TOOK THE KNOCK

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 85, 1 July 1927, Page 6

TOOK THE KNOCK

GOSFORD “DIVIDENDS” TOTALISATOR FARCE BACKERS OF WINNER GET MONEY BACK Those in authority at Gosford races had a ticklish point under the new totalisator regulations to decide and their verdict was far irom satisiactorj to the majority who held dividendbearing tickets on the race m questioThus a Sydney writer in introducing the story of the Gosford fiasco, some details of which were cabled to THE SUN at the time. Further infolmation on the position of bettors is given here. HARSHLY CRITICISED Adverse criticism of the Govern-ment-framed regulations has been general, and it would seem that the working of them at the meeting has paved the way to their repeal, at least in so far as provincial and country clubs are concerned. At Gosford the unit of investment is ss, so it is not difficult to imagine the amazement of “tote” bettors when it was announced that the place-getters in the Encourage Stakes each paid a dividend of ss. The winner started at 4 to 1; the second horse at 5 to 1, and the thiid horse at 10 to 9 on. Worse was to follow, however. WORSE THAN CROSSWORDS When it came to reckoning up the dividends for the Nursery Handicap the totalisator officials were in a quandry, because the £lls 10s which remained for distribution after the usual 12£ per cent, deduction, fell short by 10s of the amount necessary to return the sum invested on the first three horses, whose starting prices were respectively 3 —l, 3—l and 5—4. The stewards were called on to adjudicate on the question, and after a study of the regulations they ordered that the £lls 10s be distributed on the usual 50, 30, 20 ratio, regardless as to whether smaller dividends fell far short of the unit of investment or not. SOME DIVVIES! Thus it was that the winner paid 14s, second 4s and third 2s. Needless to say, supporters of the winner were elated, but backers of the third horse clamoured for what they regarded as their dues, some going so far as to threaten that they would hold on to their tickets and see the matter further. It would appear as if the stewards acted within the powers allotted them by the Totalisator Act, but hardly in accordance with the spirit of it. ALL SHOULD HAVE LOST Had another 10s or 15s been invested on the race the dividends would have been ss, 5s and ss, so there is no getting away from the fact that a more equitable decision would Jrnve been to have declared one of 4s 6d in each case. Rule 24 reads, “If any event should happen or circumstances arise which is not provided for by the totalisator rules, the matter shall be dealt with in such manner as the committee or stewards may determine.” ANOTHER VIEWPOINT A decision arrived at by those in authority at Gosford races in connection with the dividends declared on the Nursery Handicap, comments another writer, gives rise to the question: “Are the rules under the new Totalisator Amendment Act being properly administered?” A review of the rules reveals the following salient clauses: 1. (e): “Amount available for dividend” shall mean the total amount invested, less any money which has been invested on a horse w r hich has not become a starter, and less commission. 14 (a): Where there are eight or more starters in a race the amount available for dividend shall (subject as provided by the following sub-sec-tions) be divided as to fifty per cent, thereof among the investors on the winning horse, as to thirty per cent, thereof among the investors on the second horse, and as to the remaining twenty per cent, thereof among the investors -on tiie third horse. (Sections 12 and 13 deal similarly with one-divi-dend and two-dividend races.) WHERfc. POSSIBLE! 8. Whenever possible, all dividends shall be calculated so as to ensure that each investor on a placed horse shall receive as dividend an amount not less than the unit of investment: Provided that if there is a dead-heat for third place . . . Since May 23, the day on which the new rule took effect, it has been the method in assessing dividends to first set* aside from the amount of money available for distribution a sum equivalent to the total amount invested on dividend-paying horses. Having thus ensured each successful investor of a return of the amount of his investment, the remainder is distributed on a fixed percentage basis. OVER THE ODDS Surely this is doing more than to ensure the said return to the investor! Would it not be sufficient in cases where the dividend returned according to the fixed percentage exceeded the amount of the investment to distribute the “amount available for dividend” on that basis? And. further in cases where the return determined bv the prescribed percentage fell short of the unit of investment, would it not be more consistent with the Act if just the necessary amount to ensure the desired return were allocated? The circumstances are such as to merit the very deep consideration of the Government, the clubs and the totalisator authorities. ROMEO YOUNGSTER REREMAI PLEASES CRITICS SHOWS SPEED AT THE PONIES At a general glance, the second div. ision of the Fourteen-Two Handicap at Rosebery looks very open (comments a Sydney writer), but it will not be surprising if Reremai proves much too good for her opponents. Reremai is practically a newcomer on unregistered tracks —she has started only a few times—but so promising was the filly’s display at Kensington on June 8 that it should not be long before she opens her winning account. On that occasion Reremai contested the second division of the FourreenTwo Handicap, won by Wee Eye, and, after taking charge approaching the home turn, she ran off the course and finished sixth. That the fillv possesses smart pace is undeniable, and on a small track such as Rosebery she should be seen to advantage. By Romeo (imp.), a popular sire in Hew Zealand, from Taiamal by The Nut, Reremai came to' Sydney a few months ago, and is being prepared by C. O’Rourke for Mr. A. A. Marks.