PEDESTRIANISM

NZ Truth, Issue 93, 30 March 1907, Page 3

PEDESTRIANISM

ST. PATRICK'S HANDICAP.

Some Questionable Practices.

There has? been a great deal ,of dissatisfaction over the St.' Patrick's Hamdicap. at. P^l&ierston this year. There "were two runners named B. A.' Stuart and- ; A. E. Bell, and they ; were handzcappeld ai 'l'CSOyds, lly'ds, 9yds ; '220 yds, 19yds, 16yds; and 444) yards,- -B7yds and 33yds respectively.- In the. hundred yards event ' Bell "won 'And S.tuart was third, giving Bell' three points and Stuart i one ; m -the 220 yds Stuart won and Bell was third, " thus" giving the men four . ■poiriiis each. The 440 yds was still' to be decided,- and the committee thought it ; necessary to re-handi-cap the men. Stuart was ■brought back from,,, the 37yd mark to 31yds, whilst Bell> was.; kept on his . original mark at -33yds.; ;Can .the "committee I explain why ; S,tuart was penalised 6 yards and 'Bell not penalised at . all, when both men, had scored exactly the same hum bet of points. The thing seems particularly... absurd m the face of the \ fact :- -, that Stuart was a maiden on the -day of the race, and Bell had winning performances to his credit, including the Aishurst Handicap. Bell has a brother on the committee, and the " committe were supposed to do the handicapping, but the general, o>inipn ; is that Bell done .the handicapping.' That, however, is neither, here 'ftpr there. • The k f act remains . that -r for ,no ostensible reason at the runners were r&handicapped, and although each had scored' four points ; one' was penalised and the 6t|ieir not. Of course Bell, ,the man who; was! not penalised, won, and Stuafd that be has been ; unfairly .beaten.^Perhaps .the. cp'mmitt^e^'can'' explain /sill about this; . rfe-h^ldicapping '"i business,- '", but unless theyl c«ah ; explain, and do explain, tlie^i, snorts, are-, entitled to their dp'iriion that'itthe commiWiee are a darned . crook ; lot., ,'.,.,•,'