Handicapping of Aussie Horses

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 658, 9 May 1929, Page 13

Handicapping of Aussie Horses

PENALTIES RECOMMENDED HARDSHIP ON FEW OWNERS Although several years have lapsed since horses from Australia cleaned up many of New Zeaand's principal events with monotonous regularity, it would appear that it is only since the recent successful run of one or two wellknown pacers from the Commonwealth that the Dominion authorities have made a move in the direction of stemming the Aussie tide. fpHE committee appointed by the I- New Zealand Trotting Board, in making its recommendation to handicappers to sprag the wheel of visitors from across the Tasman to the extent of two. three and four seconds over distances ranging from eight to sixteen furlongs, suggested, it is reported, • that the main reasons for the success of recent importations from Australia were that the New Zealand tracks were faster, and that insufficient particulars were supplied with the list of Australian performances. This statement would lead the public to understand that in previous years, when the successes of Aussie pacers and trotters were at a much higher percentage, the necessary information was forthcoming. but even then New Zealand handicappers evidently erred on the side of leniency. Australian Successes The records show that quite; a number of the richest events in this country a few seasons back were captured by Commonwealth horses, and there is no more striking illustration of this than in the Otahuhu Cup contest. Commencing in 1922, Grand Voyage annexed the big race at Alexandra I’ark, and in the successive races l'or Otahuhu’s chief prize, Sheik, Delavan Quest, Orion and Machine Brick captured the stake. But even after this royal Aussie trot, it does not appear as if any action was taken in regard to a system of handicapping the visitors, and then came a lull, which even the greatly-boomed Concliff could not disturb, despite several efforts. Glideaway’s Good Trot Glideaway then appeared on the scene, and although it was extensively broadcast that the Directaway mare was the champion of Victoria, New Zealand handicappers were prepared to take risks. Her remarkable record was not “hidden under a bushel,” and surely there was sufficient information disclosed to prove that Tomkinson’s mare was all that was claimed for her. With a 4.34 record on the other side, Glideaway was placed on the same peg at Addington in November, and a failure in this start saw her again on 4.34 at Auckland,

where she ran second. Brought back to 4.33, the Victorian mare acted again as runner-up, and later in the day won a mile and a-quarter heat. Glideaway then got on the end of the Dunedin Cup (4.32) and was successful, following this up with a victory in the Otahuhu Cup off 4.31. Back she went the second day to 4.29. and again Tomkinson’s mare rolled home. Her New Zealand record up to this stage was 10 starts for four wins and three seconds, and no doubt the splendid achievement of the Victorian pacer was in a large measure responsible for the agitation on the handicapping of Australian horses. It will be argued of course that had Glideaway been penalised four seconds on arrival in New Zealand for the slower Victorian tracks, she would not have captured so many stakes, but the same argument is applicable if the visitor had been correctly adjusted in the firjjt instance, and probably the crusade against all Australian lightharness horses would not have been yorontenced. As it was, after each ■Dominion victory the Directaway mare "as still leniently treated. Fast Tracks Torpedo Huon lias been freely cited

as another case of a successful Australian invasion, probably because he lias won at both starts and went fast in the \Y aikato Cup. As far as the latter performance is concerned, every follower of the pastime knows that the Claudelands track was as “electrical” on that occasion as occurs at times at Addington. This opens up the question of making allowances for “lightning speedways,” and if this is done in the same manner as the proposed arrangements for “Australia’s slow tracks.” handicappers shortly will not know where they really stand. In connection with the new system, the greatest hardship after all is imposed on the few owners who have made recent purchases, as was pointed out by the writer in yesterday’s Sun. Iho majority of Australian horses affected have now New Zealand records, while the “strangleholt” will no doubt cause enthusiasts who may be contemplating Commonwealth purchases to think twice before going on with the business. The barrage will probably result in Dominion trotting being confined to New Zealand and American horses, and the latter, who do their racing on “fast” circuits, will probably ‘bo let up when handicapped here. In any case those buying in Australian markets will know where they stand, hut it is the unfortunate owners who have just completed a deal on the other side that are made to suffer. Only three horses may suffer in respect to the new clause, but some provision should be made without delay to give their owners the “sporting chance” that has been handed out previously, to the more fortunate enthusiasts, who prefer the Aussie stock.

NOT WANTED AUSTRALIAN TROTTERS WHAT OF AMERICAN HORSES? A correspondent, “Free For All.” who , has a first-hand knowledge of Australian trotting tracks and conditions of the racing over there, writes as follows on the subject of penalties for Commonwealth horses:— Sir.— I noticed in to-night’s Sun a new system of handicapping Aussie horses, and cannot refrain from asking are we not able to breed horses here and hold all comers to an even break? Or are those responsible afraid of the Aussie horses? Fancy, we in New Zealand, who take pride in saying that the Dominion is far in advance of Australian trotting, asking them to concede our horses from 2sec in the mile from one up to two miles. What of American horses which are imported to New Zealand with records from 2min for one mile to 2.8£, who cannot get within lOsec of their previous records? Yet horses which have race records on dirt tracks in New Zealand are treated most leniently when asked to race on grass tracks in this country. Anybody acquainted with Aussie tracks knows that they differ considerably, especially Victoria Park, which is a cinder track, nine furlongs. This track differs according to direction of the wind. One day ft is lightning; the next, as slow as some New Zealand horses. Epping, on the other hand, is only a half-mile track, also cinder, down in a hollow, sheltered from all wind, and does not differ except in wet weather, and is no faster than metropolitan tracks. The reason why Australian horses go faster here is mainly through being shod much lighter than in Australia, where protection from the cinders is essential. Although Epsom is a grass track—which is considered much slower than dirt or cinders—horses are expected to give away 2sec to the mile on their Australian performances. What would be the position of New Zealand owners whose horses are asked to give the Aussie horses a start? Sports here would ridicule the very, idea, and say Aussie sportsmen would be afraid to meet us on even terms. The West Australian Trotting Clubs do not care how fast a horse has gone, and, to encourage visitors, they allow them from ssec to 7sec on their best records, and bar no one. American horses, with records from 2min up to 2.10, cannot go within seconds of their records here. Are these times camouflage, as many have suggested, and are they to be penalised also? In conclusion, it appears to me that Australian trotting visitors and their horses are being politely told that they may stay at home in their own backyards.