Whether or not assumed names should be permitted in racing has been
more than once submitted to the consideration of the Jockey Club.
Persons, it is said, who are ashamed to run horses in their own name
ought not to be "on the turf." The admission of assumed names is,
however, a feature of turf economy which carries its own condemnation,
and need not be wrangled over. In reality the bearers of such names are
known to their turf contemporaries, and as assumed names do not save
them from being liable to the pains and penalties of wrongdoing, should
they do wrong, why they should wear a mask is difficult to understand.
Some little inquiry into this matter was at one time made by the writer.
"Why is it," he asked a famous racing critic, "that Brown does not race
under his own name?"
"Oh, don't you know? His father is old Vellum, the dissenting
bookseller of Ave Marie Street, and it would never do to let it be
known that his son is on the turf."
"And Jones; how comes he to sail under false colours?"
"Well, you see, his father is an ecclesiastical tailor, a purveyor of
robes to the clergy, and likes the sport; but for obvious reasons does
not appear himself as a racing man, and so young Mr. Chasuble is 'on
the turf' as Mr. Harry Jones."
"Just so. And Robinson--who is he?"
"Robinson is said to be a wholesale dealer in decayed horses."
There are, it may go without saying, many persons engaged in racing
whom the turf would be better without, and it has been hinted "that
in times past" a few of these gentry could ring the changes of racing
in such a way as to render the game highly profitable. But it is not
"times past" that have to be dealt with, although there is no security
that the malpractices of former periods are not features of the racing
of to-day. With one class of persons who assume names the turf could
well dispense. It is not a little remarkable that the Jockey Club
tolerate men on the turf who try to conceal their identity under
assumed names.
A matter of turf reform that may be commented upon here is the
irritating delay which occasionally takes place, especially at
Tattersall's, before judgments can be obtained in affairs which are
in dispute. The Maskelyne case may be cited as an example, not on its
merits, however, but because of the fact that although the St. Leger
was run in September, the decision against the backers of the horse
was not given until the month of February, after a period of five
months had elapsed. Such decisions ought to emanate from the Jockey
Club; it is remarkable that it should be possible to accept an entry
for an important race about which there should be any dubiety.
The question as to whether jockeys should be allowed, either directly
or indirectly, to keep race-horses of their own ought to be seriously
grappled with by the only tribunal which can competently discuss the
question; although the Jockey Club has decreed that, with one or two
exceptions, no jockey shall be an owner of race-horses, it is well
enough known that ways and means are found to evade the law. That there
are jockeys on the turf who are quite beyond suspicion in all their
actions is certain, but for many reasons jockeys should be prohibited
from keeping race-horses. It is anything but pleasant for a gentleman
who employs a jockey to ride his horse in an important race to find
that he is just beaten by an animal said to belong to the jockey. The
lad may have ridden an honest race, but will hardly be credited with
having done so. When gentlemen hear the whisper, "Will he _try_ to
win for his employer, or will his own horse win?" they can scarcely
feel comfortable. One honest meaning jockey, it is known, never takes
a mount when one of his own horses is to run. It has been said that a
jockey has as good a right to have horses of his own in training as
a trainer, and so he undoubtedly has. But it falls to be considered
whether or not it is politic that trainers should run horses of their
own. In such cases, however, the men who require the services of
trainers and jockeys have the remedy in their own hands--they should
make it a rule not to train in a stable in which the trainer keeps
race-horses of his own, nor should they employ upon any occasion a
jockey to ride who is an owner of race-horses. There would be no
hardship in such prohibition. Jockeys and trainers rich enough to keep
race-horses ought to retire from business.
Another nuisance of the turf which is attracting much attention at the
present time, and which imperatively demands investigation and reform,
is the heavy transactions reputed to be made on behalf of jockeys in
the betting rings. "Will Integrity win, think you?" asks one turfite
of another. "Well, on public form he ought to do so; but his jockey,
I know, has backed Malpractice," and so a doubt is raised as to the
honesty of the rider of Integrity. Men, too, are now pointed out in
the ring as "So and So Bunkum's" (the jockey's) "commissioner," or as
Grabmore, who executes the behests of Tom Strappem, the trainer, and it
is a fact that many jockeys have heavy "settlings" at the clubs every
Monday in the course of the racing season.
_Apropos._ Some three years ago a gentleman who had a colt running at a
fashionable racing centre in an important race, for whom he had engaged
one of the best jockeys of the day, meeting an intimate friend in the
paddock, asked him if he had backed The Chanter, his horse.
"No," was the reply, "not yet. I am hanging on here till I know what
Billy Mitchell does. What Billy Mitchell does I shall do."
"And who the deuce is Billy Mitchell, may I ask?"
"Oh, Billy is your jockey's commissioner, don't you know."
The commissioner, on the occasion referred to, did not back The
Chanter, which only came in third; his orders were to back Billy
Purves, which proved to be the winner. Was the owner of The Chanter
victimised by his jockey on the occasion, or was the information
simply withheld that there was a better horse than his colt among the
starters? Numerous incidents of a similar kind might be related, and
it has been said again and again that there are even men of position
on the racecourses of the kingdom who delight in doing commissions
for jockeys. Said one of these gentlemen one day to a prominent
owner sportsman: "Well, your horse won't win; your jockey has backed
The Starling," and so it happened. No positive accusations are here
made against individuals; but a turf system which admits of jockeys
riding one horse and backing another animal in the same race to win
them a large stake, is, to say the least of it, susceptible of some
improvement; but where all, with but few exceptions, are preaching a
gospel of gambling, reform seems, at the present time, to be far off.
