LEFT OFF THE CARD

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 970, 13 May 1930, Page 12

LEFT OFF THE CARD

HORSES DON’T ALWAYS WIN WANGANUI OMISSIONS It is said that if a horse is left out of the acceptance list it is certain to win. Of course that is far from being correct. The fact of the matter is that a horse is not noticed as being "left off the card" unless it finishes first or second. Quite often horses are missed out, but next to nothing is said or heard when they fail to run into the money. It is said that a winner at Hawera last Saturday was not shown on certain cards as an acceptor, but whether that is so or not the writer is unaware. Certain it is that the newspaper lists indicated the horse not only as a probable runner, but also as a potential winner. Missed From Wanganui Wanganui papers to hand show that two horses were omitted from the telegraphed list of acceptances for the first division of the Purua Hack. This was suspected at the outset, when the two divisions showed, respectively, 13 and 3 5 horses in the divided race. The horses omitted from the first division list were Portray 7.10, and Grand Jury 7.8. Strangely enough, both these horses won at different centres on Easter Monday, and to complete the coincidence, neither raced on the opening day of the fixtures they attended. Portray scored with 7.13 over the seven furlong course at Tauherenikau,, Apprentice Jockey S. Gerrand claiming the full allowance. Rioghail and Marica were in the other places, and fourth was Projection, who won at Nelson on Thursday and Saturday last. Gerrand is the

same boy who rode so well at Hawera last week. Grand Jury is a well-bred threeyearrold, being by Grandcourt from Orozino. The Waiata Maiden Stakes at Feilding saw Grand Jury’s winning account opened, and as he was clear of a fair field at the post and was going away it was a promising performance. So Portray and Grand Jury have to be added to the list of probable starters and probable winners in the first division of tomorrow’s Purua Hack. The fact that winners, or even payers of second dividends, are oft-times left off the cards brings up the old question of the position of the backer and the bookmaker in such cases. The position is somewhat complicated when two dividends are paid out, but would the pencillers make it any easier if only one dividend had to be paid? It is doubtful. It is one of the principles of betting on horse-racing, and in other sport too, that the backer must have a

chance of winning. If a horse left off the card wins a race, then the backer had no earthly chance of winning. Of course he might have made a profit by being on the second horse, but in reality that makes it all the harder. For if the other horse had not been in the way his fancy would have won! Bookmakers are not Good Samaritans, yet it would be a good thing if they threw over some of their onesided rules and met their clients more fairly, particularly in the case of a winning horse being omitted from their cards. Would it be asking too much for backers to request their bookmakers to treat all bets on such a race as a wash-out and hand the money back?