view raw text
Here and There on the Turf I I Take notice, "Walter Vosburgh, Frank J. Bryan. "Joe" McLennan, "Jack" Campbell, Martin Nathanson, and all handicappers, official or otherwise, your methods are unscientific. The average horse runs better with 110 pounds on his back than carrying 100 pounds, while some horses are at their best under a burden of 118 pounds. All of this has been discovered and set down by Dr. H. H. McLaughlin. And remember that Dr. McLaughlin has reached his conclusions after a five-year study of turf records, covering a period of 150 years. Dr. McLaughlin, after his long study, reached the following conclusions : The race horse records are the finest scientific material in existence bearing on the evolution of mammals. The record of past performances has been better kept in the case of horses than in that of man or any other animal. The aim of this study is to contribute to the science of heredity, but one by-product has been the discovery that the present system of handicapping is unscientific. It is based on the theory that each pound of weight, placed on a horse, slowed it down to a given extent. The fact is that the average horse runs better with 100 pounds on its back than with only ninety pounds. Very fast horses do their best with about 110 pounds, while some horses are at their best with mounts weighing as much as 118 pounds. The resistance of the weight acts as a stimulus. The optimum, or best weight to get the greatest speed out of a horse varies with the horses physique, psychology, age and sex, and would have to be determined for each Individual horse in order to work out a handicapping system which would accomplish the handicappers aim. As it is now, the increase In weight ordered for a given horse is often a help instead of a hindrance, as it is supposed to be. There is much of interest in this scientific discovery of Dr. McLaughlin, but it will hardly threaten the present method of handicapping as long as weights are so nicely adjusted that four horses finish virtually noses apart, as they did in the mile and a quarter of the Suburban Handicap at Belmont Park Saturday. There does not seem to be any good reason for adding psychology to the other studies of the handicapper to obtain results, and it might be just as well to adhere to the old maxim that "weight brings them altogether." Of course progress is greatly to be desired in handicapping. Any logical improvement on the present method would be gladly accepted, but so far as this by-product of the study of horses is going along so excellently that there docs not seem to be excuse enough for injecting psychology into the calculations. Dr. McLaughlin may have failed in his research to take into consideration something else besides the question of mere weight He may have failed to realize that the character of the weight plays an important part. He is not supposed to know that the jockey-that scales at 110 pounds is invariably a better rider than the lad that can ride at ninety or 100 pounds. There is no reason why a scientist, who lets psychology enter into his handicapping, should think of anything like that. As a matter of fact his reasoning does not take the rider into consideration, and that is where his premises may be all wrong. It is not disputed that his research was a careful one and that he found more handicaps going to horses carrying 110 pounds, cr 118 pounds, than to horses with a lighter weight. But it is contended that in various of these races the difference in the skill of the rider had much to do with the result. Dr. McLaughlin might have gone a bit further and used as an example the cow pony of the West. The mounted pony, which may be carrying 165 pounds, will run down the loose pony with nothing on his back. He will run him down because the cowboy knows how to ride and knows how to utilize the speed of his mount. But turn two ponies of equal speed loose with one carrying a dead weight of 165 pounds and he would never catch the one with no weight on nis back. There would be resistance enough n that weight to act as a stimulus, but it is recommended that Dr. McLaughlin try the experiment Weight, up to a certain degree, may act as a stimulus, but it can only work that good when it is live weight and intelligently used by the rider. It would be dangerous to attempt a scientific dispute with Dr. McLaughlin, particularly by ono who lays no claim to a knowledge of science, and only some knowl-, edge of racing, but he has reached another conclusion that, at least, is debatable. Dr. McLaughlin has worked out a scientific method for determining the speed of a horse by a "biological handicap," or evolutionary fitness, indicating the capacity for speed which it should transmit to its progeny. That would be all well enough if it could be backed by facts. It sounds well and there is even reason in the theory that Man o* War should transmit a greater amount of speed than almost any other American sire But along those lines, why was it that Man o War was a champion and his own brother Play