view raw text
I RACING ROUND TABLE Current Questions Discussed EDITORS NOTE Last July 1, a group of men intimately connected with racing in various capacities met at the invitation of The Jockey Club in its New York offices and discussed informally numerous phases of the sport. The panel consisted of George D. Widener, Ogden Phipps and John Hay Whitney, representing The Jockey Club; Marshall Cassidy, steward; John B. Campbell, racing .secretary and handicapper; Cyrus S. Jullien and Luke OBrien, track management; Robert F. Kelley and Alex Bower, public relations; A. B. Hancock, Jr., and Clifford Lussky, breeders; E. Barry Ryan and Sol Rutchick, owners; Preston Burch and Hirsch Jacobs, trainers; Frank Ortell and J. Samuel Perlman, the press, and Ted Atkinson, jockey. Bob Horwood, staff writer of this newspaper, has summarized the views expressed in a series of articles, of which this is the sixth and last. Mr. Phipps then introduced the following additional question: Question "Theres Been a Good Deal of Criticism of the Yearling Sales. Keene-land Passed a Rule That You Could Never Bid In on Your Own Horses Nor Give 10 Per Cent to Trainers Buying1 the Horses, and So Forth. I Think Theres a Feeling That at Certain Yearling Sales Those Rules Have Been Forgotten and Its a Very Bad Thing for Racing." Mr. Phipps continued: "Certainly When a New Owner comes in and Learns About This, He Says Its a Racket and Have You Any Solution to It?" Mr. Hancock: "In trying to run the sales company down home, I hired the New York Protective Agency and they have trained men down there who are very representative looking fellows. They look like they might be trainers or fellows who are going to buy a race horse, and they couldnt prove a thing for" us. We knew it was going on . . .And I knew who was doing it, but I couldnt prove it." He added that both practices, making more than one bid on your own horse or paying a percentage to a trainer, are against Kentucky law. Mr. Bower: "I think from my own observation of the sales and hearing complaints from people, it goes on and its very hard to prove. I think perhaps the only approach- to it is to call the consignors together, lay the facts before them and point out to them that its in their own best interests in the long run not to engage in any of these shenanigans at a sale. . ." Mr. Widener then asked if there were any additional questions and Mr. Perlman introduced "The Disqualifcation Rule in New York," adding: "It seems to me something should be done about it. The only place in the United States where that now holds is here and Delaware. "Its very unpopular with the public and it seems to me if it was left to the discre- j tion of the stewards they could still do exactly what is being done now when they considered that it was necessary. I really believe that the public relations of the New York tracks is suffering through that. The Jamie K. thing last year created a tremendous amount of adverse publicity in the newspapers. As long as your stewards can still put a horse last, if it is left to their discretion, why shouldnt they be trusted with that? When two horses go out there fighting it out and the others arent in any way interfered with, it seems very unfair, particularly where you have mutuel machines and people bet a tremendous amount of money for place and show, that those people should lose their money in the case where a filly swerved and undoubtedly should have been disqualified, but didnt come near any other horse. I think that The Jockey Club ought to take that under serious consideration." Mr. Cassidy: "Its such a big question I think that the commission should be in on the discussion and unfortunately the commission didnt attend." Mr. Perlman: "I know the commission would have to do it and I know Ashley Cole commission chairman has been against it. But I honestly believe if The Jockey Club changed their minds on it, the commission would." Mr. Cassidy: "I dont think The Jockey Club at the present is inclined to change its mind." Mr. Phipps: "What are the defenses for the rule?" Mr. Cassidy: "I dont know if I can give you all the reasons for it. In the first place, Mr. Perlman says the people who bet on this horse, place and show, and lose their money, shouldnt lose it." Mr. Perlman: "No, I didnt say that. I said they shouldnt lose it if that horse didnt interfere with any other horse." Mr. Cassidy: "Thats what I mean they shouldnt lose it under the conditions. What those people lose, someone else gains. Somebody else gets that money for the horses that were moved up. Anyone who ARTHUR B. HANCOCK, JR is disqualified in any sport or game isnt disqualified in respect to one individual, hes disqualified in the contest in which hes competing thats rowing, running or anything else. In addition to that, stewards and not concerned with criticism about their judgment, whether they are correct or not, but theyre concerned with the possibility of collusion. A hoy may be riding a horse that has a lot of speed and he has one horse to beat. The man who owns him is betting on him, he knows his horse is say 3 