Sporting and Dramatic REVIEW AND Licensed Victuallers' Gazette. With which is incorporated the Weekly Standard Thursday, December 8, 1904. THE RULES OF RACING.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIII, Issue 770, 8 December 1904, Page 6

Sporting and Dramatic REVIEW AND Licensed Victuallers' Gazette. With which is incorporated the Weekly Standard Thursday, December 8, 1904. THE RULES OF RACING.

A very great deal has been heard of the Rules of Racing lately and the manner in which they have been drawn up. It is of course much easier to destroy than to build up, but at the same time there is not the slightest doubt that it is high time the rules which govern our chief sport should be worded in such clear language that the meaning of each rule be unmistakable. During the last few months we have been surfeited with protests, judgments, and appeals until now racing men are in the unenviable position of not knowing where they are. The

' latest has been the Petrovna-Bagpipes appeal, and the full text of the judges’ award was given in our last issue. In the latest number of the “ Weekly | Press ” Messrs G. G. Stead and BeauI champ Lane, the sub-committee appointed

by the Canterbury Jockt-y Club to reply to the original appeal, criticise at length the final award of Messrs O. Samuel, E. Mitchelson and E. W. Alison, whose verdict is sweepingly, but in our opinion quite erroneously, condemned. We have all along been very strongly of the opinion that both the Wellington Racing Club and Canterbury Jockey Club were correct in their rulings in the Gladsome and Bagpipes cases, and that the allowing of the appeals by the judges was certainly contrary to equity, and was very doubtful racing law. But the ruling of the judges admitted of no appeal and was final and conclusive, and has to be accepted as such. Appended to the criticism of the most recent decision are the opinions of two barristers, Messrs G Harper and T. W. Stringer. The latter gentleman writes as follows :—“ This judgment appears to me to be inconsistent with the judgment of the same tribunal in the Bagpipes case. In this latter case, it was held that Rule 143 (1), which provides that ‘ only holders of jockeys’ and. apprentices’ licenses should be qualified to ride’ was imperative, and, therefore, th t Bagpipes was disqualified, not having been ridden by a licensed rider. If that decision was sound—Lnd it must, of course, be accepted as such by all racing tribunals—it seems to me that Rules 40 and. 48 are also mandatory. Nothing could be more emphatic than the language of these rules. ‘ A horse shall not be qualified torun for any race unless duly entered for the same ’ (Rule 40) ; ‘ No entry shall be valid unless it gives the name,’ etc. (Rule 48) If a horse which has been validly entered for a race can be disqualified for the sole reason that it was ridden by an unlicensej jockey, surely, a fortiori, a horse not validly entered, and which, by the express words of the rule, was never qualified to run at all, must be incapable of winning the race. The Conference judges regard the absolute and peremptory language of Rule 48 as modified, and to some extent controlled, by Rules 50 and 51. Ido not think this is sound. Bule 48 I take to be the governing rule, and is applicable to all entries. Rule 50 is a special rule, dealing with entries made for the first time, in which case certain specified details are required, in addition to those mentioned in Rule 48. Rule 51 is merely complementary to Rule 50, as is plainly indicated by its language, and, in my o inion, does not, and was not intended to, modify the express provisions of Rule 48 ”

i The Appeal Board in their judgment attached great weight as to what has been the custom in such cases as that under discussion. Mr Harper points out that custom, however prevalent, is never allowed by Courts of Law to be availed of by persons infringing specific and plain rules or the provisions of any statute. With a view of verifying what is really the custom concerning entries, the Appeal Board requested the C.J.C to supply them with all entries received for the recent Cup meeting, but this was not complied with, the reason for the refusal being that as the entries numbered over five hund.ed, “ the Club might well be excused from complying with a request so absurd.” To the man in the street the absurdity of the request was not obvious, and from the fact that the entries were not provided the inference is that many of them were also not in accord with Rule 48. The fact is that this rule has always been more honoured in the breach than the observance, and in this connection it might be pertinent to enquire were all Mr Friedlander’s or Mr Stead’s entries, we will say, at the last A J C. Summer Meeting also in strict conformity with the letter of the law ? It would be highly interesting if this important fact were made public. It might perhaps be well to point out to those who dissent from the ruling in the Petrovna case, and these can be but few in number, that if the appeal had not been upheld it would have brought about a state of chaos in racing m afters unparalleled in the turf history of the colony. This is no exaggeration whatever, but will be readily recognised when one comes to total up the number of horses which have won races since the rules came into force, which horses were never entered in accordance with Rule 48. vVe have no sympathy whatever with owners who protest on trifling technical points which have no effect whatever on the racing itself, but greatly

prefer sportsmen of the class of Mr Bradley, who the other day refused to accept money won by a quibble of law and not by the merits of his horse. That Mr Friedlander acted on the “win, tie, or wrangle ” principle we do not for a moment wish to assert, and prefer to believe that he was actuated by an lluuuou UVCUO W find out whether the actual letter of the rules should be observed or not.

The whole incident, and the series of similar ones which have preceded it, direct attention to the fact that a complete revision of the Rules of Racing is a very urgent necessity, for at present when even the very secretary to the Conference is unable to correctly interpret that body’s own regulations it is impossible to see how an ordinary racing man should be able to do so. It is satisfactory to know that a sub committee is at work on the rules, and we can but trust that the gentlemen who are engaged in the rather thankless task will be able to frame each rule in such a lucid manner tha: there can be no possible chance of a mistake as to the meaning, and by so doing will do away with the necessity for such constant protests.