ATHLETES AND HANDICAPS.

Southland Times, Issue 20081, 19 January 1927, Page 7

ATHLETES AND HANDICAPS.

To the Editor. Sir, —Correspondence appears in the Southland Times over the nom-de-plume of “Observer.” I do not intend to comment on his remarks in detail at present, as it is quite easy to read between the lines as io his reasons for referring to this matter. He offers congratulations to “Mercury” on his viewpoint with regard to bad judging and states a third instance could be cited at Tuatapere, where according to him Laytham breasted the tape a yard in advance of Skerrett in the 220 yards handicap, yet Skerrett was awarded first place. The public are still asking why. Now, Sir, my object in making these few remarks are simply to state that “Observer” is no sport when he must know that the judge is the only man to judge in a close finish and his decision is final as to who is the actual winner. If I cared to I could refer to several occasions where there was a conflict of opinion as to who was the actual winner, and it is common talk that Skerrett was done out of well merited wins from the back mark of the field on more than one occasion and swallowed the medicine as only a true sport can do, came up smiling and faced the music again. It will readily be admitted it is hard luck for the scratch man who has to work his way from the rear, and in some cases actually wins on the tape, as the scratch men usually do, when they register a win and then to be denied the | merits of a win through incompetent judgiug. “Oliserver” in his eagerness to champion • Laytham’s cause has conveniently omitted to mention the fact, that in the 220 yards 1 handicap at Tuatapere Laytham started off the 10 yard mark through an oversight. His proper mark was off seven yards re-han-dicapped for his running at Limehills, Skerrett started from scratch. I respectfully ask

“Observer” to note this fact, seeing the finish of the race referred to was a close finish. Laytham undoubtedly would have been at the rear of the field had he started off his proper mark. Another thing “Observer” conveniently did not mention is that it is a fact and common talk that McMillan was the actual winner of the Sheffield handicap at Limehills but unfortunately this runner had the verdict given against him in favour of Laytham, who has already admitted that this is a fact. I might mention that McMillan is another unfortunate runner this sea-

son, which is instanced by the bungling of the officials that took place at Tokonui. He actually won the 75 yards sprint at that meeting at the first attempt, on the second attempt it is stated he finished in second place but was unplaced by the judges. In conclusion, sir, I trust that I will be excused for the comments I have made seeing “Observer” has attempted to belittle the merits of my son’s performances put up at Tuatapere and elsewhere. He has defeated Laytham on various occasions, when this runner has had the advantage of extended limits granted to him by the handicapper, rightly so as it must be admitted. He is only a medium paced runner and not to be classed amongst Southland’s best runners such as Blakie and other runners I could mention.

I beg to endorse “Observer’s” remarks when he states that several inaccuracies have appeared in reports of sports meetings, but in the meantime I will refrain from enlarging on his remarks. Notwithstanding the adverse comments made by “Observer” on the handicapping of Mr Murdoch who has had a life long experience at the game it is pleasing to note that at Tuatapere the majority of the professional runners expressed their opinion of the true and faithful work carried out by Mr Murdoch in a practical way by presenting him with a very nice case of pipes as a slight recognition for his services in the interests of all concerned. I have a faint idea as to the identity of “Observer.” We have vivid recollections of the actions of a certain runner who was beaten fairly and squarely on his merits in a certain event who entered a protest against the winner, on the grounds of interference and was the means of the winner being placed second notwithstanding the fact that he could not get nearer than fourth place himself in the event referred to. Further comment is unnecessary. Sir, any further correspondence on this matter will be ignored by me until such time as “Observer” signs his real name.—l am, etc., GEORGE SKERRETT, SENR Awarua Plains January 17, 1927,