view raw text
ENGLISH STARTING SYSTEM CRITICISM. Augur, the veteran racing critic of the Sporting Life, condemns the English standing start in good set terms. He writes in a recent issue: "That there is something very wrong with the .present system of starting Is an opinion that most folk who go racing will subscribe to, and on all hands one hears continually complaints made at the number of horses left at the post, or that fail to start on equal terms with their rivals. That it is not the fault of an individual starter is proven by the fact that the attempts to start from a stand is a failure at all the meetings, no matter who may be officiating. Nor are the jockeys td blame, although they occasionally get hauled before the stewards and reprimanded or fined and rightly so, too, when they are in fault. But, the plain truth is the standing start, in conjunction with the starting gate, is a huge failure." This is sharp evidence from a good judge ami clearly antagonistic to the varied and illy balanced eastern criticism against the system used In this country. After his statement, Augur gives a list of 112 horses, which were left at the post, or which got away so badly as to have no chance, the past season. The figures cover 119 meetings and the average holds well. The most important courses saw most starting failures. Among them are Lincoln Spring Meeting, three days; twelve; Newbury Spring, two days, nine; Newmarket First Spring, four days, ten; San-down Park, First Summer, two days, eight; Lincoln Autumn, two days, ten; Kempton Jubilee, two days, nine; Manchester, Whitsuntide, three days, ten; Salisbury, two days, nine; Lewes, June, two days, nine. There is no such bad starting average as Is shown by the English figures at any American meeting long or short.
