A SPORTING DISPUTE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1327, 28 August 1886, Page 2

A SPORTING DISPUTE.

THE OTHER SIDE. A few days ago we gave extracts from the Canterbury Times and Referee referring to a dispute that had arisen between Mr H. Hammond and the Asbbuiton Racing Club with regard to the payment of a stake won by Mr Hammond’s Rocket at the last Spring Race Meeting of the Club. The Times and Referee contend that Mr Hammond is entitled to the full stake, but “ Penex,” writing in the Weekly Press, takes an opposite view. This undoubted authority says : It is evident that the mistake which occurred in the Flying Handicap of a start taking place in front cf the starting post is contemplated in racing law, for when such a contretemps occurs, rules 31 and 33 stats plainly ttie course which shall be adapted, namely, that the start shall be void and the race run again after the time appointed for the las''-race of the day. 1 can in no way agree with Mr Hammond’s contention "that the first race waa simply from a false start,” for I contend that a false start can only occur before the signal Is given by the starter, and in this cue the signal was duly given, and as soon as the flag dropped the horses ceased to he in the starter’s hands. The difference between a false start and a start that is void appears to me to be that in the former case the ho:su which have gone to the starting post remain in the starter’s hands notwithstanding the false start, but when the start is void the horses which have gone to the starting post a*a in the same position as if they had never gone to the post at all, and consequently as if they had never been in the starter’s hands. In racing law “ the start” means a great deal more that the mere dropping of the flag, for that is only the final act of the start. It means that those horses which come to the starting peat have finally accapted the engagement, from which under ordinary circumstances they cannot ha released until the raca has been I determined ; and it follows therefore that In the event of a start being declared void that any engagement which the start entails la void also. When aata tis void all its accessories are void also, and it is evident that rule 21 contemplated that the jockeys shall be weighed out again, for the mistake in the start might occur in the tint- race cf tbe day and it would be absurd to suppose that the jockejs should keep their weights correct until after the last race on that day. The English rules of racing are drawn in such terse language tljat It la never safe to alter, omit or insert any more without due thought of the bearing of such alteration on the meaning cf the sentence, and I believe that had it not been for the unfortunate insertion of the word " again ” in rule 33 of the old C.J.O. rules which make It read that " the race should be ran again ” that this dispute would never have arisen. In the English

code the rule reads—“ If a race has been run by all the horses at wrong weights, or a wrong distance, or when the judge la not In the box, the stewards shall order it to be run after the advertised time of the last race of the tame day. 1 * There can be no question that the mean* ing of the above rule is to ignore everything that has taken place daring that day in regard to that race, that the start being void everything in connection with the race on that day ts void, payments or sweepstakes for starters which had been made would have to be returned, and beta made on the coarse would be void also. The accidental interpolation of the world “again” (mid I am quite sure its insertion was nothing else than an accident) renders the meaning of the rule equivocal, for it implies that the race baa been run before, bat the Intention and spirit of the rale is plainly evinced in the English code, and that ahculd be sufficient guide for ns in this case. And the reason why-the race should be proclaimed void and not a false start is very evident A start at the wrong post can only occur through the fanlt of an official of the Club, and it is consequently the duty of the Club to render the accident as little harmful as possible to the owners of horses in the race and to the public generally. Now the conditions of the race in regard to the horses engaged in it may be greatly altered by the false run race, as they undoubtedly were at Ashburton, when Talebearer, who was returned the winner the first time, bad bad such a gruelling that he was not fit to run again, and if the start was only a false start, then all the betting on the race would stand good, and in that case Talebearer’s owner would not

only have lost fals chance of winning the stake, but would also lose any money for which he had backed his hone, and any sweepstakes or payments to the fond for which, by the conditions of the race, the starters might be liable. But the start ' being void, the horses again become non-starters, and ate free of the liabilities of starters, both as regards those payments and any bets on that race made on the coarse. The justice of such ruling cannot, 1 think, be impugned. The Ashburton Stewards appear to have held this view, and acted

consistently on it all through the piece; The start being void, the betting was void, and they returned the totallsator investments free of charge. It is contended for Mr Hammond “ that any or all of the horses engaged in the race might have appeared at the sterling post at the time of the adjourned start, and demanded to be started, and to have started,” which is of course perfectly true, bat then they did not appear at the starting post at the “ adjourned start,” as it is called, and consequently the race resulted In a walkover for Rocket. Under Rule 31 it seems impossible to deny that the start was void, and it would be interesting to know how that which is void can be adjourned. It is farther contended for Mr Hammond, “ that the whole of the num. hers of the hones should have been displayed as starters, as they had not been struck cut of their engagements In jibe race as directed by the Olub rules,” And the Referee in the same contention says, ‘ Rocket was indulged in a walkover simply because the ether 1 oraes were not og the ground; none c f them were scratched sod therefore they 'veae, to all intent*

a d purposes, engaged In*the race.” No one I am sure will iraprng “ Sir Lancelot a ’ .dictum that if there is only one horse on the ground ha must be indulged in a walk over ; but I do not agree, with his contention that there cannot be a walk-over unless all the other horses engaged in the race have been scratched. In the case in question the whole of the numbers of lln horses should certainly have been displayed as starters, and it was Mr Amicus Cur fe’s fault if they were not, but the only effjct cf this would have been to render the owners liable to be fined for not scratching their horses ; it could not affect the walk-over, for unless two or more horses are placed in the starter’s hands nothing else than a walk-over could result