CASE OF BOOKMAKERS

Chronicle (Levin), 5 March 1947, Page 7

CASE OF BOOKMAKERS

Racing Conference States Its Views "The Rahing Conference, . following the 'law of the land, is opposed to bookmakers and their occupation and in partieular is opposed to the licensing of bookriiakers '-on the course or off the course for the fcrllowing reasons: — ""XA)= Booknihking is'an ahti-social and-- parasitic occSUpati'oh. ' ' {B) The- money taken' by the bookmakers" doeis hot' go thi'ough th'e total1 isator and '-the statutory deduetions therefore are lost' to racihg 'and the general. purposes of- racing; "■(C) - Bookinaker's h"ave always been ,aiid always will be a-corrupt or at least undesirable infLueiice in racing." These submissions have been niade to th'e Caining -C6ihniission x>n behaif of the New Zealand Baeing Conference.- ' ' ' It is sometimes Said to the- cla'inied discredit of New Zealand that it is tlie only country or one Of the few countfies in the world which refuses open recognition and approval of bookmakers, ' ' the submissions continue. ' ' The truth is that all sound- people of aay poli-tical opinion will for once agree without reservation that in this res pect ISiew Zealand does lead the world. There is a vast' difference between the bookmalter who plies his trade as he does in Australia and other countries and the bookmaker in New Zealand since the abolition of legalised bookmaking in 1911. flince that date the bookmaker in New Zealand has not been a boo-kmaker in the true sense of the word. The bookmaker in New Zealand today is simply a layer of totalisator odds but much less liberal than the totalisator. Forty years ago there were some bookmakers in New Zealand who knew their trade and so conducted it that their names are remembered and respected today. But even in those tiines the bookmaker and his occupation and methods werc strongly criticised by those in authority. "Tn 1920 the Graming Amendment Act declared the business or occupation of a bookmaker to be unlawful. It also niade it an offence for any person to bet with a bookmaker. It is well known to all of us that the provisions of this Act both in regard to the bookmaker and his ciient have been openly disobeyed by the bookmaker and by numerous respectable and otherwise law abiding citizens who are among his clients. ''The law has failed to achieve observance because experience has proved always and everywhere that no law will be obeyed which sets up an ethical standard higher than or different from the average of the community at a given point of time. This was the experience of the United States duxing prohibition. In New Zealand most prosecutions of bookmakers before jur- . ies have resulted in acquittals or disagreements. "The bookmaker in New Zealand has today two departmeuts to his business • — (1) the double department and (2) the tote betting department. In the ; double .-departmenttttiiowbettorif.'ig con-| fronted with the task of selecting he winners of two races. There is no real competitive market for doubles although diiferent bookmakers publish their own cliarts. "Tlie feature of the double business is the conservative, cramped or starvatiou odds glven to'the bettor. A strong favoui'ite is ofteii not luid at all, sliglit support for a double, a stable double in particular, scares the bookmaker out of the market alid'*"the reply to the iuquiring bettor is "full hook". The odds are alinost always less than an all up bet on the totalisator on the day. ''In the tote betting department there is less skill and industry, nothing required beyond the pencil or fountain pen and block of paper. The totalisator fixes the odds for the bookmaker and the State supplies the other tools of trade in the telephone and postal service. ' ' Tlie bookmaker has these special advantages uuder his rules generally: (l).When he pays totalisator odds lie tliereby has the beneiit of the deduetions of roughly 171 per cent part of which goes Lo the Covernment and part supplies tlie stakes and course appoint1ments and lceeps racing going. (2) The bookmaker starts with this advantage and pockets it all. He has as it were in the eoiitest with the bettor an ad"vantage of 171 yards in the 100. (3) Frequently he does not pay full totalisator odds but iixes arbitrafy limits for (aj inetropolitan meetings (b) secondafy meetiugs, (c) nou-listed meetiugs. (I) There are numerous, closely priuted rules as ou the back of a steamer ticket and on a broad view the rules are desigiied Lo excuse or justify a further reduction of the already eurtailed totalisator odds as explaiued abovC. "Bookmakers are not as is sometimes claimed on their behaif, benefactorS and philhnth'ropists euger to help and serve the bettor who canuot go to the races. They are persons who carry on an illegal business for their own gain on terms and conditions all in their own. favour and against the interests and chance of success of the ciient^ who .bet .with tliem. . The Parliament of this country has decided for reasons which it'thought iiropqi* uud suffioient in 1920 and a^e. still „proper and sufficient in 1917, that bookiuaking is a parasitic, anti-sociaPand illegal mode of earning a living. "Any reduction in the amount which passes through the totalisator is at once reflected on the amount which may be offered in stake money. This is turn would affect the remuneration of riders and trainers and the prokperity of ouf breeding industry. In thp/ amenities available to the public and in the standard of the racing tracks the Ibss of revenue to clubs "would inevitahly bd felt, B°wever popular and strongly ! entrenched the totalisator may he the presence of bo'okmafce'rs plying their trade in direct competition wOiild with out doubt ssriously diminish.the amount invested oh the totalisator. Racing has floiirished in this country because of the monopoly of the totalisator on the course: Any return to -the former conditions permittmg tne bookmakers to operate also would he disastrous. " The Conference necessarily views

with concern any threat to clean racipg. While bookmakers exist that- threat must always be present. The power and inliuence of money is inlinite andl bookmakers, faciiig a- substautiai loss or protectiug a handsome prolit, may at any time ofifer tempting inducements to owners, trainers and riders to ensure that a horse is run other than on its merits. It is of no little significauce that the trainers and jockeys oppose | any mbve to legalise bookmakers. Ofi the Course Betting. "The Conference does not enter the lists in any argument as .to the Inorality of off the course betting. It appreciates that there is a deep-rooted and widespread demand by all sections of the public for some facilities to bet on racing otherwise than on the course. Because, of this bookmakers have flourished and will continue to flourish if no satisfactory altefnative is found. Persons otherwise resp.ectable meinbers 'of the coinmunity will continue to violate the law in a iii.osf fLagrant manner and will t'liihk none tlie wOrse of themselveS for doing so. Thd. /Conference therefore favours- in pfinciple the establishing of soine systew wrhereby olf the course betting will be legal. In its opinion however, any system so introduced should iiicorporate the following: " (a) That the money/froiu all bets placed on any"„race |hould go through the totalisator; 7 . T. . * -• (b) No pfiyate;*indj.viduais should receive aiiy gain or prolit; ■ (a) That facilities for credit betting be carefully controlled; . (d) Permission to. racing clubs to operate a doubles totalisatpr, "This would reruoye many of the objections inliereiit in tlie business of . bookmakiug, the legalising of which is in the opinion of the conference certainly not the appropriate answer to the present unsatisfactory state of the law. rf the public is allowed to bet legally and is given reasonable facilities for doing so the bulk of the support now. given to the bookmakers will disappear.'' . . . , . ;