TALK OF THE DAY By MAZEPPA.

Otago Witness, Issue 2441, 26 December 1900, Page 39

TALK OF THE DAY By MAZEPPA.

THE DIPLOMAT-ROMANY CASE. On considering the question raised at the Christchurch. Racing Club's meeting, as to the right of an owner to ask a handicapper for his reasons, I think the club has- made a mistake, and that the ruling ought not to be taken as a precedent. It may be acknowledged at the outset that there is something to be said on behalf of the club's action, or, gather, on behalf of the principle underlying that action — a distinction of some importance. That something is succinctlyput by Mr Hood Williams in his reply to Mr Stead. I grant that it would be most undesirable to involve a handicapper in any discussion upon the adjustment of his weigTrts for his handicaps, and that it would be a bad system if every dissatisfied owner were encouraged to question the handicapper'sweights. All tHis may be conceded without* proving the club to be right. Considered as an answer to Mr Stead, the reply misses it:! mark, because in the first place Mr Stead did not seek to involve the handicapper in a discussion — he merely asked the club to put a question, and, presumably, he expected an answer through the club; and, secondly, it is no answer to the particular question put, narrowed down as it was to a precise point, and asked through the club, to say what dissatisfied owners in general might do if encouraged to controversy, Mr Stead is not to be denied a reply to a courteous, fair, 'and direct question, not forbidden by the rules, and for which there is ample precedent in England, because somebody else might abuse the right. This argument surely needs no demonstration. The position is that any owner who p\it his question unfairly, in such a way, for instance, as to force on a genera] discussion, or to bully a handicapper, would at once be considered out of court and not entitled to redress. Such, a case is entirely different from Mr Stead's. He approached the club in what seems to me to be the proper way, and I think the club made a mistake in sending him the answer that Mr ' Hood Williams signed. But it ia in its general application,, apart from this particular case, that the club's answer is badly vulnerable. The weak spot can see it with half an eye. Here it is:;— \ Handicappers are already open to criticism, by sporting writers, by correspondents in the newspaper?, by the critics at the street corner. None of this criticism can bo stopped Why, then, when the sporting editor has a free hand, when ths anonymous letter^ writer has access to the public prints, ancj when tte street corner amateur handicapj-4

Is privileged to cr : ticise a handicap, should .the owner, who is more directly interested, foe shut out? It is unreasonable to disqualifyiiim alone. Further, handicappers never reEly to a. sporting editor's criticisms — why this Is so r know not, but the fact remains ; as B, rule- they are silent when letter- writers lashbut; and of course they cannot reply to the oral, cuttings-up they get at the street corner. iThe fact is that under our present arrangement a handicapper feels compelled to enVlure as meekly as possible a great deal of criticism to which he could make a staggering answer if he felt free to open his mouth or take up the pen. Well, if owners are allowed *o put a fair question in courteous terms .through a club*- it will free the handicapper Irom his restraint and give him the chance 'of justifying his work: My own idea is jfchat in the past handicappers have Buffered through being boxed up in a glass case and .treated as sacred dummies. Many a time 1 have apologised in print to Mr Dowse after a race the result of which has proved that his judgment was better than mine, and I feel convinced that our handicappers generally jdo a great deal of good work which would be /better seen if it were more discussed. Their „-work, in fact, is so good, that though once in a way a call for an explanation mig^it lana in a dilemma, the rule would be that ,'the explanations would simply justify the calculations. Of course, owners would have 'to be prepared for some ugly remarks. Tliey might be told, for example, that the handicapper ignored this or that performance because he- did not believe tha _orse was ridden ,'to win; and it is because a handicapper .might have to make suck an. answer, and also /because of the advisability of keeping n-inv (free' of entanglements set as _a, trap by conscienceless owners, that I would have all questions to a handieapper and all replies" •from him put through the club. But with this- safeguard I do not see any. possibility 'of evil in the reform \.aich Mr Stead asks for and which I advocate. If a handicapper makes a mistake, let him be blamed. Ido not think our handicappers would ask to be screened against such blnme. They surely must feel that* it is no compliment to thenability to say that the me person who has a right to know the reasons for a particular adjustment shall not be told those reasons. A. fetish is a poor, weak sort of thing at the ibest. On the other hand, the custom of questioning and answering would prove an automatic check on Texatious complaints. The handicapper, being free to speak, might ■Have some penetrating thrusts to make m Teply to an owner of the cronk class—- indeed, it is doubtful whether such an owner would , /dare to court a discussion. One word more an. respect to the Diplomat-Romany case. I totally disagree with the principle of ditterlentiating as between untried horses. Ihe jfwise plan, I think, is to put untried horses on an equality and in the middle of a hancii'eap, and let them prove their title to go up cr down in the-after engagements.