Three or four trainers are also known as heavy "speculators," and of
some stables, of which it is said the principal patron does not bet,
the same cannot be said of the trainer, who is likely enough a very
heavy betting man, all the more because his chief employer does not
himself bet. It has been sometimes said, indeed, of such stables, that
the chief is but a cipher, and that the trainer rules the roost.
Some trainers, it is well known, bet only with the cognisance of those
for whom they train, that is to say, if they think the horse has a good
chance of winning the race he has been entered for. Other trainers bet
on their own behalf, either personally or by the aid of a friend or a
commissioner. The trainer of a horse which won the Derby a few years
ago was said to have risked on his chance the enormous stake of £7,000.
The case of Bob Leathers was much talked about a few years since. He
had two horses in training for a big handicap for one owner. One, the
worse of the two, as Leathers well knew, was at a short price, the
other was at 20 to 1. The trainer piled the money on the non-favourite,
but the fact coming at length to the knowledge of the owner, he quietly
scratched both horses a few days before the race, and Leathers and his
pals were left lamenting; as all who knew the particulars said, "It
served them right."
It is not the first occasion on which it has been asked: "How curious
it is that Mr. Bloom's horses are always so unsteady in the market,
seeing that he never bets!" The reply to such a remark is likely to be:
"Oh, but his trainer does, and you know he and Binks, the bookmaker,
are almost always together." The inference is obvious. Again, Mr.
Trumper keeps a very large stud, and pays his training bills with
exemplary punctuality; but for all that Mr. Trumper is only the nominal
possessor of so many race-horses. Ted Rubyman, the well-known turf
commissioner, keeps the key of the stable, and Mr. Trumper's horses
only "spin" when Rubyman finds it to his advantage that they should do
so, and at all times the commissioner has the best of it. If Trumper's
horses are not trying, it is certain that they have been well milked
for behoof of trainer and commissioner. In consequence, old Robert
Girth, Trumper's trainer, is a rich man, who could at any moment throw
up training and live upon his means. _Verb. sap._ In such matters a
strong arm is required to wield the besom of turf reform.
One other subject may be now discussed. Gentlemen are known to give
heavy presents to jockeys riding in a race in which they themselves
have a competing animal. Surely that practice is indefensible--in the
opinion of the writer it is very reprehensible, and ought to be sternly
put down. For one owner of a horse riding in a race to say to a boy who
is piloting another gentleman's animal in the same contest, "I have put
you on a hundred to nothing, my lad, if I win," is little less than
criminal.
The rumours, too, which during late years have been prevalent of "a
ring," of which certain trainers and jockeys reap the benefit, have
yet to be effectually sifted; where there is smoke there is sure to be
fire. The difficulty of obtaining reliable evidence as to such goings
on is no doubt great, but not insurmountable; at any rate, an effort
should be made to trace some of the rumours to their fountain-head, and
if there be guilt, no punishment which may be meted to the offenders
will be thought too severe.
The Jockey Club has, it is known, taken action of a kind in the matter
of the scandals referred to, particularly as regards the immoderate
betting of three or four of the horsemen of the period, and the men
who act for them and serve themselves at the same time. Particulars
of what has been "discovered" have not been permitted to transpire,
but at the time these remarks are penned (May, 1891) the licenses of
two or three jockeys have not yet been renewed, and some persons have
been "warned off." The chief difficulty which the Jockey Club has to
encounter is lack of direct proof of any evil having been committed;
the stewards cannot take action on the mere breath of rumour, and turf
evil-doers knowing that, are sufficiently cautious in their operations
to render proof difficult; but it is stated the stewards have at length
so closed in their nets as to have "bagged" some of the transgressors,
or, at any rate, have placed them in such a position as to be able to
demand that they shall "prove their innocence" of the charges made
against them, some of which, it has been rumoured, are of a serious
kind, many persons being implicated. The call for an examination of
the bank-books of some of the accused must have startled them not a
little, and the demand of whence came this "monkey," or from whom did
you receive that "thou" has had to be answered.
"Turf vitality" is a question that has of late years more or less
exercised the pens of some keen critics of horse-racing; but the
vitality of the turf may be taken for granted even by those who are
despondent in consequence of the increase of short-distance races, and
the consequent degeneration of our breeds of horses with "stamina."
There is nothing to be despondent over or to grumble about, and there
is at the present time a plethora of sport. More horses are now
being bred for racing purposes than were ever bred before; our public
stables are everywhere full of high-mettled steeds. Many farmers find
a business in supplying hay and corn for the stables of Newmarket;
trainers' bills become yearly more and more onerous; but for all that,
constant accessions to those who carry on the sport of kings are being
recorded. The value of the money stakes and trophies of the pastime,
which are now being run for, goes on increasing; twenty years ago, a
matter of £200 was thought to be a stake worth winning, now £2,000
may be added to a handicap without exciting any sense of wonder. Who,
then, dare say, in the face of such facts, that the decadence of the
"national pastime" has begun? Clerks of courses, during the last ten
years, have experienced a flourishing time, the public attend on our
racecourses in increasing numbers, every newspaper of importance
devotes a large portion of its space to the news of the turf, whilst
three daily papers cater specially for the sporting public, and it
is no exaggeration to say that the wires of the telegraphic system
are largely employed in distributing news of all kinds respecting the
horse-racing of the period. The messages incident to the conduct of
"sport" at Epsom and Ascot, as also at Goodwood and Doncaster, are
marvellously numerous. To conclude, it has to be said of "the sport
of kings" that, so long as it is surrounded by that army of gamblers,
which now so flatly flourishes on all our racecourses, it will continue
to be what it has long since become, a monstrous game of speculation.