Hardly A "Sport"

Cue (NZERS), Issue 8, 30 September 1944, Page 17

Hardly A "Sport"

The attitude that bookmakers’ are not a credit to racing and the racing public in New Zealand and that telegraph betting off the course is preferable to the return of the licensed bookmaker is taken by a correspondent, in reply to « Salamander’s » article, « Six-to-Four the Field,» published in Cue No. 5.

In his letter the correspondent says that the NZ bookmaker who can be called a « sport » is a real exception. In, the period during which he has been a lawbreaker, there is little known to his credit. If, like his English and Australian counterpart, he backed his knowledge of horseflesh against that of his client,in terms of odds, he would earn some respect. But he leaves judgment to the machine which he accuses as his rival—the machine which registers

the consensus of course opinion, informed and uninformed. Instead of assessing a horse’s chance of winning, he simply bets that the public is wrong. If public opinion is correct, he pays tote odds, which, in the case of a favourite, are shorter than the horse’s actual chances. What if an • outsider comes home? Tote odds are then not good enough. It would be bad business for the bookie to have to pay his lucky client 40 or 50 to 1. So he safeguards himself by setting a limit. It happens that a bookie does take bets on a long-priced outsider' and fears the result. If his fear is sufficiently great, he will pay the money in whole or

in part to the machine through his agents on the course— given time. If the outsider comes home, the machine pays his losses and he pockets all the money laid on the more-favoured horses. Rarely indeed does an outsider hurt his pocket. It is said that the true bookie did no harm. His raucous voice was an institution on the course. Are we better off without him ? I am old enough to know the generation that saw the ,NZ bookie abolished. I have heard how the red-faced gentleman demoralised sport—not only horse racing through venal jockeys, but also professional cycling and running. Who are we to find fault with a man for placing a cash value on his natural sporting ability ? But I cannot approve of an institution which often coerced the professional into running dishonestly to facilitate the fleecing of the public.

. Out of all money wagered on the totalisator, the Government takes its tax and the racing club its its percentage, a proportion of which lawfully must be laid out in prize money. The remainder is the stake money to be earned by horse owners. It is on such a level that many owners with good horses pursue their sport, relying on their winnings to pay costs. Cases are known of successful owners, whose betting is infin-

itesimal. Horse-breeding -in has thus benefited. We are proud of our horses and

our race-courses. Even in country towns they are. often places of beauty at all times. We enjoy risking a few shillings or more on one of a dozen sleek and courageous animals fighting it out under the eyes of the « stipes » at the far end of the country. Legalised bookmakers would mean ultimate loss for the owner and trainer, less for course maintenance, less for the safety of jockeys, less return for the jockeys, too, increasing an already-great temptation. Moreover, I am sure it would mean less and less for the punter, who, after all, pays all the sport’s bills. The public does bet with bookies. Bettors are /liable .to criminal prosecution for so doing. Yet they still break the law, because they despise it. ; Nor has John Citizen any admiration for the man who keeps his host of petty agents to collect bets at tote odds and lay doubles where anything with a chance pays little. He merely desires to place the bet wherever possible. • * The reform is simple. It should permit one to (a) telegraph bets to * the course, and (b) bet on the double tote system.