Big Money Spilt On Randwick Double

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 633, 9 April 1929, Page 13

Big Money Spilt On Randwick Double

A THOUSAND TO ONE! AN INTERESTING DISPUTE Ihe success of Crucis in the Sydney Cup was pleasing to the bookmlSersv - ua “ revealed unmistakably ctur■Heinm^ la S l Tuesday (says the ficruld ) The first day of the a..]' ileetin S left them with heavy liabilities, and their prospects of having a fine-ball at the end of the first two days did not appear very bright. Crucis, however, came to their rescue, and his win, coupled with the dead heat between the outsiders Dreamdale and -Malayan on Cup day enabled most of them to recoup the early losses. The double Karuma and Crudis was backed tor parcels of £I,OOO and £2,000 in many quarters, but one bookmaker regretted the success of these horses, for he laid nearly £II.OOO about the pair and notwithstanding that he could have hedged at a satisfactory price at the final discussions he did so only for about £3,000, and in addition lost on the race on the course.' The leading firm of operators laid about £3,000 straight out against Crucist before the day of the race, and the double took out approximately £9,000, which was divided among several clients. In another quarter £B,OOO was distributed in doubles and in most in- | stances the prices ranged between 250 IJ? 1 ar, d 500 to 1. On the early charts. Karuma and Crucis could have been backed at 1,000 to 1 in places, but with ! a majority of the big bookmakers the best price was 800 to 1. Karuma came into great demand after his rtin in the Liverpool Handicap at Warwick Farm ; hut most admirers of the Magpie horse coupled him with Kidaides. The South Australian horse and Loquacious and Headlight were the worst runners in the Sydney Cup for the operators. A Nice Price A nice wager about the winning double was £1,200 to £3, which was taken only a week or so before the races, and the layer was compelled to back Crucis to w*in on the race. In another instance, a liability of £5,000 was incurred about the winning double, und this operator also lost on the transaction. This amount was not to one party. Tho biggest winner over the double was reported to be a well-known .Randwick bookmaker, who lias been singularly fortunate with the autim-i events. lie was stated to hr*-—* a five amount. The owner of the Cup winner also had his horse cn-?’-with Karuma for a comparatively small amount and a supporter of the stable was another to benefit to the extent of a few hundred pounds. A woman racing enthusiast, who is a strong supporter of horses from I). Lewis’s stables, and who has supported Crucis each time he has run since the Menangle Park meeting in November, backed the horse for £2,000 on the day of the race, but her profit for tho first two days of the meeting was only a quarter of that amount. At the final pre-day discussions 24 wagers were written about Crucis of £I,OOO to £ 500. Most of them were for bookmakers who were reducing their liabilities, but a couple of prominent owners were also interested to the extent of £SOO each. A Randwick trainer also backed the winn-*~" double at tho beginning of last week. £5,000 Double Dispute When Crucis won there was probe bi - no more jtibilant man on Randwick racecourse than the trainer of the horse, L>. Lewis. His judgment had been vindicated, and he had persuaded some of his friends to couple the horse with the Doncaster Handicap winner. Lewis also went for a good win, ending a £5,000 double with his own runner. Last Tuesday, however, Lewis received one of the greatest shocks in liis life. A leading visiting bookmaker, from whom he expected to collect his £5,000, had Lawis’s name on the debit side of the settling book. It was then realised that a mistake had been made. The business had been transacted at the beginning of last week, and the bookmaker issued the double voucher in the customary manner a few days later. The voucher showed that the double backed was Oesto and Crucis. It is unfortunate that Lewis did not note the contents of the confirming document before the opening day of the meeting. He would then have had the opportunity of rectifying any mistake that may have been made. Tattersall’s Club committee will most likely be asked to decide an unpleasant issue. The case, however, is not a unique one.