view raw text
I BETWEEN RACES * ««« «s ARCADIA, Calif., May 25.— Marshall Cassidy, secretary of The Jockey Club, while not old by any means, still is regarded on the turf as one of its "elder statesmen" by reason of the fact of his sound judgment in matters affecting the sport, a judgment based on extensive experience from coast to coast and in three countries, namely, Canada and Mexico, as well as in the United States. Cassidy says he has noted a trend toward * vhat might be termed "back to fundamentals" in the rules of racing, and he believes that the New York disqualification rule, which places a horse out of the money even if the offending horse bothered only the second finisher, may again prevail in many areas. Time was, and not too long ago, either, when this rule was rather universal in the United States. An offending horse was unplaced. Period. The point is made that no harm was done to the attendance at the trace track in the aggregate under this rule, although some individuals might feel a bit miffed, while others would be conversely gladdened. Consideration of the turf public as an entirety, rather than as individuals having certain wagers, is the crux of the question. Admitting that Cassidys observation on "unplacing" a horse for a foul is subject to dispute, there are other reasons for the validity of the New York rule. AAA , A mass of factual data has been assembled, all point- Cassidy Notes Trend Back to Fundamentals Jockeys Support New York Foul Regulation New York to Continue No Limit Handicaps Weight Will Slow, but Not Break Down ing to the merit of the New York rule, even though the man who backs a horse for third and sees his choice bother only the second horse, on the face of it would have a valid reason to grouse. Some of the leading riders in America are for the New York rule, asserting that a deviation from the rule is in effect an open invitation for rough riding. These riders insist that in certain states where the opposite prevails, it is hardly worth while to ride for fear of personal safety. This assertion is rather astonishing, but it is well documented. The knowledge of the part of the rider that infractions of the rules will bring prompt and severe penalty is in itself quite often sufficient deterrent to rough riding. It would appear that the bettor would be assured of a better break and run for his money under the New York rule rather than under a system whereby a horse is only placed behind the horse he offends. No disqualification rule will ever please everybody. Fans who wager do so under the rules, and if they are not willing to abide by the rules, they have no business wagering. We personally are not advocating the New York rule or any other. But the New York rule does have much to substantiate its existence. Marshall Cassidy also reveals that the New York authorities have given considerable thought to the problem of limitation of weights in handicaps, and it will surprise no one to learn that New York is not even remotely considering changes in its present system of handicapping. "A handicap essentially is a method, through weight, of equalizing the chances of all horses entered," says Cassidy. "If it takes a weight up to» 190 pounds to accomplish that objective, then the 190 pounds should be assigned." The Jockey Club secretary said he did not see how the theory of open handicaps, as against say 20-pound spreads, could ever be solved, or reconciled, to the satisfaction of everyone. He did offer as a theoretical possibility the classifying of handicap horses into two divisions, and perhaps splitting certain stakes, with one division for the grade A or Citation-type horse, the other of the run-of-the-mill handicap variety. Weights could then be adjusted for both classes without undue assignment anywhere and still giving every horse a chance. But this is admittedly theory, as few tracks, we daresay, would split a stakes program, thus doubling the stakes distribution, on a declining economy, not tp mention the fact that in a great many years, the "Citation" division would be woefully thin. But it is an idea, anyway, and indicative that the authorities are not unmindful of the up-to-the-minute problems of racing, AAA Cassidy refuses to subscribe, incidentally, to the theory that weight breaks a horse down. "Weight does Continued on Page Thirty-Five BETWEEN RACES By OSCAR OTIS Continued from Page Thirty-Six affect performance, and slows a horse down," avers Cassidy, "but it seems apparent that other factors actually break horses down. Condition of the track, frequency of racing, and that sort of thing are the reasons for breakdowns. One of the best demonstrations of this came at Tiajuana, Mexico, a number of years ago when the late C. B. Irwin raced such horses as Abadane and Motor Cop frequently through a season of 125 days, always with high weight up, and sometimes as often as three times a week. Nor is it a concidence that many of our top trainers usually work their best horses with heavy exercise boys up, often with far more weight than they have been assigned to carry in their next race or races. If weight would break a good horse down, it would seem logical that these trainers would keep all the weight possible off their horses during hard drills in the morning hours. But they dont." A A A In conclusion, Cassidy commented that, despite minor criticisms heard from time to time, the scale of weights had stood up remarkably well through the years. "Some think," he said, "that at certain times of the year the three-year-old has a slight advantage on the scale. Others believe that in the fall of the year, "when two-year-olds become eligible to meet older horses, andj many of them do, the scale gives a bit of an edge to the younger horse. There pr.ob- J ably is some merit in both these assertions. But all in all, the scale, as an all-over guide, has worked out remarkably well over a,long period of years."
