Untitled

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume V, Issue 215, 6 September 1894, Page 4

The system which obtains of penalising winners has been adversely criticised by a contributor to the Sydney Referee, who contends that the penalties incurred by horses for winning races are in most cases excessive. He points out —certainly with a great deal of truth —that when a handicapper allots the weights for a race he does so on the supposition that all the horses are so weighted to give to each an equal chance of success. If a horse, by reason of subsequent wins, can put up nearly a stone on his original weight, and still have a chance, it is obvious that the original handicap was nothing but a glaring instance of bad weighting. Our contemporary’s contributor takes Pharamond’s win in the Rosehill August Handicap —a race worth £go— as an instance of the unfairness of penalising the winner of a minor race in connection with an important race like the Epsom Handicap. Pharamond won with 7.7, and for his victory he goes up from his Epsom Handicap weight of 7.10 to 8.6. That either means that his win in the Rosehill event —a comparatively unimportant contest — makes his Epsom chance better by tolbs or that the handicapper in forming his handicap underestimated the horse’s ability by that weight. A victory in an event like that run in August at Rosehill is no line upon which to argue that the horse’s chance is enhanced in a race like the Epsom, so while the reason the additional burden should be imposed on him may be clear to the A.J.C., it is decidedly obscure to the general public. In our principal race, the N.Z. Cup, the winner of a race of similiar value to the Rosehill Handicap would be only called upon to put up an additional jib. That is more like the thing than the conditions of the Epsom, which provide that any winner of a handicap after the declaration of the weights must put up an extra lolb! Why the A. J.C. authorities should enforce such provisons is a mystery for, as the Referee writer puts it, “ No racing man would contend for one moment that Pharamond’s win in the Rosehill Handicap made his chance for the Epsom Handicap so good that tolb more had to be put on his back to bring him on a level with the other horses in the race.” He contends, further, that to penalise winners as the Epsom Handicap conditions require is nothing more nor less than a premium on what is called in the classics “ stiff” running.

According to Mr Scarr’s weighting he made out Pharamond to be an inferior horse by lolb than Delaware, but the A.J.C. by their absurd conditions say that Pharamond should be on a par with Delaware. That is simply making the work of their handicapper appear a farce, Further, in the race in question — the Rosehill event—Pharamond was followed home very closely by Gingham, who is also an Epsom contestant. Mr Scarr made Pharamond give her 11b in his weighting for that event; but the A.J.C. turn round and make out that Pharamond should give her 111 b. If the report of the Rosehill running be correct she was anything but 111 b behind the winner, so what sort of a chance can the latter have of beating her in the Epsom at the difference enforced by the 101 b penalty provision ? According to those conditions a horse only beaten by a nose in a minor race would escape penalty, while the horse that won by a few inches would be called upon to put up another lolb if he were an Epsom contestant. The justice of such a state of things is anything but clear. As the writer quoted observes, re-handicapping is far better than fixed penalties, although no horse should have to put up extra weight for winning a race of less than a hundred pounds. “ The A.J.C. would do well (he remarks) to consider this matter, as it is one of importance. When Tim Swiveller won the Caulfield Cup last year, Mr Dakin re-handicapped him for the Melbourne Cup. When Tim Swiveller was disqualified, he was put back to his original weight. Sainfoin, the winner, was not re-handicapped because it would have been absurd to do so under the circumstances. Consequently, these horses

started with their original weight up, and neither 'of them were placed. What chance, therefore, would they have had with penalties when they could not win with their original imposts ? Sainfoin has the exact weight in the Melbourne Cup this year that he-had in the last, and yet had Mr Dakin been able to re-handi-cap him after the Caulfield Cup he would probably last year have been called upon to carry 8.10. It is evident from the weight Mr Dakin has given Sainfoin this year that he does not set much store by the penalising system. It is unfair to put a weight on a man’s horse that practically crushes him out of a good race because the horse wins a minor event. There is no encouragement to horseowners in this system, and the sooner we have a change in the plan of penalising winners the better.” While the A.J.C. go in for such absurd conditions it is a matter for congratulation that they possess candid Press friends to point out their errors in the manner of our contemporary. We are glad to see that the Wanganui Club are endeavouring to abolish the penalising system by moving that in the event of a horse winning a handicap of after weight declarations his weight shall be affected by a reviewing and not a penalising system.