ASSUMED NAMES; JOCKEYS AND THEIR COMMISSIONERS; AND OTHER MATTERS.
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.