CONFLICTING VIEWS ON HANDICAPPING

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19118, 10 July 1930, Page 12

CONFLICTING VIEWS ON HANDICAPPING

PRESENT SYSTEM TO BE CONTINUED FOR YEAR. (Special to the “ S*ar.’ ) WELLINGTON, July 9. The handicapping question was expected to occupy a great deal of time at the Trotting Conference, but the whole subject was disposed of in short order. When the handicapping remits were reached, a cablegram was read from the president, Mr 11. F. Nicoll, who is on a visit to London. Referring to handicapping he said: “The most important reform last year was the handicapping. The results have been singularly successful. I earnestly hope that the delegates will decide to continue the movement, which has given the public and the majority of owners and trainers such satisfaction.” Commenting on this, the chairman. Mr Rowe, said that was all right from Mr Nicoll's point of view. The owners might be satisfied, but judging from the many complaints he had heard the system had not been a success. The first remit on the subject sought to make permanent the handicapping system which was in force this seaMr D. 11. Roberts (Greymouth) moved an amendment that the system should be given a further trial for another year. He thought one year’s trial was insufficient on which to base a definite opinion, and with another year’s experience the work of the hanwould become more uniform. The amendment was carried unanimously. A new rule was approved cn the suggestion of the Trotting Association that 2.30 to the mile for pacers and 2.34 for trotters should be the slowest limit on any programme. The Conference executive introduced a new rule that no person should act as a handicapper of any race unless he held a license granted by the Conference or executive. This was declared lost on a division, though a big vote was cast in favour of it. The Trotting Association asked for power to make regulations in regard to the basis on which imported horses should be handicapped. Strong exception to the remit was taken by Mr H. R. Mackenzie, who said he regarded this as a matter for the Conference rather than for the Association. The remit was lost.