Ring, Ramps and Frame-Ups Mar Australian Racing

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 687, 12 June 1929, Page 12

Ring, Ramps and Frame-Ups Mar Australian Racing

ALTHOUGH perhaps racing iii New Zealand is not altogether free from suspicion, one can be thankful that the jockeys’ ring, ramps and frame-ups are not so apparent as some of the critics would make believe. However, the position in Australia appears to be very serious, for complaints as to the conduct of the sport in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia have become almost monotonous. On the other side of the Tasman the stipendiary stewards have autocratic powers to suspend or disqualify offenders, whereas here they act more in an advisory capacity to the honorary stewards of the various clubs. Reading the criticism of the conduct of the sport in Australia, the conclusion come to is that racing in this Dominion is remarkably clean in comparison.

RIDERS’ ALLEGATIONS (United P.A.—By Telegraph — Copyright) BRISBANE, Tuesday. An inquest was held today concerning the death of a jockey named Rylatt. who was killed at the Kedron Park races on May 27. Reginald Harvey, a personal friend of deceased’s, said that in the course of a conversation in hospital Rylatt said: “It is no use complaining. There is a ring of jockeys, and you have no chance if you are not in it.” Witness said: “Jockeys are overanxious. When somebody lays them a few pounds to nothing they will go through hell for it.” A telegram from Perth states that at a meeting of the West Australian Turf Cub some plain speaking' was indulged in. Mr. P. A. Connolly, a well-known horse-owner, caused a stir by remarking: “Racing was never so dirty as it is now. Jockeys have a sort of freemasonry and will always keep each other out of trouble.” Dr. Holland said the stewards did not conduct nearly enough inquiries into cases of inconsistent running. POSITION IN N.S.W. A most severe criticism of the conduct of racing in South Wales was contained in a recent issue of “Plain Talk.” Mere is the article, which has created a stir on the other side:—• Not the little “jokes” of the racecourse, but rather the big conspiracies of the turf shall receive the attention of “Plain Talk’s” racing advisers. There are even now developing certain big schemes to cover the important spring programmes, and these will be unearthed and exposed. In this article

the notorious Lillyman case is reviewed, and a demand made that Mr. Colin Stephen (chairman of the A.J.C.) should take action immediately to have such recent reversals of form as those shown by The Grindstone and New Sweet investigated. The racing public knows that Higgins (the chief stipendiary steward, possessed of autocratic powers, who resigned to go to India to 1111 a similar but more lucrative position) would have done so. He should be brought back—if he is not too disgusted to come back. Racing in New South Wales has again gone completely beyond the con- ; trol of the somnolent A.J.C., and the same old “High Society Gang,” which Chief Stipendiary John Higgins tried to clean up a little over seven years ago, has once more taken the reins. Scared by the suggested appointment, in 1921, of a Racing Advisory Board, the A.J.C. Committee hurriedly decided to send to Calcutta for Higgins, then stipendiary steward of the Calcutta Turf Club, and give him a free hand to straighten out matters in N.S.W. Higgins was an Australian ar.d had previously had considerable experience as a stipendiary steward on Victorian and N.S.W. courses, and had established a high reputation for unimpeachable integrity. He was the one man in sight for the job, which, as the heads of the A.J.C. knew perfectly well, bristled with difficulties. As a matter of fact, his appointment was not regarded as an unmixed blessing by certain members of the A.J.C. Committee itself, who regarded his well-known indifference to the social standing of racehorse owners and big punters with perturbed feelings. Some of them, no doubt, hoped that Higgins, after his experience in India, where caste counts,for so much, would respect the men high up, but in this they were doomed to disappointment. Higgins took his new job very seriously. A Sensation! But be went about it so quietly that in the first few weeks he allayed the misgivings of the big operators, who began to imagine that Higgins had lost his punch and that their manoeuvres were quite outside his suspicion. And then Higgins suddenly startled the public by his revelation that the jockeys were not taking their instructions from the owners or the trainers, but from the leading jockey of the day (W. Lillyman), who happened to be chief adviser in racing transactions to a couple of very heavy betting members of the A.J.C. The famous Montoro case, as it was called, is well remembered by regular racegoers, but few know the inner history of the desperate fight in high places to save not only Lillyman, but also certain social lights of the A.J.C., whose connection with Lillyman’s operations had been reported to the committee. The evidence was too clear, however, and Lillyman and one or two others directly connected with him, were “«>• ted.” That a couple of gentlemen, who still plunk their hundreds on “good things” escaped by the hair of their social heads was certainly not Higgins's fault—and they knew it. "Within a few months one or two other wealthy owners had been summoned to explain, and a fashionable

