ABSURD

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 454, 8 September 1928, Page 6

ABSURD

Peculiar Verdict In Steeplechase

NONE FINISH —BACKERS LOSE Although one of the fundamental rules of betting lays down that “there must be a possibility to win when the bet is made,” meaning that a “bettor cannot win if he cannot lose,” the V.R.C/s decision over the Ballarat Steeplechase case gave punters a severe shock. All of tli© four starters in the steeplechase at the Ballarat Miners’ Turf Club’s meeting a fortnight ago ran off. The stewards then disqualified the whole field, and referred the matter to the V.R.C. Later the V.R.C., which, unlike the Australian Jockey Club, has its published list of betting laws, gave its decision.

All Bets Off “All bets,” said the V.R.C., “made before the horses ran off at the fence shall stand. But all bets made after the incident shall not stand.” As horses in jumping races automatically disqualify themselves by missing a jump it couldn’t have required the use of much brain to arrive at the ruling relative to all bets being off after the incident. But the making of all bets stand beqause they were made prior to the incident is strange, to say the least of it. Present To The Poor! The V.R.C. has made a presentation to the bookmakers of all the money bet on the race prior to the start and up to the running-off. But the V.R.C. betting laws contain a real bushranging rule, No. 7, which reads, “Money given to have a bet made shall not be returned, though the race be not run.” A club which would include a rule like that in its betting laws is liable to do anything. The V.R.C. idea prompting the decision is difficult to fathom. Apparently the committee decided that because the punters had a winning chance when the bets were made they must lose. Certainly when the bet was made they did have a winning chance. But when a punter makes a bet he backs his fancy to beat “the field.” If there is no winner and no field left to beat, it is hard to see how he can lose.

Most Absurd Decision Sydney bookmakers were amazed at the betting decision given by the V.R.C., says a Sydney writer. Sydney fielders gave their opinions to this critic. Reg. Catton: “The most absurd decision I ever heard. Anyway, bookmakers don’t want money for nothing.” Harry Edgecombe. “They should have declared it no race. That would have been most satisfactory.” Bob Evans: “I’d like to be fielding

where they give decisions like that. But, seriously, the verdict appears absurd.” Harry Hall: “The decision is an absurdity. It should be no race. I’ll bet that the A.J.C. would never have ruled that the bookmakers should keep the lot. Bets in Sydney are paid on the weight flag. Ho weight flag, no bet.”

Not Even A Field Joe Bannister: “The books couldn’t lose anything, so they couldn’t win. The book really backs the field, and the punter backs a particular horse. The horse didn’t win in this case, but there was no field at the finish either.” John Adams: “Every race is decided on the first horse past the post. There was no horse first past the post; therefore there was no race. The books should pay the money back.” Alf Morton: “A ridiculous decision. Bets go with the prize-money, and no horse got the prize-money. Certainly it should be no bet.” Arthur Wood: “The race should have been re-run. How can a punter lose if there is no result?” But among the bookmakers there was at least one fielder who thinks the V.R.C. did right. A Dissentient George James: “I think the bookmaker should keep the lot in such a case. If a horse falls dead or breaks down, or does anything else to stop him winning, the punter loses. What is good for one of the field is good for the whole field. When a punter makes a bet he bets that the horse he backs will win. Nothing won, so no punter won.” The opinions of a few punters follow: Bob Skelton (“pony prince,” who, by the way, is an ex-bookmaker): “Even the inmates of Callan Park wouldn’t have given a verdict like that.” Frank Dalton (trainer of Belle Isle, Bel Astre, etc.): “I won’t express an opinion. If I’d backed one of the runners I would though.” Mick Poison (big betting trainer, who has cost the books a fortune on many occasions): “It seems all wrong. There was no winner, so how could the punters lose? The decision is pretty hard on the punter.”

Word For In the Shade Though there is not half the glamour surrounding In the Shade as is connected with many other New Zealanders, his race performances indicate he is a good class stayer, and his mile on the course proper at Randwick last Thursday week (comments a Sydney writer) made a deep impression with the hard-heads in the centre of the course. Over the first half-mile he had the company of Ti Tree, and when that horse dropped out was picked up by Lorient H. Though the first half was run in 51, In the Shade showed no signs of tiring in the straight, and ran home in 1.44. Considering that he ran 78 yards over the prescribed distance, the effort equalled at least 1.40 alongside the rails, a winning gallop for almost any class of race.