or 4 to 1, and theres probably only one other horse that can overtake him. Hes going to be out there in front. He can tell his rider, If this horse moves up on you in the stretch, take him in or out from the fence because no matter what happens, Im going to bet enough money to win a big bet. And he" can put that horse on the fence to stop him from going through. Youre going to have a hard time justifying disqualifying him to last place simply because he stopped -the horse from moving in on the rail." Mr. Perlman: "If the thing was, deliberate, I would accept the judgment of Marshall Cassidy as to what should be done, and theres still nothing to stop you from putting him last." Mr. Cassidy: "Sam if you can tell me what is deliberate and what isnt deliberate, youre God Almighty. Ive judged races and watched riders for many years. Many times I can tell, but there are equally many times that I cant tell." Mr. Perlman: "But you are the only ones in the entire North American continent who stick to that rule today." Mr. Cassidy: "That doesnt mean were wrong. I know people whose .opinion you value very highly . . . who are just as strongly opposed to a change." Mr. Perlman : "My opinion that it should be changed is based, on public opinion more than on anything else. The public considers the rule to be very unfair . . . Something happens where the horse swerves and they lose all their money. They think its unfair and I think its unfair." Mr. Cassidy: "Of course I disagree with you when you say its unfair. I dont think its unfair. I agree with you when you say the public likes it better the other way. But I dont agree with you on its being unfair." Mr. Perlman: "That, of course, is a matter of opinion, and the percentage is against the opinion held by The Jockey Club. You havent any tracks anywhere except in New York and Delaware that follow that rule." Mr. Ortell: "Marshall, I think youre carrying it a little too far about the boys. I know that they all respect you and honor you and they dont take any advantage of the stewards. They know they are going to be fairly treated. In addition to that you have the Film Patrol, which all the stewards and judges are very competent in reading. The present rule is a hardship on the public, because theyre not at fault, and they say, Well, if the stewards cant control the boys, then we should get some stewards that can control them. We have pretty clean racing, I will say that." Mr. Cassidy: "What do you mean by its Unfair to the public? Do you think its unfair to disqualify a horse?" Mr. Ortell: "No, you worked under both I rules. You worked in Florida and you worked here and I dont think anybody-disagreed with you in the case of fouls in Florida." Mr. Cassidy: "How do you determine the extent of interference in a race" Mr. Cassidy then described a chain reaction of fouls caused by a horse coming over and causing a succession of horses behind him to have to pull up, and asked: "Wherever those horses finish who were indirectly affected by what the horse did in the first place, would you disqualify that horse behind them, or the horse behind him?" Mr. Ortell: "Youre getting technical." Mr. Cassidy: "Im getting -technical because its a technical problem." Mr. Ortell: "If-youll give me a diagram. Ill tell you what Id do." Mr. Perlman: "Suppose you could use your discretion to put him second Or last, what would you do?" Mr. "Cassidy: "If I were operating under the rule which was optional, I probably would put him last." Mr. Perlman: "That shows you can still put him last." Mr. Cassidy: "How can you justify that to the public?" Mr. Ortell: "Campbell and Rainey did it last winter." Mr. Cassidy: "Youd have to give me the cases to see if theyre the same thing or not." , Mr. Perlman: "What youre discussing happens very rarely. There are many other things that happen in every race and you people are there to protect the public. And yet you seem to think that you should not have the authority to do something that is being done at every racetrack in the country." Mr. Cassidy: "It isnt the authority. . .1 wasnt talking about authority, and, as I told you before, it doesnt make any difference to me whether people like what we have to do, we do it just the same. I think that some members of the press feel that the public are entitled to something more than theyre entitled to. I dont think that people who bet on a horse that commits a foul are entitled to collect on the place and show bets simply because you cant prove that he didnt bother a horse that finished behind him." Mr. Ortell and Mr. Perlman were unconvinced. Mr. Cassidy asked what they thought would happen if the riders were asked their opinion and Mr, Perlman said he was sure the younger riders would like the rule changed, but that the older riders might like the present New York rule. Mr. Cassidy then asked the owners opinion and Mr. Jacobs said: "I think the owners would like the rule where they place them second or third. As far as the public is concerned I think the public would also like it. Just mingle near-the crowd and hear the remarks after a foul."
