HANDICAPPING AT THE LATE WELLINGTON MEETING.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1979, 9 February 1914, Page 5

HANDICAPPING AT THE LATE WELLINGTON MEETING.

Sir, —What has been the result of all the correspondence. adversely criticising the Wellington Cup handicap? To put it li'.iklly it conclusively proves Mr. Pollock was equally as near the mark as those who selected the ultimate winner of tho Wellington Cup as a fair sample of Mr. Pollock's "ignorance" in nutting such a "prohibitive" weight on Kilrain. The jockey who rode the winner gave quite a different opinion from what your correspondents were so anxious to get the Wellington Committee to believe, Another interesting comparison is Mr. Pollock's estimate of Tannbauser, Sst. 6tb., and Empcrador, Bst. 31b., in the Wellington Cut), one mile and a halt, with Mr.-J. E. Henrys' opinion of tho Bimo horses in the Canterbury Slid' summer Handiest), cue mile anil a quarter. where lis allots Taimhauser 9st, and Emperador Sst. 111b. Evidently each handrcapper lias nearlv the same opinion of these horses. But wo were informed through vour sporting columns that Mr. R, J. Mas on was very dissatisfied with file weight allotted to - his horse at Wellington; in fact, so dissatisfied that Jje asked the committee to request Mr, Pollock to give his reasons for so handicapping Emperador, It will now he exceedingly interesting to seo whether Mr. Mason innkes the same request from the Canterbury Committee, so as to ascertain AIV. Henrys' reasons for so weighting the horse. Few outside tjio.nrofcssion will not admit thatit i? in the interest of racing that all liandieaßS should be reviewed. In. fact, many claim, that it.-is tho duty of racing committees when they see errors committed bv> either haiidicapner, starter, or judge, to call upon their a(ficial ; whoever he way be, for an explanation. It cannot, be denied that tho public and horso-owners aro entitled to some protection, and at present they suffer as 'much through the misdeeds of those referred to as they do through the jockeys. But to single out one handicapper for condemnation, and hoist another into the position of being, endoiyed with supernatural ability, but who. is. guilty of as many errors in his haiidieaus as his less fortunate rival, can Jiardly be called fair play. How Mr. Pollock being a contributor to a sporting paper is against him making an equitable handicap I can't, see. any more than he can reap an advantage from his writings. At least wo have had the case of a prominent' sporting writer being deprived of the handicapping to several clubs, hut I never heard it was oil account of his writing that he lost the handicapping. Whatever Mr. Pollock's detractors may attempt to prove, or fail to prove, the fact remains he is just as good and no better tliaii the average ha,mlicapper in 'this Dominion*. His antecedents also enmnare quite favourably with west. Nor has lie ever had the stigma, of being dismissed from any cluh that ever appointed him.—l am, etc., FAIR PLAY. [We have already , stated that wo wera, informed that Mr. Mason did not ask for an explanation of the handicapping of Eifrperaclor at Wellington.] '