TROTTING CONFERENCE ASKS FOR VIEWS ON HANDICAPPING

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19272, 8 January 1931, Page 12

TROTTING CONFERENCE ASKS FOR VIEWS ON HANDICAPPING

Members Of Clubs Are Recommended To Read Article Appearing In “ Star.”

(Special to the “ Star.”)

TIMARU, January 8. THAT the article in the Christchurch 64 Star ” of November 29 appeared to set forth both the strength and the weak points in the present system of handicapping was stated to the Timaru Trotting Club in a letter, received last night from the secretary of the New Zealand Trotting Conference. The secretary’s letter stated that he had been instructed by the conference president to draw the attention ot the club to the article in view of the matter cropping up at the annual conference in July next, and he asked for any recommendations or suggestions on the question. It was decided that members study the article and discuss the handicapping system at a later meeting.

The following is the article on handicapping which appeared in the “Christchurch Star” of November 2S: — The system of handicapping now operating in the trotting sport was brought into force at the commencement of last season, and although it was viewed with a lot of suspicion in some quarters, when first it was mooted, it has proved its worth in nearly every direction. As was to be expected, difficulties were scon encountered, necessitating the clearing tip of doubtful points, but most of them have been got over quite satisfactorily. When the Trotting Conference met in July the subject was due for review, as the system was in operation for a year only. There appeared to be a prospect of the whole subject coming under review again, with a lengthy discussion, the result of which was net easy to forecast. Fortunately, however, an easy way out was discovered, in the decision to give the present system a trial for another year before tracing any act jn to alter or amend the conditions. With full consideration for the whole situation, this was a wise move. The present season is now well advanced and the time seems opportune to discuss the question, with a view to further improvements in the system as originally formulated. One thing that appears to be quite certain is that there will be no return to the old handicapping methods. This being the case, those in authority should set to work to perfect the present system. Its general principle is a limitation of penalties for horses who are placed in races, graded according to the classes in which they have registered their performances. One result of the freedom given to the handicappers is that some striking inconsistencies have been produced. As matters stand at present, this is unavoidable, due to the varying viewrs of different officials concerning the value of performances, one handi-

capper imposing the full penalty allow, ed, while another is content with something less severe. This is a feature of the "system which has given rise to much discussion. Many solutions of the problem have been offered. Some keen* followers of the sport go the length of suggesting that the discretion at present allowed handicappers should be abolished and that hard and fast penalties, graded as at present, according to class, should become the rule. This proposal has much to recommend it, as it would place all horses on an equality of treatment. Another point that has been much discussed is the position of horses entering for races on the actual time they have recorded, when they are entitled to be handicapped under the system to a place in a slower class. A definite rule to cover such cases would be welcomed. Some critics urge that if an owr:.°r chooses to enter a horse in a race for which he has qualified on time, he should not later expect to be handicapped on the slower mark which was his due under the system. The argument of these critics is that an owner is not entitled to have his chance both w'ays. He has his option, and having chosen he should be compelled to abide by the result. It must be admitted that this view is reasonable and logical, and its official recognition would get rid of some difficulties. A general review is needed in another direction. While a definite scale is provided for the distance at which a horse registers his performance, something is required to cover the position as it applies to other distances. A pacer winning a mile race, class 2.24 or slower, may be penalised up to 48vds for future races of a mile, but there is no uniformity in the method of treating him in races over other distances. The difficulty caused in this way is continually in evidence and some strange anomalies have been created by the differing views of handicappers. It is rarely that a meeting takes place without difficulties of some kind cropping up—difficulties which, in the main, could have been avoided.

Those who framed the present handicapping conditions are deserving the thanks of all followers of the sport. They produced a scheme which, on the whole, has worked well. That is an assertion that admits of no doubt. The racing has improved wonderfully under the new order. But the time is now opportune for another step and the executive of the New Zealand Trotting Conference should set up a committee to formulate a scheme which would get over the difficulties which have been disclosed since the system has been in force.