ALTERATION OF HANDICAPS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2617, 11 May 1904, Page 45

ALTERATION OF HANDICAPS.

It will be remembered that at the last meeting hold by the Southland Racing Club a good deal of discussion was created when the club's handicapper altered the* weight orisinallv allotted Contain Kettle a^t 3 ?"•»*

him tip several pounds because tho horse's performances were not sont in with the> . nomination. This the club had power to da , under the conditions attached to their pro- ) gramme, and the handicapper sent up the> horse's weight because, when making th& • handicap, he had considered him to be am j ordinary horse with no performances of merit. This is somewhat different from mistaking one horso for another, and a case of this kind recently occurred in Victoria, in j commenting on which "Ribbleden" said: — i The question has been raised, Is a handiI capper at liberty, or has b^ the power, to . alter a horse's weight in a handicap after the weights have oeen officially declared) or published in the press? The question; cropped up in this way : In the Trial Handicap at th© laat Maribyrnong meeting Mr Vowles handicapped Nimbus at 9.0, under 1 the impression that it was Nimbus by Mostyn ; but, having discovered that the* horse entered was Nimbus by Seneschal, hei altered the weight to 6.12. I have not com© across an instance of this sart b&fore, although it is by no means the first time that one horse has been handicapped for another. Mr Bradshaw fell into the Nimbus trap 12 months ago, and he also handicapped th© hurdle-racer G-altee More by Sunrise (a poor performer) for the Galtee More by Gozo (at good winner in Queensland) ; and even th© late Mr F. F. Dakin, admittedly a careful, painstaking^official, was occasionally known, to nod. Not long after Game Boy had 1 won , the Flying Handicap afc Moorefield, carrying 9.5, and had run second to the flying 1 Fulminate in the Carringlon Stakes, giving6lb to the winner, Mr Dakin handicapped him in a small race ot Sandown Park at about 7.7, or some 2st less than the weight which the horse was entitled to carry. The handicapper had mistaken the Victorian horse Game Boy by Escutcheon (a moderate horse) for the Sydney horse Game Boy by Goodfellow. When the error was pointed out to hint Mr Dakin could not disguise his vexation — the race would be spoiled. What should he do? But the owner of Game Boy, or, rather, his agent, came to the rescue, and! by scratching Gam© Boy saved the situation. Reverting to the question, Was Mr Vowles right in doing what he did? it may beanswered yea or nay, according to the point ! from which it is reviewed. Such mistakes as I have referred to argue a certain amount i of carelessness on the part of handicappers, who "should be able to identify every horse with which thcy_ have to deal ; but, if they were twitted with that, they might retort that, if the racing authorities were to en- ' force th© rules with regard to nomenclature, such confusion of namea would not be possible. The laxity of th© V.R.C. gives the handicapper a plea for excuse. Of course, as a _ general thing, it would never do to permit a handicapper to tinker with theweights after declaration ; the practice might lead to no end of mischief. But in thisparticular instance I hold that Mr Vowles, on the merits of the case, was justified in doing as he did. If not, then it means that an owner may violate the rule which says that a horse shall not bear a name already adopted, and yet benefit by doings what the authorities forbid but wink at. That, surely, is a vicious principle. It ought rfnOt to be possible for a person to break the law — racing or otherwise— and prosper by doing it.