Sporting Review. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1891.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume II, Issue 63, 8 October 1891, Page 5

Sporting Review. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1891.

It is not an agreeable thing to have continually to point out the shortcomings of the Auckland Racing Club Committee, but in the interest of the racing public—who are our chief supporters —we must do so, or else we should very scon have to close the paper. Last Friday the monthly meeting of the Committee took place. The Press, as usual were excluded. Why is this ? The Committee are not a private body —they are elected not only for the Auckland Racing Club, but they have the control of the racing over a very large district; therefore those interested should know how the members vote, and who brings forward the different motions, so that at the next annual meeting they could vote for those that have racing at heart, and are not lead by a party. Are they either ashamed or afraid of their doings becoming known ? As things are at present, the Press being excluded, it is very hard to find out the truth about what is being done in this chamber of inquisition. A writer that may be favoured and can be trusted to write what is told him, is informed of what they think fit. Others have to get their information as best they can ; while to find out how the different members vote and what is their opinion on the resolution is next to impossible. A question of

great interest to many was brought up last Friday. Were all the owners, trainers, jockeys and ponies that took part in the races held at Potter’s Paddock under the auspices of the Auckland Pony and Trotting Association on Saturday, 26th ulto., to be disqualified or not, it being an unregistered racecourse ? Pule 20 reads thus: “All race meetings held in the districts comprised in Rule 1 shall be run under these Rules. If a horse runs in a race at any meeting within such district which is not held under these Rules, such horse shall be permanently disqualified from running, and the owner, nominator, trainer and jockey of any such horse, from owning, nominating, training or riding at or for any race meeting held under these Rules, unless the Committee of the Jockey Club see just and sufficient cause to remove the disqualification.” This rule reads pretty clear, but the question is, was it when framed ever supposed to have reference to pony or trotting races. When the Colonial Secretary made the Auckland Pony and Trotting Association a Metropolitan Club he virtually gave them the control of this class of racing in the Auckland district—apart from the Metropolitan Racing Club. To show the inconsistent way the A.R.C. Committee act, towards the end of the season 1889-90 they brought in a resolution that no pony races should be allowed on any club’s programme. The consequence was that the Auckland Pony and Trotting Association was immediately formed, and met with so much success that the A.R.C. Committee passed a resolution that any owner, trainer or jockey taking part in any pony or trotting race should be disqualified, but it was not confirmed. At the late Conference held at Wellington one of the delegates of the Auckland Racing Club proposed a resolution that pony racing should be included in the rules of racing. As far as we can learn the answer was that ponies were included. Now, we have gone through the rules many times, and fail to see by any stretch of imagination how ponies can come under them. If pony races are allowed on a programme, the money given to them, it is generally understood, must not be included in the sum total. Look at it as you like, things appear in a regular mess, and it is not to be wondered that the Dunedin Jockey Club decline joining the proposed New Zealand Jockey Club. The A.R.C. Committee showed last Friday both incapacity and a lamentable want of self reliance in dealing with the trouble, as after a long consultation it was resolved instead of deciding the case themselves, to consult with the Committees of the other Metropolitan Clubs—Dunedin Jockey Club excepted—before coming to a decision on the matter. In the meantime the Committees of suburban and country clubs are in a quandary what to do pending the decision, while those that are supposed to have offended by taking part in the pony and trotting races are like Mahomet’s coffin. The majority of the racing public in New Zealand do not approve of the high-handed way some of the Metropolitan Clubs are exercising their authority, and there can be little doubt that the day is not far distant when there will be a revolution in racing in this colony, and if owners, trainers and jockeys combine, what then will those Metropolitan Clubs do who are heavily in debt and whose committees are unpopular? The A.R.C. Committe showed a great want of firmness and exhibited their weakness when they decided to consult the other Committees before coming to a decision. Their course was clear enough. All they had to decide was were they to recognise pony racing or not. The question of the course was neither here nor there.

