SPORTING

Taranaki Daily News, 17 December 1926, Page 4

SPORTING

RACING IN ENGLAND THE BETTING UPHEAVAL. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Loudon, Nov. 4. The first day of the Betting Tax in operation—November 1, was dull and colourless, thougn it will long bo recalled by all who were on the Birmingham racecourse, if only because of the historical character of the occasion in tlie records of racing in this country. An hour before the first race one wondered whether there were going to be any bookmakers in their accustomed places. They arrived, tardily enough, but there were several notable absentees among the more substantial men. The usual crowd, called “the general public,” showed a shrinkage, and, even so, many of them had come, not to bet, but to look on out of curiosity. The bookmakers themselves had only a vague idea of what might be in store, and what they proposed to do, either by way of passing on the tax to the backer, or of “standing” a proportion of. it. Several in Tattersall’s began by agreeing with clients to charge 2J per cent, on winnings, while themselves bearing the 2 per cent, racecourse tax on actual stakes wagered, win or lose. Before the af-teruoon was far advanced, one or two layers, dealing with clients having weekly settlements in the clubs, agreed to go “fifty-fifty.” That is, while tlio backer bears 1 per cent, the layer would bear the other 1 per cent., on stakes wagered.

But there was little wagering done all told, and the “thin” market could not absorb what the representative of' tho Blower Agency—the Agency which, undertakes to lay off big wagers received in the offices at the best prices obtainable on the course—wished to put out. Very early in the afternoon the agent give it up as a bad job. It was practically the same at Birmingham on tho second day, but, on the following afternoon at Windsor, there was a new turn to the proceedings. Bookmaker and backers agreed not to bet on the races as a protest against the tax. and more particularly the manner in which it is proposed to be levied, and no starting prices could thus be returned. What purpose thia would serve -was not very apparent to me, at any rate. Obviously, of course, if a policy of nobetting continued, racing would be killed stone dead, but tho bookmakers evidiently do not realise that there is such a thing as a Pari-Mutuel, and it would not take the Government long to set these up if their obstinacy continued. Such action as they took at Windsor is merely like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. There are several privately-run Pari-Mutuels in the country, and the action on the Windsor course did not affect them. Curiously enough, too, the prices returned from these machines for the two days of Birmingham races, after deducting the usual 10 per Cent, plus the new tax of 3% per cent, for office betting, were largely in advande of those returned on the course as starting prices where the tax is only 2 per cent. After such practical demonstration it would seem futile for the bookmaker to cry that the new tax will prevent :hitn from making a living. It is too early as yet to predict the full effect of the new tax on racing in England, but, when the novelty lias died down and bookmakers awaken to the real gravity of their own position by adopting a policy of “laisscz fairs” things will go on pretty much as heretofore.

THE CAMBRIDGESHIRE. The result of the Cambridgeshire was bitter pill for backers to swallow, and even now one hardly realises how the favourites come to be so hopelessly beaten. A few days afterwards, one of Wootton's candidates, L’Aine—who was much fancied to win at Newmarket until his stable companion, Bulger, put up such a display on the day before that it was decided to start him as well in the big race—was brought out for ths London Cup at Alexandra Park, and, in stronger handling than he had in the Cambridgeshire, he simply won at his leisure. By the way, it was rash and youthful jockey ship that is thought to have been the mam cause of the downfall of the hot Cambridgeshire candidate, Delius. Caldwell one of Wootton’s boys; who had been making a name for himself, was given the mount, but he did not ride with his usual discretion. He brought Delius out to win his race at a mile, and in the last furlong the colt was done with. Alec Taylor docs not make such a huge mistake in calculations as this evidently was. That great trainer was absolutely convinced- that Delius was unbeatable at the weights, and it could only have been joekeyehip that enabled a non-stayer like Inslight 11, but ridden by the experienced and calm Thwaites, to come along and run him out of it. Delius will be given another chance in the Liverpool Cup to see if the trainer’s original opinion was justified, while two other disappointments, Oojah and Highborn 11, have been fixed up in what promisee to be the match of the century —a race over six furlongs at weight for age at Newbury for £2OOO aside. Mr. Solly Joel, and Sir Hugo Cunliffe Owen are the two owners concerned, and each thinks he owns the better sprinter. When they met at Goodwood, Oojah beat Highborn by half a length, but was receiving 21bs. whereas in the watch he will, as the older horse, have to concede 41bs. Carslake and Childs are the two jockeys engaged, and. of course, they have no superiors in the world.

PREACHER JOCKEY WINS.

Paris, Oct. 14. The Prix de la Fourriere, v at Longchamp yesterday, was won by Accalmie, with Jack Jennings, the Chantilly “par-son-jockey,” up. He conducted services for the stable lads in the morning, as usual. He established the institute for the lads at Maisons Lafitte in order to keep them out of the cafes. In a sermon at the English church at Maisons Lafitte he argued that, while Sunday racing, which is usual in France, was a breach of the Divine Law, only those who attend Sunday race meetings for their own pleasure are guilty of sin. Jockeys who race on. Sunday are innocent, because they are only doing their job.