“Our Van.”
RACING.
The retro- and introspection with which some indulge themselves during the dead winter season for flat-racing must leave in the minds of such feelings of uneasiness. One had but to read the sporting papers very deeply to realise that racing was not being indulged in in the typical spirit of give and take; and when we found staring us in the face the advertisement of the Racehorse Owners’ Association, instituted for the protection of owners’ interests, one realised clearly enough that grievances were felt to exist. Possibly in due course the particular grievances which the covenanting owners desire to see redressed will be set forth, for of course the trouble was not taken to found the Association without some ostensible reason. In the meantime, the Jockey Club has declined to take official cognisance of the Association. So far as we have gone, the state of affairs seems to be that certain owners have formed themselves into an association, and have applied to the Jockey Club for official recognition. In effect the Jockey Club asks the Association, “Who are you?” Having so long ruled supreme and unchallenged, the Jockey Club no doubt feels it a little abrupt when a body formed outside itself suddenly appears, and practically suggests that it shall have a word or two to say in the government of the Turf. If it is not to have some sort of say, then there seems to be no reason for its advances towards the Jockey Club, or for its existence even. Enough has been said in print during the past twelve months to make the Jockey Club aware that the advance is not being made in a too friendly spirit towards them; therefore they practically reply, “Thank you, we can get on very well alone, and without your assistance, as heretofore.” It does not follow that an association of racehorse owners cannot exist and do good work without any reference whatever to the Jockey Club. Leaving outside the government of racing as conducted by the Jockey Club, there is plenty of room for the operations of such an association. Combination between owners has been sadly wanting. Now that there is some sign of it, one would like to see the body establish a right to its existence by the carrying out of measures of benefit to the owners and, by consequence, to racing as a whole. To the outsider it seems a little premature for a body, before it has won its spurs, so to speak, to aspire to deal on equal terms with the ruling powers. There are several matters connected with the practice of racing with which progressive or reforming owners might profitably interest themselves in conclave. Before a body can hope to be regarded as a negotiable quantity it must show some capacity for self-government and for dealing with questions of a kind that come naturally within its scope. Owners, as a whole, complain that their interests are not sufficiently considered. The complaint is not here refuted, but so far there has been lacking that combination of action which alone can effect changes. It is not too much to say that an association of owners can bring about that which it is beyond the powers of the Jockey Club to effect, because outside their scope. The Jockey Club can only be administrative; and already it has been accused of going too deeply into minutiæ. Those details which concern the owners should be settled by the owners themselves. It does not seem necessary for them to approach the Jockey Club at all in order to make their presence and power felt. They have but to agree amongst themselves how to act and how not to act under certain conditions, and the rest will come. One can speak in this way so long as one is in the dark concerning the aspirations and intentions of the new body, which has yet to issue its propaganda. When details appear it will be possible to discuss them. For the present, therefore, we must wait in patience.
Amongst the most important matters which a body of owners coming together for the protection of its interests can take in hand is the jockey question. Despite all that has been done the jockey is still the master of the situation; and this is bad for racing. A position in which the jockey dictates the terms is an intolerable one, but that is the position in which the Turf finds itself. It is not a new state of things by any means. The “It’s no use asking me what will win; go and ask that long-legged devil,” of Matt. Dawson could be paraphrased to-day, though the question of dishonesty is not being trenched upon here. What owners have to consider is, whether the relative positions existing between owner and jockey are those of master and man, and whether the reward given the jockey is not altogether out of disproportion to the service rendered. The enormous issues that are at times at stake, and the fatal power for good or evil that is given into the hands of the jockey, as forming the last link in a chain every other link of which has been forged with scrupulous care and disregard of cost, are what give the jockey his advantage. And this advantage he will always hold so long as he is allowed to feel his power, and not made to understand that there is a master mind over him. If the hard truth has to be told, the master mind is what is lacking. By slow stages at first and then rapid ones, we have passed from the times when the jockey stood humbly upon the mat awaiting the pleasure of his lordship, to a day when it is the owner who metaphorically stands upon the mat. To put the matter in a few words, the jockey is enabled to make an income that is not only far too large to be good for him, especially when we consider the lowly station from which he usually springs, but, in addition, is immeasurably in excess of his deserts. Clearing ourselves of the glamour of custom, it must appear plain that it is a ridiculous thing to give a jockey, say, £500 for winning a race, even be it the Derby. How can a jockey ride worth £500? Only on the supposition that if he is not able to anticipate some such guerdon of victory he will not put in his best work and so possibly lose the race; in which case he will be a dishonest jockey and should be dealt with in a totally different manner. The writer does not hesitate to put it on paper that there is no reason why a jockey should be paid more for winning the Derby than for winning any other race, for the simple reason that it is just as easy to win; and we do not have to go back many years to find a jockey who rode an indifferent race, but won through the merit of his horse, rewarded in a manner that would have been extravagant had he performed some prodigy of horsemanship and snatched the race out of the fire by its means. The thing is so glaringly disproportionate, that one is driven to assume that the giving of large presents to jockeys for winning certain races is done out of deference to a custom, the courage to disregard which is lacking. So much is the thing overdone, that one almost comes to applaud instances in which an entirely diametrical course has been pursued, in which the suggestion of parsimony in the case of meritorious riding has been braved.
