RANDOM RACING REMARKS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume II, Issue 87, 24 March 1892, Page 2

RANDOM RACING REMARKS.

| BY

PEGASUS.]

The Papakura Racing Club had a “bit of bad luck ” on their opening day, as from early morning up till ten o’clock it rained incessantly. The stewards therefore found it necessary to at once agree upon postponing their meeting This was done, and it was decided to hold the races on Saturday, 26th inst. Putting them off until then was a wise course to pursue as the Papakura racecourse is easily softened, and never gets hard and baked, therefore this postponement will give time to evaporate the surplus moisture.' I have not seen nor heard anything in the meantime to cause me to alter mv opinions of the probable results of the different events a-s set forth in last week s issue. *

For the benefit of readers I shall again repeat them, viz.: — Hurdles—Cloth of Gold or Stepper. Pony Race—Sepoy, Walter Scott, or Romeo. Cup—Pinfire or Capella 1, Leorina 2, Ida 3. Maiden —Tuna or Acacia. Steeple—Colonel or Mangere. Flying Stakes--Helen McGregor, Raglan, Acacia and Ida read best. The Taranaki correspondent of the Review had a par last week concerning the action of his Wanganui confrere in taking him to task for criticising Mr. J. E. Henry’s handicap for the First Hack Flat Race at the Egmont meeting. These two critics need not quarrel over the matter, but can very easily “agree to differ.” I must say, however, that I look upon it as part of the duty of turf scribes to draw attention to every mistake that comes under their notice in racing and handicapping matters. “ Onlookers see the most of the game,” and as Mr. Henry is only mortal and therefore not infallible, he is bound to make mistakes at some, time or other as is the case with all handicappers. If he be wise he will only be too glad to benefit by the criticisms of the onlookers, and by this means improve his powers and capabilities. Personally, I can conscientiously congratulate that gentleman on the majority of his compilations. I shall hope also that he will accept all criticisms of his work in the spirit in which they are given, provided always they be true in fact and mild in tone. Verb sap. The weights for the Sydney Gold Cup have appeared, but space preludes a review of the event in this issue. This two mile race is run on the 18th April next, so that next week will be soon enough to “ commence operations ” on the individual horses that are engaged. Meanwhile, however, I think, looking through them hurriedly, that the safest to trust are Highborn, Sir William, Zalinski, Freedom, Correze, Tirailleur, G’Naroo, Portsea, and Vespasia. The latest conundrum is: “ Why should the rider of Highborn in the Australian Cup have been called"before the stewards for using bad language?” “Because he won the race and “ did ” Cuss den (Cusden).” The perpetrator of this should try again and then die. ON THE TOTALISATOR. “ Necessity is the mother of invention.” Therefore, as the “ring” monopoly had gradually increased and become so oppressive it became a necessity to invent something to break down such a power. Thus do we find the invention and introduction of that machine —yclept the totalisator. This machine, which must have been a great boon to “ hackers,” has, nevertheless, worked slowly, silently, and surelv into such a groove that it has now become” almost as great a power within itself, and is now viewed with almost as much distrust as the betting ring was formerly. There is no doubt but that it has “broken the spell” retained by the “ bookies ” for so long a period, yet, like most reforms of old-standing institutions, there is always the aptitude in such cases of getting “ out of the fryingpan into the fire.” This, I think, has been the case with the totalisator, for we find that dishonest and unscrupulous persons have availed themselves of the machine to carry on their nefarious and dishonourable practices, and that, too, with less chance of detection than was the case when the “ ring ” held the reins of power. Previously the general

