The jurisdiction of the Jockey Club will always, in my opinion, be
incomplete till it accepts the responsibility of laying down the law
in questions as to disputed bets, and of deciding when horses are in a
race or when they are not; as, for instance, in the case of Maskelyne,
about which there was a few years ago much discussion, resulting in
the illogical conclusion that, although the entry of that horse was
informal, and consequently inept, those who backed it were ordered
by the committee of Tattersall's to pay their bets! Why should it be
possible to make an informal entry of any horse for any race? Hitherto
it appears to have been among the unwritten laws of the turf that any
person might enter any animal he pleased in any way he liked, without
let or hindrance, and any one can still do so, and thus open a wide
door to fraud. To promote the interest of bookmakers possessing a
dishonest turn, half-a-dozen Maskelynes might be entered for important
races. Such entries, no doubt, as in the case of the horse named, may
hitherto have been accidental; but in future such entries might be
made all but impossible by being brought, by order of the Club, under
the cognisance of some responsible official whose duty it should be
to oversee all entries and check the age and breeding of the animals
submitted for the various races.
With regard to bets, it is notorious that in the case of disputes a
really logical decision on the merits of a case can seldom be obtained.
Decisions are often given on what may be called a "sentimental" view
of the subject; it would not be difficult to cull from the annals of
Tattersall's a string of judgments each of which would put the other
out of countenance. The committee to whom is confided the giving of
a decision in a case of disputed betting is too big. A very small
tribunal, always composed of the same men, the consistency of whose
decisions could be watched and discussed by those interested in the
purity of the turf, would act with such promptitude as would enable
"quorums" to be dispensed with--the "quorum" system, indeed, might be
advantageously done away with.
The unique position occupied by the Jockey Club, which has been, so
far, described for the benefit of the uninitiated, is, of course, known
to all interested in the business of racing. The Club, as lawgiver
of the turf and as its own executive, is despotic; it makes laws
and alters them at discretion; the plain truth is, it seems to be
perpetually engaged in the patching of the "Rules of Racing," which
have been the growth of the last seventy or eighty years, and which,
instead of being occasionally patched, ought to be revised from
beginning to end--or, perhaps, if they were "entirely reconstructed"
it would be better. In all probability the original framework has been
so patched as to be past recognition. Any person who takes the trouble
to look over the "Rules of Racing," which are to be found in "Ruff"
or any of the other guides to the turf, will at once see that many of
them might be with advantage altogether excised. The terrible penalties
against horse-watching, especially in regard to trials, might at once
be removed from the statutes; as they stand they only provoke laughter;
in fact they are altogether obsolete, and seem to us moderns "full of
sound and fury."
The following sentences comprise the rules of racing, so far as they
relate to "corrupt practices," among which will be found what is said
in regard to the watching of trials: "(i.) If any person corruptly
give or offer any money, share in a bet, or other benefit to any
person having official duties in relation to a race or to any jockey;
or (ii.) If any person having official duties in relation to a race,
or any jockey, corruptly accept or offer to accept money, share in a
bet, or other benefit; or (iii.) Wilfully enter or cause to be entered
or to start for any race a horse which he knows to be disqualified;
or (iv.) If any person be detected watching a trial, or proved to the
satisfaction of the stewards of the Jockey Club to have employed
any person to watch a trial, or to have obtained surreptitiously
information respecting a trial from any person or persons engaged in
it, or in the service of the owner as trainer of the horses tried, or
respecting any horse in training from any person in such services;
or (v.) If any person be guilty of any other corrupt or fraudulent
practices on the turf in this or any other country; every person so
offending shall be warned off Newmarket Heath and other places where
these rules are in force."
These laws were evidently devised in favour of betting owners, who
cared little about racing except for the opportunities afforded for
gambling. During these latter years the Jockey Club has been criticised
by several sporting writers with unsparing severity; various faults
incident to a pastime which within the last sixty or seventy years has
developed into an immense institution of the gambling order having
been improperly laid at its door. The Club, or at all events the men
who direct its work, are not seldom held up to the public as "anserous
noodles" of the deepest dye, as "men, indeed, who could not be
entrusted to groom a horse, far less to make laws for the regulation of
horse-racing." Nothing comes easier to some writers when, unfortunately
for the public, they are entrusted with the use of pen and ink, than
abuse; but happily abuse is not argument, and no writer desirous of
seeing the turf in a flourishing condition, or who is anxious to have
its unsavoury surroundings eliminated, can ignore the useful work done
by the Club within the last ten or twelve years, which may be assumed
as the precursor of more good work to follow. What may, however,
be very properly charged against the Jockey Club is that, being a
dealer in racing itself, it is wrong for it to regulate the racing of
other companies; it is, in reality, as if one firm of tailors were to
constitute itself the supreme head of the trade, and say to all other
tailors: "You shall do as I tell you; you must cut your cloth as I
dictate, and sell at the price I name." The Club has in its day done
much to further the interests of the turf, but much remains yet for it
to do--not so much, however, in the devising of big stakes to be run on
its own race-ground, but in various reforms incidental to race-running
and in codifying and revising the laws of the turf.