RACING AND SWEEPS

Taranaki Daily News, 27 October 1932, Page 9

RACING AND SWEEPS

EFFECT OF LOTTERIES OPPORTUNITIES FOR EiiIBERY. STATEMENT BY LORD HAREWOOD. (New Zealand Herald Correspondent). London, Sept. 16. When the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting resumed its sittings, the Earl of Harewood, as senior steward of the Jockey Club, was the first to give evidence. Lord Harewood stated that the evidence which he gave bn behalf of the Jockey Club was intended to refer only to sweepstakes, etc., based on rhe result of a race. The Jockey Club, as such, wished to express no view on the subject of lotteries, sweepstakes, betting, etc;, or on matters not connected with racing, and any statement which he might make,' and which might be interpreted in a wider sense, must not be understood to represent the collective views of the members of the Jockey Club. The club did not ask for, nor: even support, the legalisation of sweepstakes. So far as the interests of racing were concerned,’said the witness, the Jockey Club opposed it. If, however, other interests, were considered to outweigh those of racing, the club hoped that an effective controlling authority would-be set up with which the views of the club would carry weight. Small sweepstakes such as had taken place in clubs for many years past were quite innocuous, and it was only when very' large sums were involved that racing interests were adversely affected. For many years the Calcutta sweep dealt in large figures. Later the Stock Exchange sweep arose, and quite recently the Irish sweep. SWELLING THE FIELDS. The Calcutta sweep formerly gave prizes not only to the placed horses, but to runners, Lord Harewood continued. As a result, persons drawing a horse which was eligible to run found it to their advantage to pay the owner of that horse not only the amount of his forfeit but something more in order to persuade him to run his horse. This resulted in swelling the field with horses which had no chance of winning and which might interfere with the chance* of the good horses. Negotiations with the promoters of. this sweepstake resulted in abolishing prizes for runners. The same remark applied. to the Stock Exchange sweep, and to some extent to the Irish sweep. > The chairman asked if prizes were not given now to, runners in the Irish sweep. Lord Harewood said the promoters of the Irish sweep met the Jockey Club to some extent on that point. Prizes were now given not to runners, but to accep-. tors. He saw far greater objections to prizes for runners than for acceptors, but even the latter gave chances of extracting money from a person who had drawn a ticket.

The chairman: That is an objection from a racing point of view ? Lord Hare wood: If it happened very often we should find most unwieldy fields.

Mr. Graham Campbell:'Does it happen very often? Lord Harewood said that there had been one or two instances where ■ the stewards of the Jockey Club rather .suspected it was done. OPPORTUNITIES FOR FRAUD. Lord Harewood said that there were more serious.objections in the opportunities for fraud which were offered by these sweeps. A man who had £30,000 —■ or in some cases much more—to play with could offer large bribes. Stableboys, jockeys and trainers might be tempted to accept a bribe to secure the defeat of a horse, and were, of course, in a position to make certain of his defeat. Even an owner, placed in the same temptation, could prevent his horse from whining—-if by no other means, by scratching him. ’ The promoters of the Irish sweepstake had been approached with a view to arranging the draw for the evening before the race, but had not seen their way to comply with this request. If they had done so, the opportunities for bribery would have been greatly reduced-Al-though the evils which he had raised had not yet had any serious effect on racing, he could name the instance of a horse running in a race for no reason except the profit from, a sweepstake, and an instance where negotiations for bribery were in progress. . ■ BETTING NECESSARY FOR RACING. Mr. Hickens asked: You would deplore it if this commission reported in a sense that would knock betting on the head? Witness: Most decidedly. - . - • Thtf chairman: If there were, no betting, racecourses could not.be kept up? — That is so, but, on the other hand, street betting does not interest us the least in the world. We have no interest in it whatever. . ■ r • Sir F. Leishman: Has the Jockey Club given any consideration to the evils of betting?—That does not come within its purview from. the moral, point of view. You merely look at it from the point of view whether it encourages horseracing ?—Merely from that point of view. You think betting is necessary for the continuance of horse-racing?—Yes.. If a form of betting were not permitted, we should not get the large crowds on the raecourses that we do now, and no means of contributing toward the stakes. That would affect breeding as well?— We should have to give up pacing, and no one would breed the same class of horses.'