TALK OF THE DAY

Otago Witness, Issue 2672, 31 May 1905, Page 50

TALK OF THE DAY

UNJUST CRITICS. J It is a well-known turf maxim that handi- I cappers are the most abused officials connected with racing-, «kn<l that is only natural when it is considered how frequently large sums of money change ownership as a result of how a weight-adjuster may mete out the avoirdupois. If raping were carried out in a true, sportsmanlike manner by owners, and watched or criticised by all others connected with it in that spirit, we would not hear so much bickering about horses getting a pound or two more or less weight in their races ; but racing has for a number of years past been degenerating- into a business pure and simple with the majority of owners, and when people speak through their pockets, they are not apt to -weigh, their words or hesitate to bitterly criticise those who may appear to hamper bheir success in the arena. Hence it is that hazndicappers are spoken about very frequently in language more forcible than polite, amd once or twice when the writer has had the temerity to sympathise with a horse owner whose standard-bearer has run a good but unlucky race, the reply 18 not tuned in recognition of the animal's meretoriou* performance, but rather a bitter denunciation, about "That if that so-and-so handicapper had only kept a couple of ! pounds off has back we would have won i easily." Only recently the writer had to lis- ! ten to a complaint from an owner whose horse was beaten a short head by ■ another to which it was attempting to concede 31b. The beaten horse did not get the best of passages in the race, after being none too smart from the barrier, but in the writer's opinion the defeated jockey delayed his j final effort a bib too long and, despite the I disadvantages he had to contend against, | should have won. As a matter of fact a [ stride past the post the horse whioh failed, to catch the judge's -eye as a winner was in front of the animal which had defeated it at j the all-important spot which marks defeat |or victory. The defeated horse had raced several times under burdens allotted by the handSeappeir complained against without registering a win, but that that gentleman had l fairly well gauged the abilities of the two ! horses under discussion could be gleaned ! by anyone who noted the closeness of the contest- between the pair." It is, however, an. owner's privilege to grumble, and in ! many cases the grumble arguments, whether right or wrong, are advanced in a fair and! sportsmanlike spirit. Handicappers are sometimes questioned in a friendly way by owners or others interested as to why this or that handicap is imposed on a horse, and 1 although, p&rhaps, not agreeing entirely i t with the reasons given, the questioners are in the majority of cases convinced that the man of weighta and measures is in the main fairly correct in hi 3 adjustments. Two champion questions were recently asked a. weH-known handioapper of trotters. An owner asked why it was that, although the 2ior.se had, say, 16seo in the original handicap, it had only lQseo in the race book. The hianidicapper explained that two or three horses on or near scratch had dropped out at the acceptance, henoe the others went back, but without making any material difference in the handicap between those which i had accepted. The owner could not see tba reasonableness of the explanation, and

' stoutly x>ontended that his horse had been unjustly treated. The other question was not asked by an owner, but by one who ought to know bettor. This querist asked the handicapper if he had not made a mistake in a certain horse's handicaps in two races, because whereas he had given the horse, say, 7sec in a one-mile race, he had allowed him 20seo in a two-mile race. The handicapper replied that there were plenty of horses" who could go a mile in 2.25, but could not go a two-mile journey in smin; but here, again, the questioner was not convinced of the soundness of fche handicapper's' reasoning. The work of the premier handioapper of the colony (Mr J. E. Henrys) has latteirly been adversely criticised, some of the critics evidently being under the impression that that handicapper should be absolutely infallible. Owners and trainers have a rig-ht to resent the ill-treatment of their horses if it ia ill-treatment; but it is regrettable that writers should be allowed <.o vent unjust criticisms in papers whioh at least should be sportsmanlike and just in their efforts to provide news about the sport which they are supposed to fost&r and) protect. j