view raw text
SAME BETTING VAGARIES EVERYWHERE. If some followers of racing could pick one-qnnrtcr as many winners as they can alleged non-triers, tliey ivould find betting profitable: but, unfortunately, their judgment iu the latter respect cannot ha depended upon. The mere fact of a horse failing to run as well as they expect is, to them, almost incontrovertible evidence that it was noL allowed to do its best. One does not mind people who can scarcely claim expert knowledge lieing niased by a result that is not to their financial advantage, but from those who are credited with racing judgment atwve the average a continuous wail aneiit alleged non-triers at Sydney registered meetings become-, as weari-ome as it is uncalled for. Admittedly it would be absurd to say there is ■ total absence of non-triers, but the mere fact of a horse failing to run as well as the previous week, or on the other hand, doing better, is certainly not proof that there was anything wrong on either occasion. At the same time such happenings are often productive of severe criticism on the part of acered ited judges of racing, and some horse trainers are among the worst offenders. No one sho:.- know bettor than they what a difference a few days will occasionally make even in a horses form on the training track, but despite that, they are ready to denounce everyone associated with a horse that happens to vary its running in a race at an interval of a week or a fortnight. Then, again, we have individuals who are always anxious to ventilate their views for the benefit of racing officials, and though the latter may not lie prepared to accept these as wholly correct, there is. of course, a chance of an owner, trainer or jockey being adversely affected by what may lie erroneous deductions. We have three paid stewards, and it is not too much to say that they are absolutely the most disinterested spectators of racing at any meeting. Nearly everyone else is interested either as a backer, bookmaker, owner or trainer, and eve:! tho-e who are not present in any of those capacities are generally paying more attention to some horse they think seotild win than to the main body of competitors. Therefore their ideas as to non-triers are often formed on something they are subsequently told. In the circumstances it would be strange if the stipendary stewards were not battel able to juih-e of happenings in a race than the average s| cctator. who. while noting that which may have appeared a suspicions occurrence, has missed what led up to it. For instance, it is not unusual to see a horse ; heal go up when a rider finds it necessary to steady his mount in order to avoid getting on to the heels of something in front, and subsequently I have heard the query: "Didnt you He him pull it upV" Then, again, there is always the desire of some race-goers to pose as authorities, and MM than admit they have missed something they will, with additions, pass on as their opinion a statement they have heard made by someone else. For my own part. I doubt whether there is much fault to be found with the condition of racing at registered meetings in Sydney, and if the same standard of cleauliness is maintained in the future that has obtained in the past for several years, the public will have litile cause for complaint, despite the grumbling of tho-e acacia who see a "dead im" in nearly every beaten lior-e. So far as I am able to judge, most horses ap|ieartng to possess chances iu any race are generally after the money, and though at times competitors palpably I nt id condition cost unohservanr punters a little cash, it would In- difficult for Ike stewards to deal with this "resp-ctable" method — approved by some prominent owners— -of running a bye. — Pilot in Sydney Referee.
