METROPOLITAN CLUB RULES.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume II, Issue 94, 12 May 1892, Page 3

METROPOLITAN CLUB RULES.

| BY

PEGASUS.]

In my. last I had got as far as Rule 123. A stricter enforcement of Rule 126, especially by Country Club’s is much needed, and would have a very, salutary effect in purifying the racecourse atmosphere of much obscene language and bad .conduct. Rule 159 should be attended to more thoroughly by country secretaries. The conditions of this rule are too often carried out in a very lax manner. Secretaries should give the Metropolitan Clubs the full particulars demanded if they desire to have their disqualifications endorsed. Oftentimes this matter is sadly neglecte 1, thereby rendering Rule 160 a “ dead letter.” In connection with Rule 179 and 180, an addendum requiring jockeys to appear in clean attire might be deemed necessary. Visitors from otner parts of the world (especially England) invariably remark upon the slovenly dress of a large majority of our jockeys. This item is really worthy of consideration and would undoubtedly improve the general appearance of the paddocks and lawns as well as the horses engaged in the different events. It is to be feared that Rule 182 is, in a great many cases, not strictly complied with, and that many (so-called) gentlemen riders do receive payment for their services in connection with riding, training, etc. Glancing retrospectively over my former as well as the present “ remarks ” it will be found that I have touched upon a goodly number of the rules as requiring slight alterations, amendment, or stricter enforcement. Perhaps it would be well to briefly summarise them all in this issue. Rule 2 and 7 state what a race is and what a handicap is; but we have no rule to show that a horse does not incur a penalty in a hurdle race or steeplechase for winning a flat race. As at present they must carry a penalty for

same if conditions of race state that the “ winner of a handicap is to carry a penalty.” Rule 20 might have added to its present form the words (<?) “ Before time of running if for running at an unregistered meeting,” and (b) “ before time of nomination if disqualified for corrupt or fraudulent practices.” Part of Rule 20 says, “ disqualified from owning, nominating, &c.” “ unless the Club see cause to remove such disqualification.’ But the question arises—Remove it when ? Rule 22. It might be better for the fostering of genuine races and racing clubs if the words “ if required ” in the second clause were omitted altogether and make it compulsory to produce a balance-sheet in order to show that the particular Club in question is carrying on a legitimate business. After Rule 42 to insert Rule 42A to read : *• In all cases where the conditions of a programme state winner of any handicap to carry a penalty, it shall be deemed to mean that—(aJ no winner of a flat race shall incur a penalty in any subsequent hurdle race or steeplechase on that programme; and (b) no winner of a hurdle race or steeplechase shall incur a penalty in any subsequent flat race, hurdle race, or steeplechase, or vice versa.” The necessity of some such provision will be apparent, for, at at present worded, the Rules legally bind the winner of a flat race to put up a penalty in a hurdle race subsequently. Rule 46 was referred to country secretaries for their future guidance, and will be found fully “remarked” upon in the issue of 21st April. Rule 55 to provide for entry by delayed telegram, provided a letter be posted at the same time .is recommended to the notice of racing authorities.

Rules 56, 60, and 61, to be far more strictly enforced than has been the practice generally heretofore.

Rule 62 I previously pointed out as ambiguous. I suggested the insertion of the words “advertised by the same club” after the words “ closing on the same day,” as set forth in this rule. The ambiguity is then removed. Rule 64 to be more strictly enforced. In fact a very strict compliance should be insisted upon. Rule 75 requires looking into thoroughly. A great many persons assume that if a horseowner A sell his No. 1 horse to B, that B is clear if he pay the arrears on No. 1 horse only; notwithstanding the fact that A also is a defaulter on his No. 2 and other horses. Others aver that all arrears on the whole of A’s horses must be paid (if required) before B can run his new purchase No. 1 horse in any race. Such diversion of opinion should be removed by a clearer rendering of the rule in question. Rule 75 taken with Rules 80 and 81 will be found very difficult of interpretation. The whole matter hinges on whether, if the owner A be a defaulter on two or more horses, the new owner is liable for the whole forfeit before being qualified to win or not with any one of the said horses which he may happen to purchase.

The other rules are dealt with in the first part of this article. In drawing attention to these matters it is to be hoped that no one will run away with the idea that I am trying to pick holes and do a bit of carping. These items are repeatedly argued out, and I have drawn attention to them simply in the hope that, wherever deemed necessary, reforms may and will be made, thereby rendering our Metropolitan Rules easy of interpretation to the densest of intellects. I commend them to the further consideration of “ the powers,” trusting they will accept them in the same spirit as given, and hope they will make all such alterations and amendments they mav look upon as being requisite.