THETRUTH ABOUT HORSE RACING

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XII, Issue 746, 23 June 1904, Page 9

THETRUTH ABOUT HORSE RACING

“Old Blue,’’ writing in a recent issue of the “London Sporting Life,” gets down to bed-rock fact about racing, and his remarks might well be taken to heart by faddists from the Chief Justice downwards :—

The remarks of the Duke of Portland on horse-racing and betting, have caused quite a pompholugopaphlasma—as Aristophanes magnificently expresses it. Coming from such a source, of course, much more stress has been laid upon them than would otherwise have been the case. Enthusiasts are seldom logical, however. For instance, it is absurd to say that it is impossible to make money by betting. Hundreds of men hav.e made considerable incomes by judicious investment on the speed and endurance of racehorses, and are still doing so. I am not now going to enter into the argument as to whether betting per se is sinful or not. Personally, I am in the same position as a recent Calcutta Diocesan? Conference, which spent a whole day trying to discover what was wrong about betting, but did not succeed. They carried a resolution, however, declaring it to be the duty of all to discountenance betting. Exactly ; quite one half the diatribes against betting are founded upon the same crude knowledge of the subject.

I can understand and appreciate the contentions of those who hate and aohor anything in the nature of gamblin These people are consistent at any rate, yet they, too, are mistaken enthusiasts. They forget that man is unquestionably a gaming animal. That the very energy which makes us strive to rise and succeed in life is twin-brothers to the spirit which makes men gamblers. The late Lord George Bentinck held the opinion that betting on horse-racing was the noblest gambling in existence, and who will gainsay ? Nor is betting upon racing an unmitigated evil, as some would have us believe. Those who have seen trenteet-quarante played in Germany, baccarat in Paris, monte in Mexico, faro and poker in New York, or (to come nearer home) bridge in England, must admit that betting on horseracing has its advantages. And what of the commercial gambling, both in this country and America, during the past decade ? That is what annoys me so dreadfully. Nothing is said by these anti-betting apostles against this form of gambling, and why ? Well, perhars they come under Mr Ashton Dilke’s category of “unconscious hypocrites.’’ That is the most charitable conclusion, but the inconsistency of it all !

Let me say at once that, as a means of gambling only, racing would have but a short life before it. Its professed objects arc (a) the improvement of the breeding of horses, and (b) providing a national pastime capable of affording amusement for all classes, enacted in the open air, devoid of all cruelty, and conducted, as far as possible, in accordance with the rules of fair play. Are these objects being fulfilled? As regards the improvement of the breed of horscsi 1 am not quite sure that it,is. In modern racing, the desire is for “short cuts,’’ and plenty of them, in lieu of the old-time four miles races and “heats.’’ The last-named re-.iuired imperatively a stout, true made, strong constitutioned animal to be successful, while the former may be won by a horse possessing onlv the one attribute of speed. In this respect, it is obvious that the result of the racing of the last century has not altogether' been in the direction of the improvement of the horse as a useful animal. In this, as in every other walk or gallop of life, however, the old truism, medio tutissimus ibis, still holds good. If the Jockey Club will but resolutely follow out the plan that they have

sketched, of increasing the distances for older horses, and deferring the running of 2-year-olds till the autumn of their year, much good may result. In every other way, however, the professed objects of horse-racing have been fulfilled as far as is possible. The Duke of Port, land’s recent remarks have taken away the only weapon of defence from the apostles of the “attendant evils” point of view. So long as horseracing is carried on, as it is now, with betting as its accessoire pure and simple, our great national pastime will go on and flourish, as it has flourished and grown with England’s growth during the last 300 or 400 years. That betting and gambling have their seamy side, I am aware, but, for goodness’ sake, do let us avoid claptrap in this connection. No less an authority than the Rev. Hugh PriceHughes said : —lt is no more possible to abolish betting in toto than it is possible to abolish stealing in toto. Very well, then ; let us try and distinguish between the wheat and the chaff, so to speak. In other words, let us avoid tarring all followers of the turf with one brush.

Yes ; I say it deliberately. The Turf of this country is indeed a fact which cannot be ignored. Be it what it may, it must exist. If it die, or exist in any other way, there dies with it our boasted cavalry, our superiority as horsemen, one half of our sports, and the collateral advantages to the country rising from them. There are those who hold up their hands with horror at the mention of a sport of which they have taken sedulous care to know nothing, or nothing but its worst side. Is it' fair thus to ignore its advantages, its utility, its necessity ? Well-meaning journalism loudly proclaims the “scandals of the Turf,” and, in mistaken fashion, urges its demoralising tendencies. But what profession is without its scandals ? Even the Church itself has lately shown us that some wolves are in the fold —blit enough. No man who walks through the world with his eyes open can refuse to believe in the vast amount of good that is done by the influence of high rank, and the example of our superiors. Enough, therefore, to say that never was the English turf so prosperous as in 3904. Never as an institution was it more firmly rooted in the hearts of Englishmen. From His Gracious Majesty the King down to his humblest subject horse-racing is considered the noblest pastime in which any nation, ancient or modern, has ever indulged. Against such an institution the pinpricks of faddists are futile.