view raw text
PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE NEW RULE. My ML Cole. New York. April IS. — There is a diversity of opinion whether the surplus of the runup money being divided among all owners starting horses in a race where the winner is bid up. as prescribed by the Jockey Club, is destined to be a success or not. It had a twelve-day trial at Bowie and in that time twenty-six horses were run up. out of which nine changed hands and the remainder were retained by their former owners. The surplus runup money totaled ,485, which was divided between ninety -six owners who started horses in the races in which bidding occurred, while practically twenty -six parses or part of the purses were taken away from owners of winning horses. Whether any of the bidding was done by owners having horses in the races for the express puri ose of getting a bit of the purse cannot be asserted, though such transactions were possible. It is ladieved. however, that the majority of the bidding was caused through spite work or ill feeling- that existed long before the rule was adopted. Fifty-five different owners won races, therefore forty -one horsemen received some compensation from the selling race runup fund for starting horses, though they did not win a race. Some of the owners who had the best horses and won races had practically all their winnings distributed among other horsemen, many of whom own horses of little value. This was notice-aide in the case of A. C. Parretto, who sustained attacks on three of his purses. I. C. Johnson also had to stand for two raises, as did Emil Herz and J. Lumsden. while nineteen other horses were similarly treated. From casual observation it hardly seems probable there should be twenty or more horsemen at loggerheads with each other so early in the season, but judging from results there was strife or malice intent somewhere. It is rare to have twenty-one different men subjected to a runup during a twelve-day meeting, hence the belief that the rule is not working out just right. But it may correct itself as the season wears on. It may l e that a band of horsemen with grouches happened to meet at Bowie, which may not happen elsewhere. Quite a few who participated in the division of surplus money did not have horses that finished first, second or third. There were others who profited extensively by the new rule, notably William Walker, who received more than 77 as his share of the surplus. R. D. Carter did not win a race, but took down a trifle more than 51 for starting one or two horses during the twelve days. Paul Powers collected more than 42 and O. H. Mortons account will be credited with something like 50 for the part his horses took in the races, though his horses did not win a race. J. M. Stowe collected 03 for sending one or two horses to the post. There are twenty others who will collect sums raging from to 00. It is these figures that have caused the comment on the rule. "It is putting a premium on bad horses," said one of the critics. "It also is an incentive for owners to enter horses in races which would not otherwise he entered were it not for the possibilities of picking up a little money through the runup channel. This will surely be found where no entrance fee is charged in races and where an owner, with an apprentice rider, can make a play for something against nothing, being under no expense for entrance or riding fees. It has proved a hardship on some owners, Emil Herz for instance, who was boosted twice after winning two races, and his share of tliC runup fund was less than 0. A. C. Parretto also had ill-luck as an aftermath of his claiming of Candle from William Garth last year." It would seem, therefore, that the surplus money is going in the wrong direction, as it gives financial aid to men with the commonest kind of horses at the expense of those who are willing to buy and feed hoises that can win races. It also is probable that the rule will be an incentive for the entering of deadwood in races to the detriment of consistency in racing, as a no*account horse has frequently spoiled the chances of a good horse in a race and ruined what otherwise would have been a good contest. The rule may turn out all right, but the records at Bowie have caused quite the opposite view at present. The following list, giving the approximate amounts received by the ninety-six owners who benefited from the run-ups. will give some idea of how the new rule worked at Bowie: Owner. Amt. Owner. Amt. W. Walker 77 G. L. Peine $ «1 It. D. Carter 251 J. L. Jones 61 G. H. Morton 250 L. J. Carey 58 Paul Powers 242 J. Gurson -.. 57 J. MacManus 220 E. Fred 57 J. M. Stowe 203 T. Francis 55 W. P. Austin 104 M. Smart 55 J. Farrell 170 J. L. Smith 55 G. C. Brenton 176 J. Cohen 55 G. A. Alexandra... 171 L. A. Capps 43 R. Hanley 165 H. Morgan 43 E. K. Bryson 161 B. Nestlehousc 43 H. A. Ferguson 156 J. Sinnott 43 R. O. Egan 151 B. S. McKinley ... 43 A. C. Parretto 150. P. Stire 43 G. L. Ginzburg 146 J. L. Bryan 43 F. Harlan 142 T. McLoy 43 J. M. Zimmer 136 W. M. Atkinson... 43 J. Arthur 134 J. C. Fletcher 43 E. T. Zollicoffer 133 W. M. Atkinson ... 43 L. Becker 110 J. T. Temple 43 W. R. Mizell 118 J. M. Black 43 S. Louis 114 W. J. Marlman 40 W. C. Capps 113 W. Mulligan 38 E. Utterback 112 G. M. Gray 38 It. F. Carman 100 W. L. Maupin 37 J. L. Donovan 100 N. W. Carter 37 I. C. Johnson 100 W. Stockton 37 It. A. White 100 F. A. McGuire 34 P. E. Fitzgerald .. 95 M. B. Howser 34 J. Sterling 91 M. 3. Daly 34 J. F. Sweeney .... 85 W. Murray 34 W. Fenwick 85 K. K. Karrick 34 F. J. Pons 85 J. J. McCauley ... 34 A. J. Karr 83 J. V. Strode 34 W. A. Carter 83 E. J. McGraw 34 L. Crespo 81 G. P. Sherman 34 K. Herz 77 W. J. Martinan ... 33 W. Birnie 77 F. J. Kearns 33 E. B. Parsons 77 Victory Stable 33 F. C. Brown 76 J. W. McClelland... 33 W. Garth 75 G. Phillips 33 W. Feuchter 75 F. Tannehill 20 W. P. Fine 71 A. F. Dayton 29 It. Newman 68 M. F. Mount 29 G. B. Foley 67 R. I. Miller 29 W. J. Press 66 J. Lumsden 25 W. Stockton 61 J. J. Shannon 25
