Sporting Review AND LICENSED VICTUALLERS’ GAZETTE. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Thursday, November 19, 1896. THE RACING CONFERENCE.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VII, Issue 330, 19 November 1896, Page 6

Sporting Review AND LICENSED VICTUALLERS’ GAZETTE. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Thursday, November 19, 1896. THE RACING CONFERENCE.

Our turf legislators have met in conference, but the result of tljeir deliberations is not likely to affect racing very much, either for the better or for the worse. The policy most in favour appeared to be to let turf matters remain as they were, but a little was done just by way of demonstrating that the delegates had some excuse for meeting beyond the allurements of Riccarton, which was, perhaps, the cause of the presence of many of the members at Christchurch. They were enabled to do an act of justice by approving of the payment of £l5O to the secretary, and the sum was little enough, seeing" that it was for five years service; and it should not be forgotten that, if future conferences are to be of any benefit whatever, much will depend upon the labour done by the secretary in preparing work for the members to do. The subject of the number of telegrams sent to bookmakers for investment at totalisator odds was an item left as a legacy from the previous conference, and the reading of correspondence only served to show that the conference and the police were impotent in the matter. The chairman had written to the Colonial Secretary on the subject, but the members of the conference were informed that the Postmaster- General could not interfere in the matter, and the police admitted that they were practically powerless. Perhaps the conference had a little satisfaction later on, when the bookmakers came forward with a reasonable request to be licensed. The bookmakers—by deputation—urged their claim, and submitted that they should be allotted a position in the saddling paddocks, in which they might be allowed to lay the odds straight out. It is an advantage for owners to obtain long odds from the bookmakers at an early stage in the betting, which they cannot get from the machine, and the pencillers only seemed to be asking that which was fair when they sought to be permitted to bet on the day of the race, when they would have an opportunity of rectifying any irregularities in their book. There are many, too, who prefer to get fixed odds when they bet, and it is pretty certain that there would not have been such widespread interest in the New Zealand Cup had it not been for the members of the rino 1 , from whom £25,000 could have been won about any horse in the race. There are many men of moderate means, too, who do not care to go the extent of £1 on every bet required by the machine, but would speculate in smaller sums to have an interest in the racing. The Conference, however, watches over the intests of the money-making totalisator with fond and tender care, and they are determined to give it a monopoly. The bookmakers have been prohibited from betting in the legitimate way, and the illegitimate game, of which the conference complains, will go on just in the same way that sly grog selling may be expected if the teetotallers succeed in obtaining prohibition. It is an evidence of the commercial law that a demand will create a supply, and if the public want to back with bookmakers they will do so clandestinely if they connot do so openly, and while the totalisator receipts may be diminished, the revenue of the Telegraph Department will be increased. There is a difficulty about the Stud Book, the compilers of which want a guarantee of £lOO, and some members of the Conference appear desirous of shifting the responsibility to Australia by asking the compilers of the Australian book to include New Zealand. It is to be hoped, however, that this suggestion will not

find favour, as the Australian book would be too cumbersome and expensive, and, besides, surely the stud of New Zealand (where we flatter ourselves that we are able to breed, as we have done in the past, the best racehorses in the world) is important enough to have a book of its own. As the matter now stands, a committee has been appointed, to report; and that, too, is just what was done on the subject of the amendment of our racing laws. The new rule on the subject of amateur riders will give stewards a large power in saying who are eligible to ride, but if it is conservative in tone it will assist racing clubs in maintaining the high status of amateurs. The new totalisator rule, providing for the refund of money invested on a disqualified horse, will doubtless meet with the approval of those who have been innocently led to back a stiff ’un. The new rule reads :— In the event of a horse being disqualified in any race on the ground of improper or incorrect nomination or entry, or of inconsistent running in some previous race or races, or of a jockey being disqualified for having pulled or fraudulently prevented a horse from winning, the stewards may order all moneys paid for tickets on that horse, or the moneys paid for tickets on all horses in that race, to be returned as they may think advisable, either after or without deducting the usual commission.

The conference very properly declined to make any alteration in the present mode of dividing dividends, and the proposition to form a New Zealand Jockey Club was defeated. It is clearly the wish of the proposers to centralise turf interests in Wellington, Christchurch, and Wanganui, but the extreme north, and south clubs recognised the danger of being governed by a central body,, which would essentially be composed of Wellington and Canterbury men, and the Dunedin and Auckland representatives gave it their uncompromising opposition,, with the result that 18 delegates voted fortheestablishment of the club, as against 10 for it, but the chairman (Sir George Clifford) declared that the motion was lost, as it required three-fourths of the voting power of the conference to carry, the proposition. Strangely enough, the ruling of the chair given last year, when the vote was taken on the subject of the Official Calendar, was directly antagonistic to that just stated. Sir George Clifford’s last ruling is no doubt correct, and in accordance with the rules of the conference, but in the face of that ruling it would be interesting to know how it is proposed to reconcile or justify the unjust and illegal ruling of last year. We may know later on, and claim to be entitled to the explanation.