trainer (W. J. Bryan) rubbed exit after another stiff battle on the A.J.C. Committee, which was signalised by a higher-placed society lady threatening to sell her string of racehorses as a protest. But even chief stewards cannot continue for long to invite explanations j from A.J.C. members and directors ot proprietary courses without becoming “a damned unpleasant fellow.” Eventually there developed organised opposition to anything that Higgins recommended, and there is little doubt that Higgins gave up the job in disgust, and returned at a high salary to Calcutta —where apparently there is a stronger desire among the members of the controlling body for clean racing than in Sydney. Since Higgins went, the small punters have had a bad time, and racing has degenerated into a series of organised “ramps.” One or two small owners, such as in the Scudalong case at the last Canterbury meeting, have been occasionally disciplined, but society owners and society punters have had an ' open go.” The small owner knows that it is wiser today to get one of the big punters to back his horse for him. In that way he will get protection for indifferent running when he has to wait two or three weeks under the instruction of his wealthy punter. The big punter will say, “I can’t back yours today, Jones. I’ve taken another horse on for that race. Keep yours till Saturday week.” And he may eliminate one or two other possibilities in the same way, while the public money on these horses makes a market for his own transactions. Quite obviously our present stewards

are not big enough men for the job. They can deal with a simple case of careless riding like that of W.B. in the Canterbury Hurdle, but their provincial experience is quite inadequate to fit them for the task of cleaning up the big scandals of the turf.

Yet the game must be cleaned up sooner or later, even if it is necessary to clean up the A.J.C. itself first, or take the control of racing out of its hands altogether. Horse-racing is a national pastime in Australia, and those who use the game as a the public should be handled without gloves—and re-

gardless of who gets hurt. The Scudalong and W.B. cases were only a pretence of activity. The stewards are no doubt honest enough men. but they apparently are too timid or too inexperienced to tackle any of the big “ramps.” And in the recent weeks they have shown a remarkable indifference to many extraordinary 'reversals of form.

Allegedly responsible daily newspapers adopt a very queer attitude to these matters. Almost unanimously they say that “ridden a more judicious race than at Canterbury, Magnetic should have a good chance at Kandwick.”

Surely this suggests that it was the stewards’ business to find out the reason for the “injudicious” riding of Magnetic in a weak field at Canterbury, when he started an odds-on favourite as a consequence of a brilliant win only a fortnight before. And there must have been something very injudicious also about the running of R® w Sweet at the Rosehill meeting if one is to judge by the confidence expressed in his chance at this week’s Rundwick meeting. At the last Rand wick meeting New certainly won Tattersall’s Cup like a champion, defeating a field of the best handicap horses that can be produced at this period of the year literally 6 w£pj? eetinfir The Grindstone nterany walked away with the race, and on their running, New Sweet and Die Grindstone, in poorer com S a Lr°t S^ IU Ii lo °, ked - hkcly F doi j b 1 e race 1 Handlea P ana the last If the bookmakers or anv of ft,, b.g punters knew these reasons ? of the Air * xeres t on behalf what they C were Z 7 «c«*«in.d report on the matter, evTn If ifVT* “ess y - t J °ud!cm at . th u e * were Wdden to have been? they ° U3ht Hisifns back'h-om l"'v y l ° d ° U Eli n S if frae &iVe hlu * °o? rss now so openly pernetratrH " ll,ch ls istei-cd course will tr,ited on our resend. ° " lU come to a sudden