Sporting Review. THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1892. METROPOLITAN CLUB RULES.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume II, Issue 89, 7 April 1892, Page 5

Sporting Review. THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1892. METROPOLITAN CLUB RULES.

[By

Pegasus.]

As pointed out in previous issues, this question requires a great deal of careful consideration at the hands of those appointed as delegates to the Conferences of Metropolitan Clubs, held from time to time throughout the Colony, Many of the rules, as at present framed, are very ambiguous, and lead to endless trouble, more especially with country clubs. These clubs, I contend, are the very ones which the Metropolitan Clubs should frame their rules to accommodate. How often do we find disputes, protests, and lawsuits arising from the inability of country stewards to rightly interpret the intention of the rule to which they are refer-

ring, owing principally to the fact that the. rule is so worded as to be anything but lucid or clear ; and I have even known clever men, able to interpret the meaning of almost any legal Act, quite non-plussed when called upon to give an opinion on some of the rules of racing. For instance, here is an example of what is occuring almost daily amongst us, and on which there is no definite ruling amongst racing men and Committies. A programme is issued which contains a hurdle race and a steeplechase. The conditions state that the winner of any race (or any handicap) after the declaration of weights shall carry a penalty of (say) 51bs. Now Don Juan is in the Hurdle Race at 10 stone (which he wins), and later in the day in the Steeples, at 9st 101 b for which he intends starting. Strictly and legally, according’ to the Rules he has to put up the 51b extra in the Steeplechase. But we find this is not the custom in vogue, and country stewards (especially) wonder why ? Take Rule 2, which states that—“ A race includes plate, match, sweepstake, steeplechase, or hurdle race,” and compare it with Rule 7, which reads “A handicap is a race &.c. &c.” I hold, then, that by Rules 2 and 7 Don Juan (whom I have quoted), and all other similarly situated horses are legally bound to carry the penalty prescribed in the conditions laid down by the Club. This question has been referred to me repeatedly, and I have adjudicated upon it according to the foregoing interpretation ; but I have found that when referred to the Auckland Club it has been disallowed on the ground that it was not customary to put up penalties in a Steeplechase for winning a hurdle race, and vice-versa. “ Rome was not built in a day ” and I suppose the Rules could not be perfected during many such periods of time, still I think much more might have been done than has in the past, towards attaining that perfection necessary to the welfare of racing, and the alleviation of the burdens of those who undertake the duties ol country or suburban race stewards. It must be allowed that as “ the country makes the town,” so the country racing clubs must act as “ feeders ” to the town or Metropolitan Clubs. Certain it is that a great proportion of our cross-country horses will be bred and will make their debut in the country and at country races; hence the necessity (to my mind) of making the Rules far more intelligible and simple of interpretation than appears to be the case at present. Besides, it must add considerably to the duties, and occupy a great deal of the time of the Metropolitan stewards and officials when called upon to mediate between the parties whenever such troublous cases occur. An instance of this kind has only recently occurred at Wangarei, which, from the intricate nature of the circumstances, will test the acumen and discernment of the most astute of the stewards of the Auckland Racing Club. But I find I am digressing from my preconceived plan of dealing with the rules now in existence, which was to “ wade” through them seriatim, and point out “all and sundry” discrepancies, ambiguities, or anomalies, which might happen to attract my notice. Rules 2 and 7, taken together, as shown above, do not “ fit in” very nicely with Rule 4.3. I think it would be advisable to state clearly how penalties are to be reckoned. For example, again, taking those three rules, I hold that by the strict legal reading of them, any horse entered for both the Easter Handicap and Steeples is bound to carry any stipulated penalty in the Steeplechase for winning the handicap, or vice versa, if the conditions state that the winner of “any handicap” after the declaration of the weights has to carry such penalty. It would certainly be more intelligible were a rule to be inserted setting this matter forth more definitely than appears to be the case at present. A rule (call it Rule 42A) to the following effect would meet the case:— “ In all cases where the conditions of a programme state that ‘ the winner of any handicap is to carry a certain penalty’ it shall be deemed to mean that—(l) No winner of a flat race shall incur such penalty in a subsequent hurdle race or steeplechase on that programme. (2) No winner of a hurdle race shall incur such penalty in any subsequent flat race or steeplechase or vice-versa." The next rule to engage attention is No. 20, It would be advisable to state therein whether

or not a horse, owner, &c„ that was under disqualification at the time of nomination is eligible to win the stakes provided the disqualification be removed before the race or races be run. A case of this kind occurred recently at Wangarei, with the result that the matter was referred back to the Auckland Club for their ruling on the question. I shall again refer to this matter in a future issue. In Rule 22 perhaps it would be advisable to cause all balance-sheets to be forwarded, and not allow the proviso “if required.” Why not compel all clubs to show how they stand. 1 his would act as a deterrent to the increase of what I alluded to recently as “ mushroom” clubs. Rules 23 to 44, inclusive, appear to be necessary good, and very applicable, except the probable insertion of Rule 42A, which I have remarked on above.