THE RUIN OF THE TURF IN NEW ZEALAND.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1220, 15 March 1880, Page 2

THE RUIN OF THE TURF IN NEW ZEALAND.

No, I, This is the title given to an essay, issued in pamphlet form, from the pen of a writer assuming the nom de plume of " Kosmos," The writer claims to have been a contributor to The Field, Land and Water, &c., and is therefore entitled to be heard with some amount of respect and attention. Ihe subject of his' essay —the totalisator—too, ia one fraught with a large amount of interest to patrons of horse-racingj aud we therefore purpose devoting more than an ordinary amount of notioe ta this little publication. The object of the writer is to show that the totalisator, if permitted to be used on racecourses,' will be " the ruin of the turf in New Zea* land; because it will interfere with the " business" of the bookmakers j and so warmly does he assail the automatic) betting machine that we might have been led to believe that "Kosmos" is a member of the ring whose interests he defends were we not assured to the contrary. It is well that the writer in his preface declares that the " essay is no bookmaker's attempt to crush the totalisator," for 'no man, however interested, could have

written more strongly against this latest innovation in connection with the tun. " unquestionably has attempted to make out a strong case, but he has scarcely succeeded in his effort to crush the totalisator, for at best his case amounts to a molehill of proof paled into insignificance by a mountain of bare assertion. His arguments, too, are contradictory in many essential points, and he has in this respect weakened his case by raising objections to the totaliaator in one direction and immediately afterwards showing the groundless nature of the objections by other arguments against the machine. Some of these contradictions we shall point oat directlyB»t if he has partially failed to make good many of his arguments against the totaliaator, he has done good service in other directions, by raising the veil, and disclosing what are undoubtedly the most objectionable features of the " old English sporthe has enlightened ihe public upon many matters of which the great majority were ignorant, and tor this he is deserving of thanks. ' Kosmos opens his essay with some explanations of terms used. Thus we are informed that " the word turf is a generic and clastic term conveniently to matters connected with horse-racing," and that " the three great supporting elements of the turf are—owners of horses, bookmakers, and backers." Having premised thus far, he proceeds to explain the positions which the three classes occupy in regard to the turf and each other, and <very clearly demonstrates that there is nothing more certain than that bookmakers, if " prudently adhering to legitimate business," in other words, taking care to " lay odds" equally against all the horse* in a race, and not against a few only, mast make money; _ while he also plainly says that backing horses that is, accepting the odds given by bookmakers, is generally a losing •game. "In this," he says, *' as in every other sort of speculation, the wise few make money at the expense of the foolish many." To put the matter plainly, the bookmakers are M the wise few," because they lay anything but the legitimate odds against the chances of every horse, and the public who accept these odds are " the foolish many,™ because they accept what are by no means fair odds. For instance, supposing that there were forty horaes •entered for a race, and that they were all •of equal quality, the odds would be 39 to 1 against any horse of the number winning the race ; but everyone who has studied the matter, however casually, will know that no bookmaker gives these odds. He may certainly do so in one or two cases when the entries are at first made, or, as is often the case, before it is known whether or not a horse will be entered for a race; but let anyone who is sceptical upon the point make inquiries, and he will find that the average odds are considerably below what may fairly be termed the legitimate odds. But this is somewhat beside the matterin hand,and we have onlymentioned it to'provethat " Kosmos'" assertion that bookmakers must win, and the public generally lose, in the betting business i 3 correct. Having demonstrated these facts, the -essayist proceeds to deal with his main question, by showing the necessity for bookmakers, and indeed all three of the •classes he has named as connected with the turf. Thi3 he does by declaring that -without bookmakers owners of horses would be unat Ie to back their hones, that without backers there could be no bookmakers, that unless owners backed their horses they could not continue racing, for the amount given in stakes would not be sufficient to pay for the keep, training, and other expenses connected with the ownership of racehorses, supposing that the total sum given in stakes were equally divided amongst all the racehorses in the Colony. In this way, then, he leads up to the commencement of his case against the totalisator, and endeavora to prove that it 3 existence means death to the bookmakers, and ruin to the turf. Having finished hi 3 preliminary remarks, " Kosmos" proceeds to state bis case in this wise : i. Betting is essential to the existence of the turf. ii. Owners of horses can only bet with bookmakers. Totalisators are of use only to the public. ni. Bookmakers and the totalisator cannot exist side by side. The ring cannot hope to compete with a co-operative betting machine. iv. If the public deserts the ring in favor of the totalisator, then the fielders* occupation is gone, and they must close their books. v. If the fielders disappear, owners cannot back thier horses. vi. If owners cannot back their horses, they certainly will not run them for public profit and amusement. vii. As soon as owners cease to run their horses there is an end to the turf. Taking separately each strand of the rope he has created to pull down the totalisator, he proceeds to strengthen it as much as possible ; and here begin the contradictions and assertions. First, then, he shows that an owner cannot hope to back his horse at the totalisator, and a few pages further on he goes to some pains to show how an owner might easily back hi 3 horse at the totalisator and work a swindle, in consequence of a rule refarding it declaring that the money shall e paid to the first horae past the post. Again he declares that the bookmaker cannot hope to compete against the totalisator in prices—that they cannot offer such large odd3—and a little further on he adduces figures to prove that the odds given by the machine are exceedingly deceptive, that they are, in fact, very small indeed. If this latter statement is correct, what becomes of the objection to the totalisator on the score of interfering with the bookmakers by offering Jajrger odds? "We are thus forced to the concision that if the odd 3 offered bythis automaton ajfeso small the publiccan only be induced to patronise it because it is powerless to influence the race—that, in fact, it cannot buy off a horse in order that the public may be « sold" and the race given to a horse that does not carry so much public money. Of this, however, we may pay something more presently. There I ara many other contradictions in the jessay. but it is not our purpose to point out the whole of the contradictory statements made, or to defend the totalisator jn any way. We care not whether it tends to ruin the bookmakers or not, for we hold that all gambling is bad, whether it be done through the medium of the loud-mouthed bookmakers or the silent totalisator. Here, we may say, occurs " Kosmoa'" strongest objection to the machine. "The totalisator," he avers, ''offers, ten times the temptation to bet that the bookmakers do, and especially to nersons who know nothing of betting and

uvrauwi wiiw ftuwn —— can least;afford to pay if they lose." Is thi3 trae'T many people will ask. We fear that ftisr-afc any rate, in some measure ; for no sin is more rampant in this Colony than that of gambling. We quite agree with " Kosmoa" when he say* t/iat Many people vho would never dream of betting with the 'ring* are irresistibly attracted by the machine, especially if long odds are begging." On this ground, and this grouud chiefly, is

the advent of the public betting machine a matter "for regret. We fail to see, though, how it is to ruin the bookmakers, and if it hAd such a tendency, we should certainly not for that reason condemn the totalisator, for we know of no class in the country less desirable than the layeTS of odda. But if the totalisator, because it induces people to invest upon racing through i*» means instead of with the bookmakers, is calculated to drive the fraternity "out■ of,, the field, and ruin the turf, what; must be the result of the many sweeps that absorb tens of thousands of pounds annually t Do they not equally affect the bookmakers, and lire they not equally calculated to demoralise the community, and rain the turf ?