Taking into consideration the dilemma that the V.R.C. Committee are in as regards pony racing, as at present there are 170 ponies disqualified, and the chances are that the different clubs racing under the V.R.C. rules will have to eliminate pony racing from their programmes, we would recommend the following course to be adopted, and it is not too late for the A.R.C. to do so, which would be far better than the vacillating policy they are now : pursuing. That is, let them separate pony and trotting races by recognising the former, and bringing them under their own rules, also permitting racing clubs to have a certain number of pony races on their programmes, and disqualify owner, nominator, trainer, jockey or pony that have taken part in a pony race held at a trotting meeting, but do not let this be retro-

Bpective. This would compel the trotting clubs to confine themselves to their proper races, instead of having their meetings for the most part gate ones. It would also greatly improve outside clubs and contribute more to the pleasure of the general racegoers and those that really like sport, as it would be much more interesting to see half a dozen good ponies start in either a flat or hurdle race than the same number of miserable screws in a selling race—which in all probability has been arranged beforehand. If this was done it would be of the greatest benefit to suburban race meetings, as what lover of racing would not much sooner see a few ponies like Antic and Pica contest a:hurdle race than the screws that generally start 'for them. If this rule was made it would 'greatly benefit Auckland, as it must be borne in mind that to one decent racehorse there are half a dozen good ponies, and 1 more would soon be forthcoming.

There is another thing that the A.R.C. Committee 'have .done which not only surprises many racing men, but also us, and we are surprised that it has not been ventilated ‘before, and we hope that some of the members of the A.R.C. will assist us to solve the problem. We were always under the impression—and rightly sor— that all racing clubs in ‘New Zealand were compelled to race under “ The Rifles of Racing as adopted by the Metropolitan Clubs of New Zealand?’ We find, however, that the A.R.C. have a rule of their own in contravention to the Rules of Rading—that is as regards geldings. They are allowed five pounds in all races run at Ellerslie under the Auckland Racing Club, while the recognised rules state that the allowance shall be only three pounds. If the Committee make rules of their own and violate those they are supposed to race under, how can they control aud compel other Clubs to adhere to the recognised rules. We have heard several comments on this question since the late Ellerslie meeting, and that is the reason we have brought the question forward.

The stewards of the Victorian Amateur Turf Club appear to be a very sharp lot, at the same time they tare not always right. It will be remembered that some time ago they disqualified Mr. Dumberie, the owner (who was secretary of the Adelaide Racing Club), his horse Dillon, A> Miller, the trainer, and Milne, the jockey, for two years for suspicoius running at their meeting. An appeal was made to the Victorian Racing Club who referred it -back to the Caulfield stewards to-reconsider their -decision, which they did, fbut refused to alter it though there were no real (grounds for it. The ease being this—Dillon, 7st i 1.31 b, won the Murrumbemie Handicap, one mile and three furlongs; Bloodshed, 7st 31b, being second. The same afternoon they met in the Kambrok Handicap, seven furlongs, Bloodshed, 7st 51b; Dillon, Bst 101 b. They finished third and fourth. The stewards in their wisdom never took into calculation that lllb difference in the weights, and a four furlong shorter distance might make a great .deal of difference, also that the fourth horse might have been pulling up. The com-mittee-of the V.R.C. much to the chagrin of the stewards refused to > endorse the disqualification, thus the advent of Dillon in the betting for the Caulfield Cup. They havemow another case which has also resulted in an appeal. In the Hurdle Race on. September 12th, Revenue, an-outsider, beat Leroy, who had been well backed. The winner was objected to on account of interfering with the second, and it ended in his being.disqualified. There really was no cause for it the fact being Fergusson, who, rode Leroy, came with a fast run and tried to get up on the inside, but was disappointed. He .then had to pull on to the outside, and failed to get up. Revenue went very straight the whole of the journey. Eiland, who was the favourite, finished third, and objected to Leroy. The stewards, however, dismissed it. There, is. a good-deal of interest taken in the appeal, as there is a large sum of money depending on the result. The stewards all through have displayed either want, of knowledge or jump at conclusions too quickly, as great dissatisfaction is shown at their decisions.

With great regret we learn of the death of Mr. Pill brow, who was drowned while fishing. Some ten years ago Mr. Pil'brow’s colours —

green jacket and salmon sleeves —were well known on the Ellerslie and other racecourses in New Zealand. The best horse he ever owned was Welcome Jack, who as a three-year-old in the season 1882-83 won the -O.J.C. Handicap, the Auckland Cup, A.R.C. Handicap and Auckland Plate ; in the autumn he did a wonderful performance by winning the Great Autumn Handicap with Bst 41b, doing the mile and a half in 2min 38£sec. Clarence, one of the best steeplechasers ever known, was running at the time, belonged to him. Canard, another good jumper, won several of his best engagements in Mr. Pilbrow’s nomination, while Fusilade won the New Zealand Cup of 1885 in his name. Mr. Pilbrow took Welcome Jack and Clarence over to Australia, where luck seems to have deserted him. Of late years he has been residing at Ashburton, but has had no horses, though he was a constant attendant at Riccarton. He was a first-class judge of racing, and was generally well liked.