THE FAREWELL HANDICAP.

Otago Witness, Issue 2437, 28 November 1900, Page 40

THE FAREWELL HANDICAP.

There is a case sometimes regarding which the unofficial judges- — that is to say, the public — argue and come to different conclusions. The Barmby case was one of those ; so was the Dexterina case. The Farewell Handicap is not in that category. So far as my observation goes, all who saw the race regard it as crooked, to this extent, at any rate, that the crowd who backed Jupiter and Maremma had no show to win. That, if not the universal, is certainly the general opinion, and it is the opinion that I myself hold very strongly. It comes to this, then, that the Dunedin Jockey Club's committee are pretty well alone in their finding. Of course that does not prove that the finding is wrong. The mob's judgment has on many occasions led them to clamour for the crufixion of tho innocent. I would far sooner trust the verdict of an intelligent judicial tribunal after evidence and deliberate consideration. The committee, as the judges in this case, are by no means bound by the views of the public. Still, custom sanctions the expression of public opinion regarding racing decisions, and this is fair, because it is really the public's' business, the stewards, ancl after them the committee, being in the position of trustees to manage the racing on behalf of the public on the one hand and the owners, trainers, and jockeys on the other hand ; and when, as in this case, the surface facts look ugly, it would not be too much to ask the committee how their exonerating decision is arrived at. We do not want to be told how Jupiter and Maremma came to lo&e after Edelweiss had got her advantage at the outset. What we do wish to know is whether the getting and tti£ jziving of that advantage was purely acoi-

dental, and belonging to the legitimata chances of the race, or whether that was the mode adopted of quashing the chances of the losers, and making the race a certainty foi the mare. I say that on the apparent, facts the race looked VPry like a free gift to Edelweiss, that the Tmrden oE explanation to the contrary lay clearly with the parties connected with Jupiter and Maremma,. and that as the explanation has in some degree satisfied the committee, the committee might, without loss of dignity, let their patrons into the secret, so as to assure them, that they will be protected -in the future. What the public have before them at the present is just the simple fact — they believe it to be a fact — that of three horses thafc started in a race two surrendered their chances at the outset ; and secondly, a sort of whitewashing verdict. Theie is no guarantee that what was done may not occur again. I think the D.J.C. has missed the chance of putting itself right with the public. The decision, certainly imports a certain degree of blame, but it is none the better or more satisfactory for that — rather the reverse, in f?ct.' I, for one, would be more inclined to respecs the finding if it declared frankly that Jupiter and Maremma were exonerated. Instead o£ that we get a decision which distinctly suggests some kind of wrongdoing. The running of these horses is unsatisfactory, say the committee, yet not clearly proved to be" wrongful, wherefore the case is dismissed, the, committee practically saying, "Not eiiilty, bufc don't do it again." I, for one, dislike tneso' verdicts very much. Committees and stewards should boldly say "Guilty" if all reasonable doubt of innocence is excluded, or "Not guilty" when a reasonable doubt is set ut>. If they are going to potter about. with "not; proven" verdicts until a -person accused of wrongdoing is proved guilty in the direct way that a mathematical problem is proved, we shall in a few years have half the racing men under suspicion, ancl wrongdoers flourishing like the green bay tree. I say distinctly, and believe I am voicing the views of a large number of our racing public in doing so, that it is a lame and halting conclusion, that tlie D.J.C. has arrived at. I do not contend that it was incompetent to acquit the persons connected with Jupiter and Maremma. I cannot understand how they were 1 acquitted ; but as they are let off I, for one, am willing to accept such a decision — that is. if it can be shown to be reasonable. What I complain of in the first place is that we are not told how the strange finding, so opposed to all that we saw, is arrived at ; and secondly, I don't like the wording of the decision, seeing that it imputes blame and at the same time acquits. What would be thought of a jurythat published such a deliverance? I suspect that the D. J. C. found itself in a dilemma, over this case. To begin with, only two of the stewards-saw the race; the rest had gone home. Then there was, I think, a feeling that as Maremma had been rather dragged into the difficulty by the club itself, or some injudicious friends acting for the club, the committee were in a sense bound to see him. through it. According to what lam told, M'Ginnes had advised not to accept with Maremma, ancl had actually sent the horse home and given him a mash, ancl it was^rhile he had his liose in the tin that the Swner sent for the horse to have a i*un, having been persuaded to come back and make a race of it. If this be true, what chance had Maremma's backers to win? Absolutely none. How many of the crowd would have backedMaremma if they had known the circumstances? And then, if Maremma was to be looked on -with kindness, . how could the" stewards with any show of consistency be harsh to Jupiter? See' how th& complications arise. In- one sense the committee's decision is logical ; and that is thafc by letting Jtvpiter and Maremma off they provide a loophole for themselves. If there had been a disqualification of these horses, how could the club itself have escaped condemnation? I regard the whole affair as a sad muddle, full of serious lessons.