Fellow was a rank failure as a race horse? Why is it that an own brother to a great race horse, of little or no account as a raoe horse, frequently becomes an infinitely better stock horse than his illustrious brother when his racing days are over? Evidently the "biological handicap" is not exactly an infallible guide any more than *s the theory that "weight is a stimulus." Each individual horse of course must be studied in arranging a handicap. That is the only successful method of handicapping, but that study is complete when the individual, rathor than his ancestors, enter into calculations. As for psychology, of course that is another question. It will be something of a trick to study the mind and soul of the horse in determining his weight-carrying powers. The thoroughbred has a mind and a soul — at least we like to believe he has a soul — but it is rather a deep study and we would rather believe in the heart of the horse. That is what counts. The horse with the big heart, and the horse that will give up his last ounce of effort when there is the demand, is the horse to tie to, whether he be a plater or a champion. One need not be a student of psychology to discover the heart in a horse. All be need do is to watch the great races and the great race horses in action. It is fine to know that Dr. McLaughlin devoted five years to the study of 150 years of racing to reach his conclusions. It may be presumptuous for one to even question the conclusions reached after such an exhaustive research, but some answer in defense of the long and successful method of handicapping, and in defense of the scale of weights, was demanded. If it had not been that Dr. McLaughlin reached his conclusions after a five year study covering a period of 150 years of racing one might almost think that he had found weight a stimulus since trainers have recently been riding boys of no experience for the purpose of having weight off. The frequent frivilous claims of foul that have been lodged during the recent meeting of the Westchester Racing Association, at Belmont Park, has inspired the following letter from an old turfman who has owned, trained and ridden his own horses : "Is it not time a halt was called to this constant practice of objections?* In five cases out of six the objections are made by jockeys without justification, and merely on the off chance of the stewards giving them a little the best of it by their decision. "I dont know whether the rule still remains the same on the English turf, but in the old days a jockey or an owner, before making an objection, was called upon to make a deposit of £5 and, in the event of the objection being declared frivolous, the money posted was forfeited to the jockey club." A salutary rule, which might well be adopted by our own jockey club and an end put to these many objections, which would nowadays seem to be a growing evil. There is a deal of truth in all this but, as a matter of fact, there is a rule of our racing that permits the stewards to require the posting of 5, but it is not known that this posting has ever been required. Rule 200 reads: "Before considering an objection, the stewards may require a deposit of 5, which shall be forfeited if the objection is decided to be frivolous or vexatious." That covers the case, but there is one good reason for its not being enforced frequently. Nine out of ten claims that are lodged are made by the jockey. He does not carry 5 around with him in the riding silks and, of course, there would be some slight delay in finding the money to post before his objection was considered. It appears that a fine of 5, should the claim prove frivolous, would answer the purpose. And in this matter of the decision of fouls at Belmont Park, there has always been a tedious delay before a decision has been reached. One reason for this, of course, is the fact that the stewards deliberate in the administration building, rather than in their stand. Then, of course, the unsaddling of horses in the paddock rather than in front of the stand, adds to the delay in an official confirmation. It is fitting that the stewards should use every care in reaching a decision on claims of foul, but any delay in reaching that decision is particularly trying on a racing crowd. It, after all, is only a question of fact. There was a foul or there was no foul. The testimony of the riders is seldom needed to arrive at a decision when a great majority of the claims are made against a horse for something that happened or was alleged to have happened, while the runners were in plain view of the stewards themselves. Then, there are the various patrol judges for the other points of the running. It should not take long to discover whether or not a foul was committed, and it docs not seem reasonable to take the evidence of those most vitally interested too seriously when there are so many officials to report on unfair riding. When it was first proposed that an effort be made to pass an adequate racing law for the state of Florida, it was urged in this column that the various