National Steeplechase no hor»cs were killed anel oul> on» j-tkey injured. The big steeplechase was spoil; by ,tho falls, and it is a pity some '•(.hpoie for preventing so many mishaps cannot bo devired. People love to sea a steeplechase, but they muM; be tired of seeing horses tumbling in all directions, as was the case in Rosebud's race. J. E. Brewer has given it is his opinion that the English style of 'chasing is better than otu-c. The jumps -are so constructed tluu a mistake does not necessarily mean a fall. They will allow a horse some chance of forgiveness for a slip ; the Flemington barricades are thoroughly unforgiving. The least fault in a jump and horse and rider must come to grief. We are inclined to think that reckless riding, rather than the severe course, was the cause of the Grand National Steejjleohase being a

failure. As Jackson, the rider of Rosebud, put it, " They started to go as though the distance was three furlongs instead of three miles," and before two mile 3 had been traversed two-thirds of the starters were too beaten to jump. Lowering fences or witting down the number of them would not cause the jockeys to ride with more judgment. On the contrary, it would make the scatterbrained riders of light weights go all the faster. Still, at Caulfield and the suburban courses, where the fences are lower and not so numerous, accidents are less frequent tLau afc Flemington. It seems logical to suppose thaf; if it was the pace which brought about the falls in the National, the correct remedy would be to try and check the pace by raising the height of the jumps; but, judging by results, it is the nature of the course that causes the trouble, because falls are more frequent at Flemington than other places. We cannot; see what objection there would be to varying the obstacles at Flemington. There was a water jump years ago. Why not revive ifc in the interests of spectators? It is not a. natural jump in Australia we know, but it is a 'success at Moonee Valley, and is a variation trom post and rails and stone walls. .A' couple of furze hedges at the end of a loiig journey would be a relief to tired horses. Mr W. Miller and the majority of the committee are great sticklers for keeping Flemington ns it is. "We do not want horses that s-ainioi. jump well to win at Flemington," they argue, ' and there is something^iii the contention, butt still we can get too much for our. money in. - the way of maimed 'jockeys and hors.es,' and! perhaps a little sacrifice of solid, masoijry wallsj could be made without making Flemingtondasy enough for a hurdloracer to win over. We should like to know what men like J. S. .* Edge, A. Williams, M. Alconey, J. Barbour, &c, think about the question. They have to risk their necks over the barricades, and their opinion should be worth more than tnat of people who are merely onlookers. The men. mentioned have had some years of experience at Flemington. md they do not know what fear is. _ Possibly they can see nothing to find fault with in the steeplechase co-arse, but i£ they do think a change _might be made with advantage, their opinion is entitled to every consideration. The difficulty, wo fancy, would be to get that opinion.