Random Remarks.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume III, Issue 151, 15 June 1893, Page 9

Random Remarks.

[By

Pegasus.”]

The Conference of country and suburban racing delegates have met and passed a series of resolutions. They also appointed a provisional committee to meet the Auckland Metropolitan Club and lay the matters discussed before that body. I can quite concur with the majority of their deliberations, but at the same time I confess to being somewhat disappointed over the result of the meeting. Ido not wish to throw cold water on what has been done, but I certainly fail to see what reforms they have suggested in the whole course of the resolutions agreed to amongst them. Let us read them carefully down and try and find one original suggestion in the lot. They are most conspicuous by their absence. The meeting would seem to have resolved itself into a sort of criticising society, and instead of coming there prepared with suggestions to be made to the Metropolitan Clubs, they only sat and discussed various items which have been given notice of by the Hawke’s Bay and Auckland Metropolitan Clubs. I shall now take passing note of each resolution, and thereafter drop a few ‘ randoms ’ anent the whole matters under discussion. Resolution 1. —‘That all subordinate clubs should have representation at the annual Conferences ’ This is only as it should be, and I presume such resolution is the genuine outcome of the recent action of the Colonial Secretary in granting totalisator rights to the North Auckland Racing Association, as also the subsequent action of the Ashburton Club in taking steps in a similar direction. Rather strange that the Metropolitan Conferences have been so long finding out the necessity for subordinate clubs being,represented. Self-interest, I suppose. Resolution 2.— Re voting power of the various clubs. Now, as these Conferences are held for the avowed purpose of framing and amending racing laws, why is it necessary to ‘ draw the line ’ and say one Metropolitan Club shall have 6 votes, whilst’,another shall have only 2 votes ? I assume again that the Metropolitan Conference is a body of men who have given a great amount of thought to the various questions concerning racing, and their mission is presumably the rectification of existing errors in racing laws. That being so, why cannot the Taranaki Jockey Club send as many delegates as the Auckland Racing Club ? Their work and functions are the same. Why a preponderance of voting power to any one or a few individual clubs ?

Resolution 4. — Re expenses of delegates as : passed. This would appear to work harmoniously with the voting power, and as each club could afford one, two or

three meetings, so they will be taxed accordingly. I would suggest each Metropolitan Club a fixed sum, and the combined country or suburban clubs also a fixed sum. Suppose expenses of delegates were fixed as follows : —each Metropolitan Club in the colony each suburban club 10s, and each country club ss. If the Metrop. Clubs sent 1 delegate, the suburbans 1, and the country 1, then the amounts would be about evenly distributed.

Resolution 5. —Concerning proprietary clubs not being represented. I am of opinion that self-interest was again on top in this matter. The fact seems to have been overlooked that these Conferences are not for the furtherance of individual or private ends, but for the promotion and maintenance of genuine sport. Then no financially interested parties or clubs should have any say in any such conference. I feel strongly that much evil will eventually result if the A.R.C.’s resolution anent this matter be rejected at the forthcoming Conference. Resolution 6. —‘That country and suburban clubs should have at least two representatives on the Metropolitan Club.’ I drew attention to this fact before, and will have something further to say later on. Resolution 7. —‘ That Rule 22 of Racing Rules be revised,’ &c. lam about tired of referring to this question, and so long ago as May sth, 1892, I drew attention in the columns of the Sporting Review to the necessity for this veiy revision. I shall, however, later on have more to say about it. Resolution B.—‘That there be four meetings exclusively for ponies,’ &c., &c. We have already enough pony meetings and trotting clubs in the district, but there would seem to me to be no barm in allowing each club to have one pony race and one trotting race on their programmes for each day’s racing. Don’t let the Metropolitan Clubs allow distinct pony and trotting meetings to come under their special jurisdiction. Let the present clubs instituted for that purpose ‘ gang their ain gait,’ and let the Metrops. quietly await developments. The rest of the resolutions adopted at the Conference related to meetings, secretary, treasurer, &c., &c., and call for no comment just now. Having briefly touched upon the various resolutions adopted it will be seen that my contention re the spirit of self-interest is very evident. First, the country and suburban clubs agitate to be represented at Conferences which are ostensibly called together for the revision of racing rules. How many of those rules have they suggested should be altered in order to show that they are worthy of representation ? One ! And that one was more than likely to be amended without their asking. Now as this said Rule 22 touches the pockets of the clubs it will be quite apparent that my ‘ selfinterest’ argument is fully borne out. What about restricting the various clubs to a limited number of days’ racing per annum ? Nothing at all I

What about a limited number of meetings per annum for each kind of club ? I drew attention to this on May 25th last, before the Conference met, but these matters seem to have been lost sight of in the all-absorbing ideas of representation on Metropolitan Clubs and the reduction of the amount necessary to grant the use of the totalisator. Why does such a Rule as No. 22 exist at all if it were not for the purpose of keeping racing and racing clubs within reasonable bounds and subject to some set code of laws and under some recognised jurisdiction ? Then if these meetings are not to be curtailed at all, why not sweep away Rule 22 altogether, and grant the use of the totalisator to all and sundry without any restrictions whatever? No ! no ! These matters will require to be met face to face and dealt with in a far more decided and disinterested manner than hitherto.

