THE CLUBMAN

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Issue 1325, 16 September 1915, Page 10

THE CLUBMAN

In a recent issue we had something to say in reference to the point raised by Mr. A. W. Rutherford, jun., after Banksia had won the Winter Cup at the New Zealand Grand National mee .ing, bearing on the rules of racing and partnerships, that owner’s contention bemg that under Part VIII. every owner who had an agreement, whether verbally or in writing, to pay a percentage of the winnings of his horses to his trainer or trainers admitted him or them as partners, and that failing registration of such agreement or arrangement, a breach of the rules was committed, and owners could lose any stake won through noncompliance. Section 2of the rule reads:

“Every joint interest shall be registered with the secretary of the Conierence before the horse shall be entered for or start m any iace - and shall be continuously notified in the Official Calendar. Before any such registration, full particulars in writing of any such joint interest. sb? nt ’d by the parties thereto, oi authorised agents, and if required by the President, verified by statutoiy declaration, shall be sent to the secretary of the Conference, and shall state the name of the horse, the i eal name (and assumed name, if any ) ot every person having any interestin the horse, and the relative proportion and nature of such interest, and the name of every person with whom the power of entry or declaration of toi feit rests, and whether any such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or is the wife of, or resides with, or is employed by a trainer, jockey, bookmaker or bookmakei s agent or clerk. A fee °f _s Gd. Mial be sent with such particulars. Ao joint interest shall be registeie< without the sanction of the President who may at any time cancel the registration." ,

The object of this rule is obvious. The Conference is desirous that everyone interested in the ownership or partnership of horses should make his identity known as an earnest of his bona tides, but it is quite certain that the framers never contemplated that trainers in receipt of fees and a percentage of winnings would be deemed par nets. Mr. Rutherford was perfectly within his rights as an owner in raising the point, though lie did not press it, and some people thought might not have succeeded if he had dona so, an opinion in which we do not share, however. Though Mr. Rutherford’s agreement with his trainer was duly registered before the season commenced the registration took place after his gelding Encore wliG had run second to Banksia, iiad been nominated for the. race m question, but before he started. Whether Mr Rutherford would or would not have succeeded had he claimed the stake is not t h e point, however. It seems beyond dispute that a large majority of owners, if not all, who have been racing under the existing rule quoted above, have “joint interests,” consequently unregistered partners wi h their trainers, and as such were liable to have their horses disqualified and lose any stake won by them to any owners who train their own horses or such as pay nothing beyond a fixed fee per horse. That all horse owners should have been notified of this at an earliei date was highly important, but not until August 18th did the. following appear in the Official Calendar from the secretary, Mr. Wanklyn:—

“At its meeting in July last the New Zealand Racing Conference affirmed the principle that under Rule 1 of Part VIII., Rules ot Racing, the payment of a fixed comm-ssion on the amount of stakes won to a trainer, or other person, must be held to constitute a joint interest, requiring registration under Part \ til. This was after the National meeting, where the question cropped up, and as many owners are in ignorance of what is required of them we give the notice extended publicity. Doubtless a good many owners have already registered with the secretary the agreements they have made with their trainers. We contend that it should not be necessary on the part of an owner whose horse might run second, third or fourth, or even first, in a race, to have, to lodge an objection against any horse running into a position carrying with it a share of the stake, or any prize to be given to horses so placed. Such matters should be enquired into without the necessity for an owner lodging an objection, and

possibly creating thereby an unpleasant feeling with other owners. The rule was placed in the racing code for an entirely different purpose, the intention being that the Racing Conference might ascertain the names of everyone interested in the racing of horses in the Dominion, to prevent any undesirable persons from being interested unknown to those responsible for the proper control of racing, so that when horses might be raced improperly everyone guilty of wrongdoing in connection with them, if they happened to be interested in the ownership, could be made to share the responsibility. That none of the legal gentlemen connected with the Conference had ever referred to the possibility or probability of such a position cropping up shows how easily owners may fall in at times. A technical breach of the rules, through a rider he had engaged not having been registered in the ordinary way, cost Mr. J. B. Reid the Wellington Cup when Gladsome won, and a very costly lesson it was. It was never intended that such a hardship should be inflicted on any owner,

and particularly an innocent owner. The rules are there for guidance in racing usages and to prevent fraudulent acts —but in the face of the decision given then it is hard to see what other decision could have been given had owners who train their own horses lodged objections for infringement of the rules by owners of winners. It will take some space in the Official Calendar, we imagine, to notify all the registrations that must be made under this rule, which only needed a line exempting trainers in receipt of a percentage of winnings from its provisions. There are ways by which registration can be avoided, and liability under the rule might in some cases have been difficult to prove, but we don’t want rules which may cause people to resort to subterfuges of a questionable character. There are some 1 , of the rules which would cer-

