THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1882. THE HANDICAPPING QUESTION.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2496, 6 April 1882, Page 3

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1882. THE HANDICAPPING QUESTION.

In onr yesterday’s issue we alluded to the action of the Jockey Club at its last meeting in appointing a committee to handicap horses, on which committee are to be found two owners of horses, and we expressed onr opinion that the interests of racing would suffer from the new arrangement. On the present occasion wo propose to review more at length the general arguments adduced at the meeting of the Club and likewise the broad question as to whether a committee is tho most desirable medinm through which handicapping should bo dona. The original motion, as proposed by Mr. Gresson, was to the effect that a committee be appointed forthwith to supervise the framing of all handicaps; such committee to consist of not less than fivo members, who shall hereafter he elected at the annual general meeting. Mr. Acland then brought forward what he was pleased to term a “slight” alteration in the motion, to the effect that the proposed committe should “ frame” instead of “ supervise the framing of ” handicaps, and Mr. Gresson accepted the alteration. Now it certainly appears to ns that the alteration was anything hnt a slight one, hut that, rather, it radically altered the whole motion. It certainly shifted the initiative of the handicapping from some person or persons on to the committee. The word “ supervise ” may mean a great deal, or it may mean a very little. It might mean that the committee should have power not only to criticise but to alter the handicaps made by -the original handicapper or handicappers. Or it might mean that the committee should have power merely to criticise the original handicaps, and if it objected to any of them, mention the fact to the framer or framers, and throw the responsibility on him or them. Mr. Gresson’s motion was so far vague that the word “supervise” was not defined ; but, even giving the word the broadest signification, Mr. Acland’s proposal made a very radical difference in the original motion, and we cannot help feeling surprised that Mr. Gresson should have so easily accepted the new departure. But accepted it was, and passed by a very considerable majority. None of the arguments adduced to prop up the motion are, however, to onr mind at all satisfactory. Mr. Lance brought forward tho arrangements obtaining in England. There, since the death of Admiral Rous, all handicaps are “ revised ” by a committee of the Jockey Club. Exactly so—“revised,” hnt not originated. Of this committee one of the members, at all events, namely. Lord Falmouth, never entera horses for handicaps, running them only in weight for age races. Then again, Mr. Lance declared that the plan proposed by Mr. Gresson was pursued in Dunedin and Wellington. But he forgot to mention one little fact. In both Dunedin and Wellington —and for tho matter of that in Auckland too—owners of running horses are rigidly excluded from the handicapping committees. In Dunedin a ' committee of three is appointed charged with handicapping, but owners are not allowed to be on it. In the instances of Wellington and Auckland, the full committee of either club does the handicapping work, but here again all owners of running horses are shut out. So that none of the instances brought forward by Mr. Lance afford a precedent for the action taken by the Club. As we stated yesterday, we cannot but think -it bad taste for any owners to allow themselves to be put on the handicapping committee. It places them in a decidedly false position, and, were their transactions as straightforward as could possibly be, there would always be found men ready to carp at their decisions and to impute motives. The post of handicapper is much more responsible than that of starter, and yet a starter, if a horse in which he is interested is running, invariably applies for a substitute. It is tho etiquette of the Turf. But the principal onus of tho present undesirable state of affairs will lie with the Club, which has allowed itself to pass a resolution calculated to throw a cloud on the handicapping arrangements. Wo question the advisability of handicapping at all through a committee, but, if it is to bo done, let that committee be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. Let it not be possible for owners outside of tho committee to impute motives. For all concerned the new departure is an unsatisfactory one. yhe owners on the committee mast bo,

. sooner or later, wronged by being on the ■ committee ; the general body of owners * will, sooner or later, certainly become : discontented; while the public at large 1 will look askance at an arrangemen which bears with it the seeds of contusion and dissatisfaction. . Were the question asked if it is sible for a committee to balance judio’Sly the rival claims of a number of horses with the same exactitude as a single individual can, we should expect to hear an answer in the negative. There are few operations in which the pros and cons have to bo so carefn.ly weighed as in handicapping, but the rough and tumble manner in which committees invariably do their work in proverbial. It is difficult to see how a committee can arrange handicaps except through a system of compromise. A will think that a certain horse should carry a certain weight, while B will be of a decided opinion that it should carry another one. B will then probably agree te A’s rendering, on the latter giving way respecting the weight to bo carried by some other horse on which their views are equally opposed. In a matter in which distinctions are so subtle as they are in handicapping, a continuous line of thought is everything. It would certainly not bo the host way of working out a mathematical problem to do so by discussion in committee. In like manner a single individual has a great advantage over a committee in not having his line of mental argument continually interrupted and broken up. We do not say that a handicapper’s work should not bo supervised, but we can see advantages in entrusting the work to one man that wo cannot see in handing it over to a committee. It might bo well that the handicapper’s work should be criticised by supervisors, but the handicapper should be empowered to act on their suggestions or not, as he thought fit, for the initiative and the sole responsibility should lie with him. He should be responsible to the Club in the event of his neglecting the advice tendered him, should the running prove the supervisors to be right and himself to ho wrong. We cannot help thinking that such an arrangement would be far preferable to, handing the work over to a committee from which owners are excluded, When it comes to a committee in which owners sit, there is no question at all in the matter. We have gone at some length into this subject, because, although it might he thought that it is one principally affecting the Jockey Club, the public are in reality so deeply interested in sporting matters generally that no discussion connected with them can bo considered ont of place. Without public support racing in Canterbury, as elsewhere, would very soon go to the wall; and when the Club does anything detrimental to the general interests of sport, the public have every right to cry out. The resolution passed at the late meeting cannot commend itself to the good sense of tho public from any point of view. It is a retrograde step, and as such is to be deplored.