In fact the sum total of the Suburban and Country Conference is summed up as follows : ‘We want to have representation on your Metropolitan Club and we want you to alter Rule 22 to what it was before, and we shall be quite satisfied? If the Metropolitan Clubs only made the one mistake of increasing the required amounts of added money, as per Rule 22, they did so to curtail the too free use of the ‘ tote,’ and in that case it would seem they are quite a good enough body to go on as before without any further representation of other clubs.

It would appear certain that the main object to be kept in view when considering R,ule 22 is to so frame it that the totalisator may be legitimately and sparingly used, but not abused.

Then if the present state of affairs be not satisfactory, how will it be any more so by a return to what previous Metropolitan Conferences deemed to be detrimental to the true interests and perpetuation of the sport ? I confess I fail to see it.

Since the above was written I have obtained a copy of the resolutions which are proposed to be brought forward by the Sv A.R.C. at the forthcoming Conference. As some of them have been repeatedly ‘remarked’ upon by me during the last two years, my original plan of dealing with Conference matters must be somewhat altered.

The first part of this article was written for last issue, but somehow got ‘ crowded out,’ and I purposed following with something more this time. Now, however, they will have to all together. I shall now deal with the A.R.C.’s budget of motions. No. 1 is necessary in order to proceed with No. 2, which, if passed, will read: — ‘No club shall be allowed to hold more than 5 meetings a year. Any club holding 1 meeting a year must give /”ioo per diem; 2 meetings per diem ; 3 meetings, per diem ; and over 3 meetings, per diem, inorder to secure the right to use the totalisator at such meetings? Now this is exactly the same state of affairs as previously existed, and if it did not meet the necessities of that time it is hardly likely to do so now. I beg to humbly suggest going a little farther and specifying exactly how many meetings each class of club may be entitled to hold during any racing season. I have already hinted at this matter. I shall now go further still, and throw out a few suggestions in the hope that someone may think fit to formulate some plan or other therefrom. For instance, let us say Metropolitan Clubs shall not exceed 5 meetings per annum, suburban 4 meetings per annum, and country clubs 3 meetings per annum. Next, Metropolitan meetings shall not exceed 4 days duration, subuiban 3 days duration, and country 2 days duration. Note here, that Metropolitan Clubs could extend each of their meetings throughout 4 weeks, suburban 3 weeks, and country 2 weeks or more, but the proviso could be inserted that each day of every meeting so held shall be within so many days of the others of such meeting. Igo further again, and suggest that the minimum for country meetings should be instead of £ 100 Let us then say ‘ every day’s racing of each meeting of a Metropolitan Club shall be within 5 days of each other; of a suburban club within 3 days of each other ; of a country club within 2 days of each other? To illustrate my argument what is there at present to prevent the Avondale (or any other) suburban club from holding a spring meeting which shall be (say) a 4 days’ meeting, beginning (say) on 10th September, and the 2nd day of the meeting taking place on October 10th. 3rd day November 10th, and so on ad lib? Nothing whatever I I see no reason (as this rule is intended to curtail the abuse of the totalisator and of racing privileges) why Rule 22 should not go even further than has yet been suggested. Supposing we should say as follows : * Any club holding one meeting per annum shall give in added money for one day’s racing, per diem; 2 days’ racing, /wo per diem ; two meetings per annum, one day’s racing, per diem; two days’ racing per diem ;’ and so on in proportion throughout the whole of the clauses of this same rule. I might go on exemplifying my ideas on this score, but I fancy the above suffice to make my meaning plain. The third motion I have already alluded to, and can quite endorse the A.R.C. in their action in prohibiting parties having a monetary gain in view from taking part in the framing of rules which are most certainly only deemed to be in the interests of true sport. The fourth and fifth motions have to do with minimum weights which are to be carried. Regarding the reduction from 10 stone to 9 stone during certain months of the year, I am of opinion that this is a step in the right direction, but by raising the 6.7 minimum to 7.0 I fail to see what is to be gained by it. As a general rule those who require to be weighted below 7.0 are of a class which could not win even with the proverbial ‘ postage stamp? But I think perhaps I have exceeded my limit of time and space in discussing these matters. I have still some more to say, but will reserve it for some future time. Meanwhile, gentle readers, digest all these ‘ randoms,’ and be prepared for a few more to follow.