Racing and Its Ramifications.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLIX, Issue 20, 14 May 1913, Page 12

Racing and Its Ramifications.

SHOULD BOOKMAKERS OWN HORSES ? WHY IT IS BAD FOR THE .SPORT. Tile ranks of owners have been swelled lately by the addition of many bookmakers, which has caused a good deal of discussion and Some very hard hitting, says a writer in the "Pall Mall Gazette.” I have nothing to say against the gentlemen of that persuasion who dt present run horses, but 1 am not attacking persons in my 'attempt to show that book-maker-ownership is bad for the sport. When the Bookmaker Wins. A principle, if it be any good at all, will prove its merit in practice, and I take certain events that have come to my knowledge during the past few years as sufficient reason for my opposition to the presence of bookmakers hi the field of ownership. I am aware that layers are frequently backers also, but, generally speaking, I think the assumption can be accepted that a bookmaker wins when a horse loses. A schoolboy could almost tell you that; but it is worth remembering, for bookmakers frequently use it as an argument in favour of their owning horses, urging that if their horse is well backed and wins they have to pay out. Another platitude, weaker than the first, for surely a bookmaker owner seldom has a winner without knowing something about it. But let us progress. When a bookmaker owns horses there is frequently a line of communication established between the paddock and the ring which is a decided unpleasantness for other owners, and an additional thread in the tangled skein that a backer has to unravel. Bookmaker and Jockey. Let me be clearly understood. A jockey may be in the paddock talking with an owner from whom he has a retainer. A bookmaker owner, noticing the animated conversation, is interested, and when disengaged, the jockey is interrogated by him, and imparts what has transpired. One can easily see what a financial advantage this is likely to be to the bookmaker, and how it can materially affect the market. Supposing the owner questions his jockey about talking to the bookmaker,, the explanation is ready and feasible. “Mr So-and-so asked me if I could ride his horse for him.” Nothing can be said to this, and yet the owner may feel confident that the strength of the conversation was duly imparted to the bookmaker, who would see to it that good use was made of the intelligence. Ko doubt the bookmakers, turf accountants and commission agents think they are a much-maligned company. It may be so, but unfortunately in their business there are great possibilities of ■fake and duplicity and intrigue, and this ownership.business seems to me to increase the scope of operation. The Beat Interests of the Sport. A notice-board warning skaters that ice at that part is dangerous is not placed there, because it is presumed everyone will make a rush to the spot. It is because a bookmaker when becoming an owner is afforded opportunities of hearing the confidences of other owners through the services of a third party, and thus make capital from collusion, that I unhesitatingly say a bookmaker should not be allowed to own horses if the best interests of the sport are to be studied. I<s it for one minute presumed that when a bookmaker's horse starts favourite it is necessarily expected to win? I could mention one gentleman whose horses seldom win when occupying the pride of place in the market. Why? Again, I make use of the contention that bookmakers win when the favourite loses. A bookmaker may be asked if he fancies hie horse. Only a slight expression of confidence is necessary t« cause

the horse to be well backed, and yet perhaps he is not intended to win that day. Wliy the “ Guv'nor ” Stayed. Away. Look at the other side of the picture. If a bookmaker merely says his horse lias some sort of a chance, but he'is not backing it, there is not likely to be much money for it in the ring. I remember a case of this sort not very long ago. A bookmaker was running a hors© in a certain race, but was not at the meeting to see him run. Noticing his absence, one or two persons asked his representatives if Ur. So-and-So fancied his horse. “ No,” was the reply. “ The guv’nor didn’t trouble to come down today.” The “ Guv-nor ” happened to be engaged elsewhere engineering a startingprice job on this very animal who on the course ran presumably unfancied and unbacked. Of course, one can see that it the Jockey Club passed a rule against bookmakers owning horses it would not necessarily mean that their association with jockeys would be prevented. it would show, however, that the Joekey Club fully realised the presence and activity of a poisonous influence, and it would materially lessen the chances ot cupidity. Limitd to the Ring. I maintain that, professionally, the sphere _ of influence of a bookmaker should be limited to the ring, and that •outside these confines his participation in racing does not tend towards its healthful progress. I am avoiding personalities, for I have no personal animosity to either bookmaker or jockey. The situation, however, has not come into existence by the law of evolution. It has been created, and it exists—and it must be destroyed. The Jockey Club knows the danger that lies in the susceptibilities of young jockeys, and that there are older heads always ready to work on them with an infinity of cunning. The Jockey Club has already decreed that jockeys shall not bet. Why do they hesitate in the passing of further remedial measures T Candidly, I cannot understand it, and shall probably ask this question more pointedly in a subsequent article. The Element of Chance. Bookmakers are far too keen as financiers to run horses for the pure love of the sport, and although they may make racing pay as owners in a perfectly legitimate way, the possibility is unfortunately there that the office" may be used for transactions that would ' not bear the searchlight of public scrutiny. The sport is a good one so long as it is maintained in the true sporting spirit. One loves the element of chance whilst admiring the game ot skill, but the lottery wants to be clean and as free from taint as the children's bran tub at Christmas.