Sporting and Dramatic REVIEW AND LICENSED VICTUALLERS’ GAZETTE. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Thursday, March 2. 1899. THE HOBSON HANDICAP INCIDENT.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 449, 2 March 1899, Page 10

Sporting and Dramatic REVIEW AND LICENSED VICTUALLERS’ GAZETTE. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Thursday, March 2. 1899. THE HOBSON HANDICAP INCIDENT.

At a meeting of the Auckland Racing Club committee on Monday the Hobson Handicap case was advanced another stage. It is not likely that the question has faded from the memory of readers of the Sporting Review, so there is no need to elaborately recapitulate the facts. All that is necessary is the statement that the trouble has arisen through a con-

troversy as to whether the late starter to the Takapuna Jockey Club despatched the four runners in the Hobson Handicap to a legitimate start, or whether he called them back. Mr Halstead, before, at, and after the enquiry by the stewards of the T.J.C., declared that the start was in order, and that he never called the riders back. There was contradictory evidence, and the stewards finally decided to run the race over again. Mr Booth, the owner of Bluecap, the winner of the first race, naturally objected to this course of procedure, and at once appealed to the metropolitan body. On their part the Takapuna Jockey Club stewards lodged a protest to the effect that the Auckland Racing Club could not deal with the matter, on the ground that under Jockey Club Rule 117 the question was beyond the jurisdiction of the Mettropolitan Club. The rule quoted says : —“ All protests and objections shall be determined by the stewards. Their decision shall, however, be subject to appeal within fourteen days to the committee of the Jockey Club, so far as relates to penalties, disqualifications, and points involving interpretation of these Rules, but not as relates to questions of fact, and the decision of such committee shall not be questioned in any Court. An appeal from any such decision may be made to the Racing Conference, and its decision shall be final.’ This protest was considered by the committee of the A.R.C. on Monday and dismissed, and the appeal of Mr Booth allowed. Th® Takapuna Jockey Club will not, it is stated, accept this finding, and intends to appeal to the Racing Conference. So we may assume that the matter will presently be finally disposed of by the Appellate Court. In the Sporting Review of February 2 we foreshadowed the judgment of the Auckland Racing Club, for a calm consideration of the circumstances could give no other conclusion than that the Hobson Handicap was started legitimately on the first occasion the runners were in the starter’s hands. The only Rule of Racing ordering a fresh start is No. 85, which reads, “If the starter allows a start to take place in front of the starting post the start is void, and the horses must be started again.” It has never been urged, so far as we are aware, that the horses were in front of the starting post when Mr Halstead despatched them. It was quite clear to the majority of the spectators that Mr Halstead pressed the lever and intended to start the runners, for both ends of the barrier went up simultaneously. And we are strongly of the opinion that but for the clamorous outcry of those “ silver” backers of Halberdier present at the.starting post Gallagher and Duff would have gone on in pursuit of Bluecap and Bacchus. We have no desire to unnecessarily enlarge upon this subject, more especially as it is probable the question will go before the Racing Conference for final settlement. But as we expressed the opinion at the time that the start was in order, we must say nothing has transpired since to cause any change in that view of the circumstances. Conscientious and able f.s the stewards of the Takapuna Jockey Club may be, they committed the error of yielding to the outcries of an interested section of the public. They are not the first, nor will they be the last, body of men to mistake the brazen cry of the few for the vox populi. Having done so, however, is no reason why a graver error of judgment should take place, and we should be delighted to hear that the stewards of the Takapuna Jockey Club had accepted the ruling of the metropolitan club in a sportsmanlike manner. There would be nothing undignified in such a step, honorable amends would be made all round, and such a termination to an unhappy episode would redound greatly to the credit of the Takapuna Club. We want no drifting apart of racing associations ; rather do we require that the bonds of sporting fellowshipshould be forged of links of steel. Although we may have a certain amount of sympathy for the T.J.C. stewards, we cannot arouse a modicum of that feeling for Tattersail’s Committee. With a precipition worthier of a better cause, that body rushed in where angels feared to tread, and settled the betting side of the Hobson Handicap difficulty at once. Tattersail’s Club declared all bets off without waiting for the appeal to the’ metropolitan body, though it was known at the time that the owner of Bluecap had appealed against the decision of the T.J.C. Whatever the reason was for the

undue haste displayed it may be taken for granted that the committee can now see it committed an error of judgment, a plain fact which we pointed out in the issue of February 2. There was no need for the hurry—both backers and bookmakers could very well have waited for the final decision —but Tattersail s Club adjudicated on the question, as it now turns out. all too soon. And the moral of it all, as the Duchess in “Alice in Wonderland” would. say, is, “Do not jump at your conclusions.”