ANTI-McCARTEN

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 463, 19 September 1928, Page 10

ANTI-McCARTEN

A CAUSTIC CRITIC “LIMERICK NEVER HAS LUGGED IN” The tactics that have brought McCarten three months’ suspension for his riding of Limerick in the Chelmsford Stakes on Saturday were the most amazing that a senior jockey has been responsible for in Sydney racing for many a day, wrote C. J. Graves, in the Sydney “Guardian” of Tuesday of last week. His excuse for going on Winalot and causing Raasay to fall back was that Limerick “lugged in.” It was a paltry excuse, viewed from any angle. McCarten’s attitude towards Winalot throughout the race, and his excuse about this “lugging in” incident, can only be regarded as having the sinister object of preventing Winalot from getting a fair run. He never left the Sydney horse until after Winalot had been jammed into interference. WARRANTED! If he couldn’t prevent a horse of Limerick’s calibre from “lugging in,” then he richly warrants the three months’ suspension. He is supposed to be a jockey capable of handling horses, with 15 or more years of experience behind him. Limerick has never “lugged in” in any race in Sydney in his life before. And as most of his racing has been carried out in Sydney it is probable that he has rarely, if ever, “lugged in” in races anywhere in his whole career. In two events here he veered out in defeat—the Hobartville Stakes and Derby, in which Rampion beat him. Under pressure lie ran wide under the judge’s box. But never has he “lugged in.” The general impression of people who closely saw Saturday’s incident is that if Limerick “lugged in” in the Chelmsford Stakes, McCarten let him without restraint. And the reason for letting him was the knowledge that Winalot, right alongside him, was going too well for his satisfaction. In fact, Winalot, if Limerick had not “lugged in,” would have gone on through a straight, uninterrupted passage that might have led to trouble, if not actual defeat of Limerick. WENT RIGHT OVER And so Limerick continued to “lug in” without McCarten straightening him until Winalot had been crowded over on to Raasay, and that horse had been knocked back and almost brought down. By this time, Limerick, free from all danger, went on to pass The Happy Warrior, and on to victory. Winalot, having recovered from his temporary setback, came again half a furlong from home, but Limerick comfortably held him, and won by what the judge said was a length, though to most people on the course it looked little more than half a length. ' “The Guardian” believes that if the race had been run on its true merits, without interference, Limerick still would have won. He was the fitter horse. The more’s the pity that the race

should have been marred by an incident that was totally unnecessary as a factor in Limerick’s victory. INCAPACITY OR DESIGN? Whether it was from incapacity to keep Limerick straight, or design, the occurrence is deeply to be deplored, and jockeys who by carelessness or any other cause contribute to such incidents should be made an example of. Otherwise, where is the control of racing to begin or end, if because of the incapacity or culpability of jockeys w T e cannot, run a clean race between Limerick, the champion of New Zealand, and Winalot, Australia’s best horse? Racing might as well be handed over to the thieves and thugs if we can’t have clean classics and weight-for-age events. “The Guardian” and “Smith’s Weekly” have argued for many years that the stewards are not strict enough about the running of weight-for-age events. In such races jockeys have been given carte blanche to follow their own erratic dictates in the matter of tactics, and many crude incidents have marked the history of weight-for-age and classic racing. It is to be hoped that this incident of the Chelmsford Stakes and the consequent punishment of an offending rider will mark the beginning of a strict regime over such events.