Sporting Review. THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1894.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IV, Issue 201, 31 May 1894, Page 4

Sporting Review. THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1894.

An important suggestion which is worthy of consideration is put forward by Mr O. Samuels, a prominent member of the Taranaki Jockey Club, in a letter which was read at the annual meeting of that body on Friday night last. The full text of the communication is given in another column and will well repay perusal. The letter deals with the existing mode of dividing totalisator money, and advocates a system which is in use elsewhere, viz., of paying out on placed horses instead of only on the winner. Mr Samuel’s suggestion is that in future the totalisator money, after the usual deductions are made, should be paid out on the first and second horses iu the proportion of twothirds on the first and one-third on the second. In the case of a dead heat the money would be distributed as at present, and if only two horses were backed, the scheme provides that the present rule of paying on the winner only would be retained. The propounder of the scheme has worked out roughly what would have been the results if the rule which he proposes had been adopted at the Taranaki Autumn Meeting, and gives the figures that would have been paid for every race. There is a lot to be said in favour of Mr Samuel’s proposition and a certain amount to be said against it. When one knows a horse can do a certain distance in a given time, that he will be well ridden, and will run up to form, it is undoubtedly annoying to have your dividend snatched from you by a decision of “ a short head ” being given against him. Indeed it is very much to be questioned whether this short head business should not be done away with and a horse required to win with a clear head or be placed un a dead heat with the one that runs him so close. But this by the way. In a case like the one suggested we are inclined to back up Mr Samuel’s suggestion. But a certain amount has to be said on the other side. For instance, according to his showing of what would have been the result at the Taranaki Autumn Meeting, had his idea been carried out, in five races it would have paid one better to back the second, rather than the first, horse, and the policy of that state of things being introduced is very much to be questioned. It would then pay a rider (or his backers) for him to finish second rather than first, and then where would we be ? It would be a case of an owner studying the figures on the machine before he gave his jockey instructions how to ride. Then, again, would it be fair to pay out on a second horse who was beaten hopelessly by half-a-dozen lengths or so ? The question is a nice one. And in the Hack Race at Taranaki, according to Mr Samuel’s suggestion, those who backed the first horse would have got 19s for their £1 for their successful picking, while the backers of the second animal would have got £1 7s. Before approval can be given to Mr Samuel’s scheme a lot of consideration is required.