THE POPULARITY OF RACING.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIV, Issue 852, 5 July 1906, Page 5

THE POPULARITY OF RACING.

From time to time the question arises as to whether racing enjoys the popularity it did in what is generally called, or, rather, mis-called, the good old davs. Veterans of the turf tell us that in the years gone by more people went racing for the pure love of the snort than is the case nowadays. These always insist, too, that a day’s racing was much more enjoyable years ae-o than is the case to-dav, hut thev forget that it is advancing a<re that has robbed them of the keen zest for the snort they formerly felt. Also, there is much truth in the old adaere that distance lends enchantment to the view. There a,re signs, however, that racing is by manv neonle not held in quite as much esteem as was formerly the case, but it would be an exaggeration. nerhaps, to say that it has really lost caste. In an interesting article on the present state of snort in the colonies, the “ Australasian” says of racing that against the enmitv of a large class in the communitv, who see nothing but evil in it, who are sincere in their views, but who, none the less, confuse cause and effect, the turf maintains its prestige—as well as could be exnected. If it has been damaged at all, the injury has been inflicted bv those who have taken no active part in the promotion of racing as a national snort, but who, none the less, are nleased to consider themselves its followers and friends. It is the parasites of the turf who have brought it into disrepute—the betting club promoters and other harnies of the kind, who, while mouthing conventional hypocrisies in the name of snort, are fattening upon the follies of the community, just as surely as the confidence man who watches for his victims at a city street corner. The interests of sport have just as much influence upon the one type of social plague as friendship in its true meaning has to the other. Both make professions of sentiments which thev understand only as useful aids to loot, and both laugh in secret at the “mugs” they have so easily humbugged. The ethical aspect of the question is not worth discussing. It has come to a stage when the great bulk of people are not moved by consideration of the general principles of right and wrong, but who can still in their best moods be appealed to as men with national pride, with a national desire for the honour and prosperity of their country—men whose political methods are as wide asunder as the poles, but whose aim and end is still the welfare of humanity. If this sentiment has been weakened at all it is by the too-ready acceptance of the fallacy that either individual or national prosperity is not necessarily due to industrial and intellectual effort, but that it can be achieved, or, at least, aided by the lottery of chance —otherwise by gambling. Even their party prejudices are used to their disadvantage in being cunningly adapted as a lure to coax them into the traps which a legion of harpies and vagabonds have set for them. This is absolutely the worst phase of the evil —the attempt to turn party and political prejudices to the advantage of the parasites who store for their own benefit the wealth that poorer men earn. Whenever the public sentiment in favour of honesty, decency, and industry is flagrantly outraged, the reaction inevitably comes. There are signs of it now in the crusade against professional gamblers, in the promise of new legislation to deal with gambl-

ing. The unfortunate thing is that the reaction is often more violent than wise; that the indignation which accompanies it fails to discriminate clearly between the causes of error; and that the national sports with which the evil-doers for their own ends associate themselves are apt to suffer in common with those who are the worst enemies of sport. That is one reason why we think that the turf may in some measure suffer both materially and in repute by a reaction directed only against the spoiler and the specious fraud.