view raw text
BIG SLUMP IN ENGLISH SPECULATION. Although there has been practically no interference with racing in Australia, meetings being as numerous as ever in most of the states, there is no doubt as to investments being smaller now than a year ago. Actual bets on a race course may show-no great falling off in number, but backers are playing much lighter. At a Sydney suburban race meeting recently a backer wanted to take ,500 about an outsider, but the layer cut him off with 00. remarking: "Might have done it a couple of years ago. but couldnt now. The money isnt here." And he spoke the truth. Various causes are making a large section of the public shut down on luxuries, and for the average individual betting is one one. Therefore many comparatively small punters who« at one time, used to run a couple of sovereigns on a race, are now satisfied to bet half a sovereign. In England the reduction of racing has naturally played havoc with betting, and perhaps some prominent bookmakers who for years past have threatened to drop out because of there being "nothing in the game." will now adopt that course. The question of licensing bookmakers has also cropped up again, and the following comments thereon by "Rapier" in the "Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News" make interesting reading: "In the United States layers used to pay 00 a day for the privilege of betting, but at that period business was brisk. In England, since the war broke out. there has been a great diminution in the volume of betting. On the whole no one bets bigger than Mr. Pickersgill — it was he who laid one of the Americans an even 5,000 against Desmond in a two-year-old race at Ascot — and no one has a more numerous clientele. On several occasions last year I was shown his book, and in big races the figures have sometimes added up to only a few hundreds. From this it will be deduced that there are few bookmakers nowadays who could afford to pay anything like 00 a day for a license in addition to their other considerable expenses, but the little men might obtain permits at a lower sum. There might be a diff"ernt tariff for the different rings, for instance. It is no good going into details in view of the extreme improbability of licenses ever being granted. All the same, now that the government has apparently got as far as premier bonds; has. that is to say. agreed to the introduction of state lotteries -for, though an attempt is being made to argue that the things are different, of course we all know that they are not really so — they might just as well license bookmakers, and at any rate let it be known that there was no objection to the pari-mutuel. with a percentage, of course, deducted, which the Jockey Club would apply to specified purposes. Tattersalls- Committee might be the intermediaries if it would undertake the work, and it would appoint and supervise professional auditors. There would be no difficulty about details if so desirable a scheme were to be instituted." A few weeks ago I mentioned that the British government would naturally look round for revenue for its upkeep of its national stud, and suggested the possibility of the pari-mutuel or totalizator, as we know it here receiving consideration as a source. This would appear to be the case, as "Rapier" in the same article in which he deals with betting and booksmakers licenses, says: "The introduction of the pari-mutuel is understood to be less improbabale than it was a couple of years ago. Money is wanted for a certain purpose — horse breeding a source of income is presented — _ the percentage which would be deducted from the mutuel; and it is thrown away for no other reason than that the nonconformist conscience, otherwise a sect of the narrowest minded people in Europe, would be shocked at what they call "the encouragement of gambling. This, of course, is nonsense. If men want to bet, as multitudes do and always will, they can find ample opportunities and conveniences without waiting for the mutuel. I am convinced that thousands of men who back horses are fervent church-goers, beyond all measure more truly religious than the average political dissenter. It is said that revenue should be rejected for such a ridiculous reason: but here we are getting into a matter which it is waste of time to discuss; the prig and the Pharisee are not to be diverted from their course of argument." The writer quoted adds it is understood that the opposition of the ring has prevented the introduction of the totalizator into England — they could scarcely be expected to give it a helping hand — but he is evidently of opinion that the totalizator, in conjunction with bookmakers, would be something to be welcomed, as the latter, with the machine in opposition, would be forced into being more liberal in their dealings with backers. — Pilot in Sydney Referee.