public knew little or nothing of how much was betted on any particular horse, as the layer of the odds was unlikely to acquaint them ; hence an owner was more than likely to run “ for the stuff ” Now, however, an owner sees at a glance how the “cat jumps” with the public, and if his horse be well backed he decides on running a “ slinter,” and perhaps saves his exs. with some other good one in the race. Thereafter he “ bobs up ” and makes a good coup ; likewise the other fellow. This state of affairs, I am sorry to say, is aided and abetted—l might almost say encouraged—by those in command of totalisator Take, for example, many of our suburban meetings, and what do we find—two or three machines at work and each added to the other in computing the total. At Ellerslie, lam glad to say, two machines are going, and the div. on each machine is computed separately and individually. In other cases, though, it is not the same—for example, suburban and trotting club meetings. There we have two or moi e machines computed together and a dividend declared accordingly. Why is this thus ? Why not calculate each one separately ? Evidently those “ in the know ” want to “ gull ’ ’ the public, and take these means of doing so. Let us for a moment look at the following well known items of every day occurrence at our suburban and trotting meetings. . No. 1 machine is close to and in view of the grandstand, No. 2 is an inside machine also within view ; but No. 3 is not in such position. A wants to back B’s horse, and on looking at Nos 1 and 2, and the odds thereon, is tempted to invest. Imagine his consternation and chagrin then on finding that the dividend is computed on the three machines, and that, although he counted only on Nos. 1 and 2, the owner or other interested parties have “ backed it up ” on No. 3, and the odds by which he was induced to invest have been reduced to an enormous extent. These are the “mickles” which make up the “muckles” upon which popular racing rests; and they would be well to be lectified at once. Much more might be said on this subject than I have indulged in ; and should necessity occasion further “remarks ” I shall deem it my duty, as a sporting writer, to draw full attention to them ; but I trust this warning note will suffice to put all those interested in the future welfare of the machine on the qui vive to remedy such existing abuses and render the totalisator that “power for good ” for which it was originally intended. Of course a totalisator monopoly would be preferable to a “ bookmaker’s ” monopoly, but it must be patent to the most superficial observer that either must, in the end, prove fatal to the interests of racing and sport generally. Every business man or firm considers the wishes of his patrons in order to make the concern pay, and so it will prove with racing and totalisator men. Rest assured if trickery and dodgery be indulged in, so assuredly will a day of reckoning arrive, and the results of past misdeeds and dishonesty cannot help but culminate in dishonour and degradation to genuine sport of all kinds, as well as to those so closely connected with its immediate ruination and downfall.

On the subject of starting we have made “ remarks ” oftentimes, and whenever bad starting occurred reference has always been made to it, and things were sure to be “ sultry” for the starter. It would seem that turf scribes in the other colonies as well as America have had occasion to draw attention also to the matter of bad starting, for we find these remarks at different times have attracted the attention of “ Rapier,” the turf scribe of the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, published in England. In a recent article on the subject, he says : — “ From one trouble which seems very seriously to affect owners of horses and all interested in an animal’s success abroad we in this country are happily free. Nothing is more common in foreign papers — American, Colonial, and others — than the gravest complaints against the starter. A few good starters there may be, and indeed doubtless are, but unless journals greatly err, a considerable proportion of starters abroad are either incompetents or rogues. It would surely surprise those who suffer under the ministrations of such starters as these—some of whom seem to be overbearing bullies, in addition to their other failings or vices — to note the

methods of Mr. Arthur Coventry, his patience, unfailing good humour, quickness of perception to catch the one happy moment when he can despatch his field, and anxiety to do absolute justice to every horse. A more temper-trying business than starting a big field of horses is not easily imagined. Time after time the field is almost in a line; if lam at the start I can imagine that • Now they’re off ’ is a general comment of observers on the Stands, who have their glasses focused on the field ; but again and again one beast jumps off by himself, or another will not be kicked or coaxed up by others, or both brutes together unite to destroy the chance. I confess it is a marvel to me that Mr. Coventry preserves his equanimity and contrives to say, ‘Go back, please ’ —actually ‘ please’ —instead of thundering out something of a very different character. Just so. But Mr. Arthur Coventry seldom has to contend with riders who do not want to win and are therefore deliberately trying to get a bad start.” The same writer then states that the above ideas were suggested by an article which appeared in the American Horseman on starters. His opinion of the article was that it was a “ hot” one, and he thinks that the men mentioned therein must be rogues, or the law of libel in America is strangely inefficient, if they do not refute the charges made against them. The American article in question reads as follows:—“A starter should start his horses without any reference to betting. He should neither give favourites undue protection, nor should he leave them at the post. Mr. Chinn, at Garfield Park, was guilty of a ‘ leave ’ that would have made even the shameless Caldwell blush. The writer remembers seeing Caldwell deliberately leave Beck at the post, or, lather, try to do so, at Jerome Park three or four years ago, simply because of a row with the boy Bergen, who rode Beck. The other day at Garfield Park Martin Russell started, and properly so, favourite. He could hardly have lost had the starter not decided that he should lose. Palisade, who is owned by B. J. Johnson, said to be a partner of George V. Hankins, one of the principal proprietors of Garfield Park, was second favourite. Mr. Chinn spoiled seven or eight good starts, apparently for the benefit of Palisade, who was pulled up every time he had not the best of the start. It is a very peculiar fact that, although the boy on Martin Russell obeyed the starter’s orders implicitly, he was left at the post the first time his head was turned the wrong way. Was there any good reason to fear that he might have beaten Palisade ? Mr. Lewis Clarke overruled a decision of Starter John Merrill at Garfield Park not long ago, and caused that excellent official to leave the employ of the club. But neither Colonel Clark nor Robert A. Swigert, who is associated with him in the judge’s stand, saw anything wrong in the rank Martin Russell decision.” I fancy there would be “ steep ructions ” were we to use such strong invectives in our criticisms as those used by the American writer whom “ Rapier” has drawn attention to.