STEWARDS WHO SHIRK THEIR WORK.

Otago Witness, Issue 2444, 16 January 1901, Page 43

STEWARDS WHO SHIRK THEIR WORK.

Mr Lowther, usually considered one of England's level-headed racing men, rather startled the sporting, world recently by giving it as his opinion that scheming owners who do not run their horses straight should be dealt with by the handicappers, who should receive instructions to place additional weight not only upon horses whose individual running has aroused suspicion, but also upon all other horses in the same ownership or trained by the same person. Several writers point out that to adopt euch a principle would be unju-r. "Martindale," the Sydney scribe, takes that view for one. Where, he asks, is the handicapper who can decide as to what is and what is not a case-of intentional in and out running? The horses owned by the most honourable men run in and out sometimes through the chicanery of the jockey. Are they to be punished right through their stable because a particular handioapper is not satisfied? The handicapper' s sole duty should be to adjust the weights of the horses submitted to him so as to give each an equal chance. If any particular owner is objected to let his entries be refused. This is the more open course and the manlier. How often is the statement made by people, "Ah, if I were handicapper the beggars would have no chance ;I should put them up aud show them that they cannot do as they like." The people who make such statements are not handicappers, and never will be. The stewards are there to see that horses are run straight; and if they pass the running it is only fair to think that the horse should be weighted upon that form. If such is not to be the ease, then why should horse owners have the right to appeal to the stewards when they think that the handicapper is not weighting" their hordes fairly? According to Mr Lowther, and many who agree with him, the handicapper is the Czar of the turf: his ruling is final, and there can be no one who shall say that he is wrong, for the simple reason that he would rule with undoubted sway. No doubt, in the days of Admiral Rons such was the case, and also was with us in a great measure when the late Mr J. A. Scarr acted. During the time that Mr Scarr acted as handicapper for the A.J.C. and other clubs, I don't remember once his b<^n"- oall^ to task before the stewards; yet others have, and if search were made through h.» v^igj imany most unexplainable adjustments could be met with. Suppose that the handicapper thinks he has witnessed a most barefaced case of shunting, which appears to have escaped the stewards. He puts the horse which he is of opinion has offended up 71b. Now the owner feels aggrieved, and asks the stewards for an explanation. They in turn ask the handieapper, whose reply is, "Yes, the horse did not try." ' The owner at once asks, "Why, gentlemen, that is very curious. You are all men of experience: some ha^e seen possibly moie racing than your handicapper. You were all looking at the race, and were perfectly satisfied with my horse's running. Your handicapper, however, sayd that he was pulled. Now. gentlemen, I leave the matter in your hands." Thus the verdict can only go one way, as the s-tevvards to vindicate themselves must go against the handicapper, 'Vs it would never do to admit that they did not sees what their official claims tl.at he did. No, the handicapper has quite enough to do to fight his own bnttle, without forcing upon him the duties which should be done by the stewards, who in a great many instances are men totally unfitted for the position.