view raw text
► — — . I Between Races By OSCAR OTIS Historical Study of Purse Splits 1782 Derby Established Principle Resistence to Paying Second Money HOLLYWOOD PARK, Inglewood, Calif., June 13.— For what it is worth, the following items are offered for consideration for those who may wish to make a study of purse divisions, specifically the suggestion broached that perhaps it is time for a reap-praisement of the entire purse distribution set-up in America, especially as it relates to an award for fifth money. Extensive research by this writer has failed to uncover any study of the history of purse awards, and while our own delving is not to be considered the last word on the subject, still and all, it is authprative so far as it goes. It is rather obvious that for about the first 100 years of what might be styled recognized English racing, the winner took all in sweepstakes, and every race in those days was a sweep. I can find no mention in the English Calendars Weatherbys Results Book any mention of anything but winner take all until 1832 when I encountered the phrase "the second horse to save his stake" or "stake refunded to the second horse." This plainly indicated that the winner got the entire purse, excepting for the entrance fee for the second horse, which was returned to the owner of that horse. The practice evidently continued for upwards of 25 years, for it was still in vogue in 1865. The oldest reference I can find to a split in a steeplechase race occurs in Continued on Page Thirty-Nine [ BETWEEN RACES I "By OSCAR OTIS j Continued from Page Thret : ] 1840 with the running: .of the Grand Na- j tional at Aintree, which reads "entrance 5 4 20 .sovereigns each, with 150 pounds add- ed, , 30 pounds to second horse; third to * , save stake." j i When Diomed won .the lirst Derby at - E Epsom in 1780, he took the pot, 1,075 j g guineas. There were 36 nominees or sub- , cribeiS, as known in those days, and the ,c conditions read, "50 guineas, iialf forfeit." , f As , only nine started , it was a pimple matter D to arrive at the 1,075 pot. JDiomed, you may r recall, was imported to the United States at a a ripe old age, and .got a Jarge number of .1 fine horses despite his advanced years. The c change of climate is .said to have Tejuve- % x nated him. The iirst Derby to have .a purse split was the third running in 1782, the con- $ Z ditions reading, "the owner of the second n r horse to receive lOOgs .out of the stakes." j. An interesting; sidelight of 30 years , s later and Sor several years thereafter was j this stipulation in the conditions vof the j race, "the winner -to -pay 100 .sovereigns x towards the expenses of the .police." By 5 1850, the conditions read, in part, ".the ; i owner of the second horse to receive 100 • ; s sovs. out of ihe stakes and ihe winner to ; pay 100 sovs. toward police and regula- • tions .of the course, and 50 sovs. to the : judge." There were 205 subscribers that ; year at 50 «s. each, .half forfeit, 24 started. It was not until 1869 that third money was .mentioned in Ihe Derby, to wit "sec- ; ond to receive .300 sovs. and third 150 .sovs., out of the stakes." : To continue with more background, the , . J iirst Deiby ever run in America was the1 , * Jersey Derby at Paterson at a jneeting of ..the Passaic -County Agricultural Associa- I A ;tion, June 7, 1864. It was won by the unde-; feated J Norfolk, who had previously been I :Sold .. .to Theodore Winters of California for . r5,000, j frut -who did jnot take possession I, ! . until 1 after .the Jersey Tterby, in -which he i ] ran in the name of his "breeder, JR. A. Alex- i ander, -of Woodford .County, [Kentucky. So 1 , far as 1 can learn, ;there was no ?plit, the . i conditions Ibeing, according to William Col- s 3ins Whitneys 1861-65 calendar, "a :sweep-takes Jor .three-year-olds at 0 -each, pay * jorplay, with ,000 added; colts 100 pounds, , iillies 97 pounds; one mile and one-half." . There were 32 subscribers, and 12 started. : In, 1863, Jerome Park was still giving this, . . split, " to second, third to save its. J. I s stak€." An interesting sidelight is that at 3 • Dexter Park, Chicago, in 1868, the condi-; ] 1 tions for many races stipulated "iiorseshredi ; in states north and west of the Ohio River; • allowed 5 lbs." ; Therefore, -without further research, I j. have concluded that -the idea of a prize to the second horse did not occur io the ; English until that Derby of 1782, and I : 5 further surmise that . it was the product , , . of the brain of some "nobleman or gen- ; ,tleman" when he contemplated the rich- ; ness of the stakes. It follows that the i idea of refunding the .nomination fee to 3 the owner of the second horse in minor ; 3 races undoubtedly grew out of the 1.782 Derby. Jt obviously was reasoned, too, ; v that if it was the right to give 100 pounds to the second liorse, then the third horse i. should save his subscription fee. 3 ■ ■ The records also show that the St. Leger, : • 3 an older xace than the Derby, did not split; ; 3 until long after the Derby division, so there ! obviously was a great deal of resistance , to " this "revolutionary" change, a conclusion; • borne out by the fact that the Derbys of; 1783 and 178.4 had first money only. The* =| diehard English seemingly fought any purse i split with some tenacity, for it was not: until 1836 that the St. Leger at Doncaster gave second money.. However, after the e 1782 Derby, and its abandonment of the 0 split for several years, no doubt due to a 0 hue and cry of the English nobles that sec-1 0 ond money was "cheapening the breed and the game," the Derby finally did reinstate t- . second money and the principle of the purse split was firmly established and has never been abandoned since. Q 0 This corner has gone into the this 1 matter -with some degree vOf exhaustive- ; h ness because any decision on purse splits should be made only after -thorough * study. As for modern day practice, com- : mon sense practice would seem to dic- tate .that purse splits stop with the wag-[q ering, ie, no further Tback than third. So ; far as we can learn again, the fourth i ;e ; money awards were made popular, per- : haps even introduced, although there is no proof available on the latter matter, by Judge Francis Nelson, one time .steward .representing the JCRA and one of ; the great turf officials of modern times. 0. [ We understand the Judge added the| jjj! fourth money splits for a reason entirely 5, unrelated to, economics, namely, to en- courage owners to in turn encourage their s jockeys to ride out their mounts through the stretch. The riders, it seemed, had the; - miaint notion then that if it looked like they had :no chance to he "in the money" JO! from the head of the stretch, they did not 5; i always perservere with their mounts ashe-; 1 ing a waste -of time and effort, and more- t.| over,, as long as the horse was heaten, it; would be hetter to save the horse for an-; other day. This was logical €nough, except that it made for a poor public reaction, and the Judge felt, and correctly, that a fourth money would go a long ways toward correcting this evil. The proposal for a fifth money award in these modern times is based on economic grounds, for the failure to xide out mounts is no longer a problem. However, it is noteworthy that when the Nelson plan for fourth money was established, there was no outcry against .the practice as cheapening the sport. It also is noteworthy that theory to the contrary, there has been a steady march in American racing to sweeten the rewards for second, third and fourth in relationship to the percentage paid the winner. So far, this trend lias shown no signs ef degrading the noble pastime.