racing interests come together and work for the common good. It was also pointed out that anything but a unity of interest might result in the defeat cf all measures seeking to establish thoroughbred racing firmly in the state. There was a division of the proponents of racing laws. There was anything but a unity of effort in seeking a law, and just what was feared has come to pass. No racing law was passed at the regular session of ♦he legislature, and there appears to be scant chance for any law to be enacted at the special session now being held at Tallahassee. This can be charged to the racing men themselves and their failure to come together and agree on one law for the state. From the beginning there has been internal dissension as to just what law would be be«t for the sport. There has been no combined effort on the part of all that favored the sport to have a law passed, and that may Continued aa twenty first pace. and — « HERE AND THERE ON THE TURF 3 $ Continued from second page. be set down as the only reason for the defeat. It had been shown on various occasions that Florida wanted the racing — that is Dade county and some other sections of the state — but even in Dade county there was some dissension as to what method of wagering should be employed. Of course there is no reason why the racing cannot be carried on again by the Miami Jockey Club, as it was last winter, without any new laws being enacted. That racing was conducted within the law and it surely gave no offense, but without a law and the tax that naturally goes with a racing law, the state has no chance to share in the profits of racing. And the profits are of considerable importance, as may readily be confirmed in both Maryland and Kentucky. The object for the special session is one purely for revenue for the schools and for funds to properly carry on the affairs of the state. A racing bill might readily he construed as a revenue bill from the tax that will be imposed on racing associations, r.o matter what law may be enacted, but there was no reason for the legislation going beyond the regular session of the legislature had it not been for the bickerings of those who sought a law. Ever since W. R. Coe paid 0,000 for Hustlo On, the son of Hurry On and Fatima II., at the 1927 yearling auction, in Saratoga Springs, there has been a hope that he would be brought to the races and prove his high value. But now there seems to be scant chance of his ever being seen under silks. From the beginning, Hustle On has been a singularly unfortunate colt. When John Love had him the colt developed slowly and had all the ill-fortune that could well come to a thoroughbred. But there were higher hopes for him this year. It was confidently expected that he would take a place among the best of his age, and Ben Creech, who was gradually bringing him to racing condition whon he met with his latest mishap, pronounced him the fastest horse he had ever trained. Xow what might have been rather a trivial accident has resulted in a serious lameness that has thrown the high priced colt off training and it appears that Mr. Coes only chance for any return on his investment will be using his purchase as a stock horse. Naturally his faultless blood lines played an importa.it part in the enormous price that was paid for Hustle On, and with adequate opportunity he should yet prove a bargain, even at his enormous price. The Joseph E. Widener silks have not been particularly prominent this season, but the season is young, and several of the best are slated for a try at Arlington Park in Chicago. The big objective of the Widener three-year-olds, at Arlington, is the American Classic, a three-year-old race of a mile and a quarter, to which 0,000 is added. The big prize, which will have its first running July 13, has attracted the nomination of virtually all of the best colts and fillies both East and West, and no soft spot is picked in selecting it, but Pete Coyne has Marine, Curate and Indigo, three that may readily improve before that running, and it may be that his hand will be a particularly strong one. Edward R. Bradleys Blue Larkspur, by his magnificent victory in the Belmont Stakes over the trying mile and a half distance, left no doubt of his being a three-year-old of championship caliber. He added his name to ihe dis.inguished company of those that took down the Withers and the Belmont double, and comparatively few have accomplished that feat, considering the venerable age of each race. There were various reasons for the Blue Larkspur victory being of especial erit and one of the chief reasons is that the son of Black Servant plainly does not fancy the .sloppy footing through which he performed. Then the magnificent manner in which he answered the call when Garner roused him for that winning dash through the stretch. It was a test of courage and the colt was equal to the call. Garner is to be commended for his ride and in taking back from the early pace, but the son of Black Servant was so far back of the leaders when half a mile from home, that