TALK OF THE DAY

Otago Witness, Issue 2674, 14 June 1905, Page 50

TALK OF THE DAY

THE NEW ZEALAND CUP. - The nominations received for the next New Zealand Cup are very pleasing, -- both from a numerical and qualitative point of view. As a matter of fact, the list received constitutes a record nomina- -. fcion for the race, and goes one higher than what was received in 1892-3, for both of which years 71 horses were engaged. This year 72 names have been handed in, and the list shows a distinct improvement on what has been received in reoent years, as the following figures wili show: — 1894-, 70; 1895, s+; 1896, 64; 1897, 59; 1898, 49; 1899, 60; 1900, 46; 1901, 43; 1902, 66; I&D3, 53; 1904, 59; 1905, 72. In looking over this

year's list, there is no doubt that a few norses appear to be ambitiously placed, but quality is also present in foroa, whilst cracks o| ether dnjSj such as Orloff, Nonette, and

St. Michael, have engagements claimed for them, and it is to be hoped their owners haw reasonable grounds for believing their horses will survive a preparation. Amongst the best-known horses engaged Achilles, Mahutonga, Nightfall, Maniapoto, Ghoorka, Gladstone, Melodeon, Convoy, Quarryman, Roseal, Vladimir, Bulawayo Gold Crown, Jeanne d' Arc, and Melwood may be mentioned as a few talker haphazardly from the list, whilst promising horses such as Golden Knight, Sungod, Sir Tristram, Veneer, Lady Wayward, Gay Spark, and other wellbred young 'uns represent horses about which possibilities can be woven Patronus, the Australian-bred son of Patron (Melbourne Cup winnei of 1894), who finished fifth in Acrasia's Cup, is another interestin" 1 name in the list. This year a race will be" run under somewhat different conditions from those which have been previously identified with it, and it remains to be seen whether the now conditions will enhance the interest taken or otherwise. Under the ne.w regulations, no horse can be penalised over weight for age. Last year several horses engaged incurred penalties, and the most important of them were those which attended the victories of Martian Grand Rapids, and Nightfall. The Multiform filly's penalty serves to illustrate the manner in" which the new conditions may possibly affect the race. Last yeor Nightfalls penalty brought her weight up to 7.2 and under the new conditions she could not have been penalised above 7.1, even if she haa cleaned the board at Randwick. Ju«6«}S by her form at the meeting, Nightfall would not have been last if she had been the stable representative instead of Grand Rapids. Martian's penalties last year brought nis weight up to 8.12, and under the new conditions the weight could not have, been higher than 8.7, so that from those two cases alone it will be seen that the new regulations (which are claimed to be new and novel) are fraught with not a little danger, as few would argue that Nightfall or Martian would not have played a bold hand in last year's Cup had they gone to the post, whilst if the burdens they would have had to carry were framed under the n&w order of things, their presence in the field would have frightened more tb/m one out of the race. Supposing a three-year-old goes to Randwick this spring and shows good form amongst the cracks there, if it is handicapped' for the Cup at any weight above 7.6 it will not be liable to a penalty, whereas its form may suggest a winning chance with 141b more on its back. That is the ga-eat element of danger, and in the writer's opinion the new conditions are not so equitable as those which were formerly identified with the Tace, because a horse may win, a handicap of minor ,importance, both financially and qualitatively, and incur a penalty of 51b or 7lb, whilst others oould display excellent form, and if they are three-year-olds they would not incur a penalty of any impc-tance. Ine writer has read many comments on the new conditions of the race since they were first published, but as they have been universally laudatory, or at least non-fault-finding, the danger, which has here been said to exist may be without any re- ona-ble foundation, and it is to be hopeu that such is Teally the case.

A QUESTION OF RACING LAW. At last week's meeting of the New Zealand Trotting Association a letter was read from the N.Z.M.T.O. explaining the procedure adopted in connection with the disqualification of Norice and Verax for galloping in the Flyers' Handicap at the club s Easter meeting. The stewards had acted, the letter stated, on their own motion, and as no evidence was taken, it was not considered necessary that the parties should be present. The explanation was accepted by the association, but in doing so the governing body have allowed the. metropolitan club to act contrary to the "Rules of Trotting." and their laxity in the matter distinctly savours of an injustice to those most concerned in the punishment, whilst theaction of both bodies is ako against the ethics of sports and fair play, as no man should be condemned without being given a chance to defend himself. This very important point ths association appears to have overlooked, as the iule3 governing tne sport are very distinct on this matter, and require no great acumen to interpret them correctly. The ruta bearing on this point was quoted in these columns at the time the disqualifications were imposed, but it is evident that it will not be an unnecessary repetition to quote it again. Rule 16 reads:— "lt shall be incumbent upon ?'l clubs' running under the Rules to give the fullest consideration to protests, objections, AND AtL charges, and the secretary or a deputy must take down in writing tihe grounds of the chaege, peotest, or objection, and they must be read over to the person or persons peotested against, chahged, oe objected to by the chairman of the stewards or secretary. Evidence in Support Of OB AGAINST THE CHABGES, OBJECTIONS, oe peotests must be taken and oopied in full, and the person charged, OBJECTED TO, Ol* PEOTESTED AGAINST must be given an opportunity of calling evidence, and being heard in self-defence, and the evidence must be forwarded to the association by the particular club. In -the event OF THE STEWAEDS HOLDING AN INQUIRY ON THEIE OWN MOTION, THE REGULATIONS LAID DOWN IN THIS RULE SHALL APPLY. Both appellant and defendant shall be present to hear all evidence given." _ The_ words emphasised are those emphasised in the original rule. Neither of the owners or drivers disqualified appeared before the stewards at the time the disqualification was imposed, andtheN.Z.M.T.C. stewards' reason for not allowing them to appear before them will - + hold water. In their reply to the ass L ion, the stewards state they "had acted on their own motion," and, as no evidence was taken, it wa-s " not considered necessary that the parties should be present " This in face of the fact that Rule 16 distinctly and emphatically states that, "In the event of the stewards holding an inquiry on their own motion, the regulations laid down in this rule shall apply." That is to say, the charge must be read over to the defendant, and "the person charged must be given an opportunity of calling evidence and being heard in self defence." " The stewards state that no evidence was taken. Then on what f rounds were the disqualifications imposed? erhaps the fact that the stewards merely endorsed each other's views of the case, which, even though it was a clear question of solid fact, must surely have been discussed amongst themselves before it was decided to impose a disqualification. If that were so, then the discussion was tantamount to hearing -evidence, consequently it TEtas an absolute duty, and on-9 that the

rules distinctly state is a duty, that the defendants should have been heard in the matter before punishment was inflicted. Rule 16 does not single out or specify what oases are to be dealt with under its law, but emphatically states that "all charges." etc., "must," etc., and furthermore that the defendant "must be given an opportunity of calling evidence." It would be interesting to know how the full interpretation of Rule 16 would read, but to the lay mind the action of both the association and the metropolitan olub requires further explanation, as there is no doubt that both bodies appear to have placed a very liberal intrepretation on the rule bearing on the case before arriving at their decisions.