TROTTING.

Waikato Times, Volume 118, Issue 19759, 14 December 1935, Page 21 (Supplement)

TROTTING.

THE PENALTY SYSTEM. ■, ' i ANSWER TO CRITICISM. ! SOUTHERN WRITER’S OPINION. In an article appearing in the Waikato Times of November 12, the com- ; plaints of certain owners and trainers of what was considered "anomalies in the existing system of handicapping" were ventilated. A southern writer, “Ribhonwood," writing in the New Zealand Referee this week puts forth a strong case in defence of the’ existing scheme of things. He writes as , follows: )

The handicapping system has had many opponents in the Auckland pro- ! vince and an article recently appeared in an Auckland newspaper condemning what was termed “inconsistent treatment," and advocating the abolition of optional assessments. Actually the cases quoted will not stand vestigation.In the first place, the northern writer states: “If a horse runs third for a stake of £5 and thereby incurs a penalty of one second it may mean in certain cases that owners of good horses will be discouraged from patronising the smaller clubs where the slakes are meagre, and the likelihood of being penalised is lessening the, chances of a horse earning a more re-. munerative return."

- The handicapping system provides that there is no penalty for third place when a horse is kept to its right class. If an owner starts a horse in a tighter class than its assessment he does so, or should do so, in the full knowledge that he is liable to cement the mark from which he starts. This is what happened in the case ol’ Kewpis's Crest at the Waikato meeting referred to. He was assessed on 3.40, but ran third from 3.39 and the latter mark became the basis of his future handicap. This writer further states: “The greatest anomaly in King's Play’s penalties occurred at Hamilton, where for winning a 3.39 class lie was put back 36 yards against 24 yards for Bonny Azure, who won a similar class the first day." Fair or Unfair? It has to be pointed out that Bonny Azure won off 3.38. Had Bonny Azure been given 36 yards over one mile and a half the penalty would have been 24 yards for one mile, 36 yards for one mile and a quarter and 36 yards for a mile and a half, against King’s Play’s penalties of 12 yards for one mile, 24 yards for one mile and a quarter, and 36 yards for one mile and a half; or had" King’s Play been given only 24 yards for one mile and a half, the penalty over other distances would have been 12 yards for one mile and 24 yards for one mile and a quarter. In the case of King’s Play this would have represented a lesser penalty for a slower class horse that had previously run a second without being penalised.

Accordingly the assessment as made by the handicapper was\a fair one; the assessment suggested by the North Island writer would have been unfair. In regard to King’s Guide and Tryment, the writer in the North Island paper has the following: "King’s Guide provides another example of inconsistency in allotting penalties. For a first and second in two saddle races' he has received 24 yards, while r£ryment, in’ the same class of races, got only 12 yards for a win and two seconds." In answer, it can be pointed out that the penalties for these horses are consistently in keeping with previous cases quoted, and again any greater penalty for Tryment for winning would have meant 24 yards penalty for- one mile, 36 yards for one mile and a quarter, and 36 yard's for one mile and a half, against King's, Guide’s 12 yards, 24 yards, and 36 yards, respectively. The fact that Tryment escaped a further penalty for second vvas governed by the penalty given tiie horse that beat her. , In reply to the criticism levelled at what are described as other inconsistencies, it can be said without a shadow of doubt that the complants are groundless when the cases are viewed from 'the correct angle. Auckland Agitation. If the Auckland Owners’, Breeders’ and Trainers’ Association -considers it has legitimate grievances, it is hardly likely to come to an understanding with the authorities by giving inaccurate examples wlicli will not stand investigation. The present agitation in Auckland goes back many years, and the unfortunate position in which some of the country clubs find themselves is due to a combination of circumstances, not in any way brought about by the workings of the present handicapping system. On several occasions before the ap-j pointment of the present handicapper, the writer had cause lo draw attention to the extremely light penalties being applied throughout the North Island. So far was this carried, that owners came to regard a penalty for running second, in some classes, at certain meetings, as an injustice. 1 Since the appointment of Ihe present adjuster, the Stipendiary Stewards’ Committee issued instructions that the penalties were to I be uniform, according to stakes won, and other considerations, throughout the Dominion. For the benefit of those who have lost sight of the constant friction that occurred when handicapping was done on the time basis, the present system was designed firstly to make a break away from the unfair idea of time as the sole standard of handicapping, and also to put a stop to local Influences prompting club handicappers to bid for support for their particular clubs. In botli these aims the system has been a success and has been a great advance. In complaining of what they term severe penalties, Auckland owners overlook the fact that prior to the present system -coming into being, horses were frequently penalised as much as 96 yards for the same performance for which they are now penalised 24 yards.

It is becoming more apparent with each succeeding meeting in the Auckland province that there is a section desirous of ending the present system of penalties. It is inconsistent with the argument that no difference is made for small stakes and fields at country meetings, that a complaint should then bo made when the same horses arc penalised the maximum for winning a maiden trot at Auckland with comparatively large stakes. In any case, the present system is not a money-won system, but handieappers exercise their discretion when the stakes arc below a certain value.