Garner had to rouse him sharply with the whip. Blue Larkspur responded cheerfully, and then in the last quarter, when he found his opening on the inner rail, he dashed through to his great victory. And in that winning rush he again demonstrated that the inner rail is his favorite running position, though in the Withers victory. Garner had to take him from the rail and come to the outside of Chestnut Oak. And the Belmont should convince all that Blue Larkspur is the master of Jack High. That was a widely discussed question among good judges all last year, but a careful study of the performances of the two colts should give Blue Larkspur a slight shade, while his triumphs over the son of John P. Grier in both the Withers and the Belmont, the only two occasions on which they have met this year, gives the son of Black Servant much more than a shade. In the running of both the Withers and the Belmont, Blue Larkspur was almost as far out of the contention at one stage of the running as he was in the running of the Kentucky Derby, in which he was beaten by Clyde Van Dusen, Nalshapur and Panchio, and there is just the possibility that Mack Garner, who has ridden the colt in all three races, did not fully appreciate the hih quality of the son of Black Servant that May afternoon at Churchill Downs. It is possible he did not have even a faint idea of the great rourage of Blue Larkspur. He did not drive him out through that Kentucky mud as he did in the two triumphs of the colt at Belmont Park. And Richard T. Wilsons African, which finished such a good second to Mr. Bradleys colt, comes to an altogether new importance hy the excellence of his performance. It was generally ttgrtui that Walter J. Salmons Dr. Freelaad, arMea was saddled by T. J. Healey. as was African, was the better of the two. It was Dr. Freeland that had won the Preak-iuss Stakes at Pimlico early in May, and I African finished third in that race. That was taken as an excellent index of the relative quality- of the two colts, but Saturday African finished a close second to Blue Larkspur, while Dr. Freeland was last of the company. African doubtless was greatly favored by the track conditions. He raced boldly through the sloppy footing and all through the running was much closer to the p:ice than haa been his usual custom. It was by long odds the greatest race of his career and he will be seriously considered in the future, especially when asked to race through the mud. Trainer Healey brought African to the race in magnificent condition. African is a son of Olambala and Grace Foster, a daughter of Superman. Through his sturdy sire he inherits his staying quality and probably his preference for the muddy going. He was bred by Mr. Wilson and is only one of many good ones that Olambala has sent to the races. Hal Price Headley has a good filly in his unbeaten Alcibiades, the unbeaten daughter of Supremus and Regal Roman, a daughter of Roi Herode. This swift running miss added the Ciip-setta Stakes to her other three victories at Latonia Saturday and the manner of her victory gave further evidence of her high quality. She raced as fast a filly as Ma Yerkes into defeat, and that after leaving the post tardily, and being forced to show high speed for the first quarter. Then, after that expenditure of effort, she had plenty left to lead Lucile home by daylight, and Lucile is a good miss herself, as her races testify. There was a profitable split made of the W. R. Coe stable, when a detachment wis sent from Xew York to race at the Washington Park meeting at Chicago. Saturday, Caruso, the well-named son of Polymelian and Sweet Music, by Harmonicon, was winner of the five and a half furlongs of ths Thomas Curran Memorial Stakes. This had a net value of J6.750 to the winner and the fact that the youngsters were required to race five and a half furlongs, made it of more interest than most of the two-year-old features of this early season. And it was the third consecutive victory for Caruso since his arrival at Washington Park. And this latest, and most important score for the son of Polymelian, came after a wildwest exhibition on his part that dismayed his adherents. He unseated Shropshire on the way to the post, and running off fo the paddock, caused no end of trouble before he was caught, remounted and escorted to the post by the lead pony. These antics were calculated to take much out of any horse, and counted for even more with a two-year-old that was required to run five and a half furlongs. Like his sire. Caruso is blessed with a great turn of speed . and that speed carried him into an early lead that saw him safely home, though only by a narrow margin. As a matter of fact, giving Caruso every credit for his good race, after his unruly antics on the way to the post, there is little doubt but what E. K. Brysous Jimmy Moran would have been winner but for his misfortunes in the running. He ran into repeated trouble all through the trip and was running over both Caruso and Morsel, the two that beat him home, in the final stages of the tests.
