“ PULLING” HOUSES AT RACES.

Dunstan Times, Issue 676, 2 April 1875, Page 3

“ PULLING” HOUSES AT RACES.

— o— cross.) The disqualification of jockeys for “pulling” horses, and for suspicious riding, has latterly come rather too prominently before tho patrons of the turf. In New Zealand, the Mahel case is still fresb in our minds, and the Auckland Racing Club have coincided with the decisions of the Dunedin authorities. In Victoria, IVataon, the jockey, has been disqualified from riding for two years at any meeting of the Albury Club (although various opinions are expressed as to its being deserved), and at home the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee have put their authority in force by sentences of suspension from riding for a time, and in'one case by expulsion from Newmarket Heath. But dropping on to jockeys, who, in nearly every case, are merely “ riding to orders,” does not get at the root of the evil. Unless the horse bo disqualified as well, the owner, who is frequently the principal person in fault, gets off scott free ; hut with the disqualification of tho animal comes the prevention of a nominal change of owner for one thing, and it touches the owner himself by rendering his horse comparatively valueless for.racing purposes. This has been fully illustrated in the Mabel case. But there is another side to the question, and that is, when the jockey has been “got at,” or, in other words, when he receives a consideration from a third party, not the owner to pull in a horse. Very recently at home a lad apprenticed to the Messrs Stevens, trainers, seems to have felt that be was getting too much under their thumb, and accordingly made a clean breast of it to Air Chaplin, one of the stewards of tho Jockey Club, and, in consequence, an investigation took place, the result of which was that tho lad admitted that ho had been “ pulling horses all over the country.” After consideration of tho case the committee, Lord Calthorpo (acting for Admiral Rous) and Mr Chaplin, who had secured the services of a well known barrister, gave this decision : —“ That the gravest suspicion attaches to T. Stevens, sen.,andW.G. Stevens. And witli respect to T. Stevens, jun., they have no alternative except to inflict upon him the severest penalties in their power. They therefore decide that T. Stevens, jun., he warned oil Newmarket Heath, and that no horses, bis property, or nominated or trained by him, or in any way under his care, joint caio, management, or superintendence, he allowed to run for any race at any meeting where the rales of racing as established at Newmarket are in force.” Now, the malpractices of the turf are as well known in New Zealand as anywhere else, and I am glad to sec that there is an iucli nation to put them down as much as possible. In these days of powerful binoculars, a horse and its rider can be very narrowly watebe d, and any attempt at “ suspicious riding ” ought to be investigated by tire Stewards, whose powers are, cle facto, unlimited. From their decision there is no appeal; and it is unnecessary that such large powers should belong to them. Tho public have a right to expect that, in the interest of fair play, a careful watched should be exercised.