tainly be better expunged, and which many owners who have had no say in their making do not subscribe to of their own free will. One of these rules reads:— “By the entering- of a horse every person having or subsequently acquiring an interest in any such horse shall be deemed thereby to undertake neither directly nor indirectly to make any wager with a bookmaker in connection with such race, or any other horse in the race in which such horse is so entered ’’ We all know that a good many owners resent this rule, and that at least some do not observe it. It seems absurd that an owner cannot in New Zealand, without infringing a rule of racing, back his horse to win the New Zealand Cup, or Auckland or Wellington Cup, or any other race at a straight-out price, or two of his horses, or any horses for that matter, in doubles without running the risk of being disqualified. He can, of course, go to Australia with his horses and bet without let or hindrance. The totalisator returns have no doubt been increased to some extent through the rule, and the stakes, too, as a consequence. The liberty of the subject is another matter.

Having affirmed the principle that the payment of a fixed commission on the amount of stakes won to a trainer, or other person, must be held to constitute a joint interest requiring registration under Part VIII., to use the words in the official notification of the fact, the Conference should have gone further, and it seems to us that it was quite necessary that they should have considered what the. effect of their interpretation would be on the carrying out of the rules iegul.iting the use of the totalisator. Under the rules of racing a trainer is not debarred from training, owning and racing horses of his own. He may elect to start one or more in the same race as other horses the property of owners who pay him a fixed commission or percentage of winnings. In that case Part XXX., rule 3, says: “All horses in which the same owner has

any interest shall be bracketed on the totalisator, and owners of such horses shall give notice to the secretary of the club not later than the hour of acceptance or final payment. If notice is not so given the owners shall be fined by the stewards in a sum of not less than lOsovs. and not exceeding lOOsovs.; and also shall be liable for any loss occasioned directly or indirectly through omission to give notice.” This is a point not raised so far by anyone at a race meeting to our knowledge, but if it should be raised how will it be disposed of? The registration of trainers’ interests will necessitate the bracketing operation. In the absence of any pronouncement on the part of the Racing Conference we desire to refer the clubs and owners, trainers and others to this point, so that there may be no complications. If owners would only raise these questions before a race, and not wait until afterwards, it would be much better, though, of course, they do not always know in time. By raising a question of the kind beforehand the onus of proof that all is in order rests with the owner the qualification of whose horses is objected to; but, on the other hand, when an objection is lodged after an event the onus of proof that everything is not as it should be rests with the objector. It has been claimed for the Rules of Racing under which we race in he Dominion that they are the most up-to-date and perfect under the sun, but it was never more necessary, apparently, for owners and trainers to have expert advice on certain points than at the present time. The rules have been revised and revised again by lawyers, and now it does not need even legal knowledge to pick some of the defects. What was originally intended by the framers of some of these rules is one thing; what legitimate or legal construction can be placed upon certain of them is another matter, and it need not cause any wonder that certain persons are fearful lest someone may want to know whether the rules can be made to apply to long past events.

The Marion and Rang.tikei meetings both proved linanc.al successes, and the Dannevirke K.C. and Dannevirke Hunt meetings are two more North Island fixtures that have been decided with results as indicated by the totalisator returns which must be considered h.ghly sat.siac ory. The meetings heiu _n the South Isiand this season have each shown improved returns on previous seasons, and the Ashburton County Racing Club made a big bound forward lasi. week. So far from giving racing a set-back the war, we contend —and wc have done so all along—has brought more money than ever into the Dominion and caused more to come into circulation, while it has not diminished the number of horse owners who can afford to follow their favourite pastime. The curtailing of race meetings with such results as keep coming to hand before us, is not likely to eventuate. The necessity for any such course has not presented itself so far, nor does there appear likely to be any slump in racing affairs, while high prices are being obtained for the products of the country in British and foreign markers, and it will be some time before the effect of increased taxation is felt. New Zealand, which is so far from the seat of war, favoured with good seasons, has had an advantage over some British colonies in the matter of acquiring much money for marketable commodities, and the fact is demonstrated at every race meeting in he country, while picture shows and theatres in cities and towns are doing excellent business. Football has suffered a good deal through so many players being at the war, and many people who were ardent followers of the game devote some of their time now to attending race meetings, which are becoming more and more popular as year succeeds year, and they can get their racing in comfort. Railway facilities were made better last year than ever previously, which is another reason why so' much better results have been achieved.