Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

HARSH PENALTY

Handicapping System at Fault CASE OF SHORT STORY After Short Story scored in the 12-furlong Improvers’ Handicap at Wanganui on Saturday, she was penalised 12yds for the mile saddle event, which, according to the “limitation of penalties,” was certainly unreasonable. But as has been previously pointed out by “Abaydos,” the system, so carefully arranged for the protection of owners and, if taken seriously and uniformly, also a protection for handicappers, is incomplete in that there is no provision for relative penalties. The table has been set down hard and fast over the various distances for which races are carded, but where horses come from one distance to another it again becomes a, question of the “handicapper’s discretionary power,” which was the chief bone of contention under the old order of adjustment. How it Operated To revert to the Short Story incident. The mare won at a mile and a-half off 3.45 and the full penalty for such a win is 60yds, thus making her mark 3.40. J. A. Mitchell’s mare also appeared on the limit (2.25) of the mile saddle heat and to get on this mark the owner had given away several seconds, compared with the pacer’s mil© and a-half mark. Giving her the full penalty at 12 furlongs did not bring Short Story’s time within a second of 2.25, but she was rehandicapped to 3*24 for the saddle item, which is qual to 3.36 for a mile and a-half. According to this working the Longburn-trained mare, for winning off 3.45, was penalised 9s at her next start, which is 48yds worse than deemed necessary by the framers of the “new system.” Handicapper’s View Air. Paul in inflicting a penalty for the mile race took into account the fact that some of the competitors engaged off the front of the saddle event had been beaten by Short Story when they met earlier and used his discretionary power in the absence of any relative system of penalties. It may be, however, that the penalty was only made to meet the occasion and in future he will probably deal with Short Story on her correct mark. However, the instance only adds to many that have collected during the season showing the necessity for remedial measures in the system with respect to different distances. The writer found owners and trainers generally at Wanganui impressed with the limitation of penalties, but there was a consensus of opinion that it needs rectifying in the direction of relativity of distances and penalties.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNAK19300415.2.126

Bibliographic details

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 948, 15 April 1930, Page 13

Word Count
419

HARSH PENALTY Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 948, 15 April 1930, Page 13

HARSH PENALTY Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 948, 15 April 1930, Page 13

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert