view raw text
J THE REASON FOR A BETTING RULE. In September. 1S90, the joint committee of members of the committee of Tattersalls and the Newmarket subscription rooms, after careful investigation of a nuich-vexed question, made the following addition to their rules on betting: "No betting first past the post will lie- recugnized by either of the committees." That there were grave reasons for the alteration gees without saying. As a matter of fact, the absence of such a rule as the one referred to had in the preceding years opened a wide door to malpractices, and, needless to say, the opportunities thus afforded Jiail not always been neglected by shady practitioners, who then, as now, were to be found in all walks of life. Let me give one examjile of the abuses which were encouraged by the former system of betting "first past the post." Say, for example, that a race meeting was to be held at Kultur Park. A speedy horse would be entered for a race by one secret confederate, and another would enter another not quite so good. The first horse, A. would be backed on the course "first past the post," aud the other animal, B, would be supported, say, in town, at starting price. If the plans of the conferedates did not "gang agley" A would win and they would draw their money "first past the post," while B would finish second. Then it would be discovered either that A was ineligible, had declared a wrong weight, or that there was some flaw in tlie entry, which, if found out, would entail disqualification. , The error, or flaw, would very" quickly become known the confederates would see to that; the winner would bo objected to and disqualified and the second horse awarded the stakes. In the result the confederates would draw over two winners in one race, "first past the post" 011 the course over the disqualified animal, and also in town over the horse which obtained the race. This, of course, is only a supposition cafe, and the procedure would naturally be capable of being varied according to circumstances. The fact remains that betting "first past the post" led to all sorts of abuses and it had to go. It was contrary to the rules of racing, in that it deprived owners of horses legitimately entitled to the stakes of their accompanying winnings in bets. The addition to tlie rules 0:1 betting quoted above was needed ami it accordingly came to stay. London Sportsman.
