Untitled

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 138, 17 July 1914, Page 6

One of the outstanding features of the annual meetings of the New Zealand Racing Conference is the zeal with which the, president and veteran owner Sir George Clifford preaches the gospel of pure sport. Yesterday, the conference" adopted a resolution of the president, preventing owners betting with bookmakers. It is, as Sir George advanced in support of his new rule, a serious, obstacle to the purity of the turf when owners, trainers, and jockeys were liable to be influenced by market considerations, i.e., traffic with the surreptitious odds layer, but all the rules and.regulations of racing will be impatent to cope with the evil. As one delegare who opposed the motion to have the rule included observed, if an Act of Parliament could not prevent betting with bookmakers,, then it must be obvious that no mere rule of racing could hope to meet with any better success. Sir George Clifford must be credited with the best intentions when lie submitted his proposal, and the fact that it was carried by a very large majority will have some little moral value in the eyes of the opponents of betting; still, there 'is' a ' good deal to be said on behalf' of the small owners who make their living at the game. It is common knowledge that for these professionals the bookmaker is an agent who provides them with facilities for ante-post betting —especially doubles betting. Sir George Clifford and other leading breeders and owners are in an altogether different position; they are mostly non-bettors, and, at any rate, are above the necessity for speculation as a means to adding to their bank accounts. No one in his senses would deny that the association of bettor and owner, or jockey, leaves the gate opeii to grave turf improprieties, but the new rule will never eliminate this connection entirely. Bookmaking has flourished, comparatively speaking, under the shadow of the law, and the bookmakers have their regular clientele on race days, since the Speculative stay-at-homes must have their little gamble. Sir George Clifford spoke very nicely about the moral obligation the new provision would impose on owners who bet under the rose, but lie is possessed of an enviable optimism if he really believes that the "moral obligation" will weigh more with the professional owner than does the statutory prohibition.