THE DUNEDIN CUP HANDICAP.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2437, 10 January 1881, Page 3

THE DUNEDIN CUP HANDICAP.

SECOND EDITION

“ Beacon ” writes as follows in the “ Daily Times —I last week wrote that it would be interesting to watch how “ Sinbad ” would treat the result of the Auckland Cup, for which, as he said, Mr Griflith had prepared such a magnificent handicap. Well, “Sinbad" has spoken, but the result is not interesting —beyond showing in what a shameless way a writer can shullle out of a difficulty. It will be seen that although he says Foul Play won in a canter, he writes not a word about the handicap bein" bad, but coolly turns round and says it proves that the Dunedin handicap is worse. This beats everything, especially when he adds that Foul Play must hold safe in the Dunedin Cup with Betrayer, Hornby, Piscatoiious, Grand Duchess, the Governor, Mischief, and Laertes—not a solitary one of whom met him in the Auckland races, “ Sinbad ” next shows that Foul Play had a magnificent show in the Dunedin Cup; why then on earth did his owners scratch him ? I never heard of a writer cutting his own throat so decidedly as “ Sinbad " has in this last effusion of his. He subjo'ns a “ little table in this connection,” which may mean anything or nothing—l can certainly only make the latter out of it. It is on a par with the rest of the article —utterly illogical and ridiculous. “Sinbad’s” remarks are asjfollow : —“ I think the result of the Auckland Cup must convince even my good natured friend “ Beacon ’’ that the handicap for the Dunedin Cup is not such a patttern of a production after all, as we learn by wire that Foul Play won the Auckland Cup in a canter. Reducing the weights of the horses engaged in the Dunedin Cup, to the scale of those for the Auckland Cup it will be seen that Foul Ploy was asked to meet nearly all his opponents on better terms in Dunedin than in Auckland. If, then, the Auckland Cup was such a certainty for the son of Fancy, it must be evident that so far as Betrayer, Hornby, Piscatoiious, Libeller, Grand Duchess, King Quail, the Governor, Mischief, Laertes, and Co. are concerned, the Dunedin Gup would have been even a better thing for Foul Play as regards the particular horses referred to. But as LeLoup gave Foul Play 71b and a good dressing in the Christchurch Plate, it is palpable that with the same difference of 71b Le Loup of necessity held Foul Play absolutely safe in the Dunedin Cup. If, then, judged through the Auckland Cup, Foul Plav held so many safe in the Dunedin Cup, and Le Loup held Foul Play safe, it must be manifest to any one—or at least almost anyone--that Le Loup can do as he likes with the bulk of his Dunedin Cup opponents.” Even supposing that Le Loup held Foul Play safe, whoever heard of an owner scratching Ids horse on account of one horse being better in ? “Sinbad ” pretends not to know that Mr Lance was sure of winning the Auckland or Wellington Cup, and that the penalty for so doing would put Foul Play out of the Dunedin Cup. Besides, he has Grip and On Ditin it still.