Even when we take the purely commercial side of racing, in which the sole object is to bring off a betting coup, we see no reason why the jockey should be made a party to the pecuniary gains. It is, of course, the common custom to make him a party by putting him on so much to win. But why? Surely, looked at dispassionately, five guineas is a very nice reward for riding a race. The question of trying or not trying is, of course, quite outside the question. The jockey who does not try when he is being paid to do so is a thief, pure and simple. Consequently, when a jockey is being bribed by promise of extra reward to try, he is merely being educated to be a thief. Why should one be compelled to say, as one practically is, “If you win I will give you so and so?” The assumption should always be that when a jockey mounts a horse he will do his utmost to win: whatever the practice may be, this is the only tenable theory. But we may set aside the proposition of trying and not trying, and come to the position of a jockey not riding at all except at a certain fee. This position is one which the owners themselves only can deal with, and here, I fancy, the Racehorse Owners’ Association, if ever they come to consider the question, will meet a serious stumbling block. The strength of those owners, racing chiefly for sport, whom, purely for the sake of convenience, I will call the Jockey Club circle, is that they do not meet in fevered competition for the services of jockeys. Here we find the distance between master and man kept as wide as it should be, and as it was in the past. The two parties concerned do not meet on the same plane as is the case when mere money is at issue and the end is considered justified by any kind of means. For the state of things at which we have arrived owners must be considered solely to blame, for they have the remedy in their own hands. No fault can reasonably be found with the jockeys for making what hay they can whilst the sun shines. Owners are not unjustifiably complaining of the heavy expenses of racing. Is not the heavy expense of jockeys an item worthy of consideration?
In this matter of over-paying jockeys it seems as though the trainer is not being treated with justice. If, for the sake of argument, it be right and proper for the rider of a Derby winner to receive a present of £500, how much, in the name of equity, should the trainer not receive? He spends anxious months, even years, with animals of enormous value under his charge, which must be kept well and brought to the post trained to the hour. Upon the successful exploitation of the horses entrusted to his charge he has to bring several qualities to bear; and if outsiders are apt to think £2 10s. per week a considerable sum to pay for the charge of a selling “plater,” it becomes insignificant enough in the case of a possible Derby winner, even if the charge be as high as three guineas. The owner has yet to be met with who says to his trainer: “You have a Derby horse of mine. If he wins I shall pay you £10 per week for his training instead of £2 10s.” But this would not be out of keeping with the presentation of several hundreds of pounds to a jockey for riding a single race. The trainer, of course, takes his chance, but so should the jockey, and it is not at all creditable that he should be made the spoiled child of the Turf that he is. The statement that jockeys make more money than anyone else is scarcely to be contradicted, and such a state of things is entirely wrong. So far from the jockey of to-day doing more work for his money, the contrary is the case, as those in the habit of watching morning gallops can testify. It is a difficult thing now to get a jockey who has reached the stage of “fancying himself” to trouble himself about morning gallops. So much, at least, English jockeys have condescended to learn from the Americans.
The National Hunt is still active in its endeavours to devise a satisfactory hurdle, but its latest effort has by no means met with general approval. The Clerk of the Course at Hurst Park received instructions from the Committee to supply a hurdle, the foot of which was to measure 16 in from the bottom rail and be wholly inserted in the ground. It was to be put in at an angle so as to slope the hurdle, the common method adopted by the farm labourers who usually undertake such work being to ram the hurdle in straight and then force it over to the required slope. This is an abundant cause of the swinging-back hurdle that is so dangerous. So far so good; but the Committee provided further that the hurdles were to be bushed in the middle part only, the bottom and top rails standing out clear. It was of course the top rail that mattered, for horses accustomed to bushed tops might easily fail to see it. The innovation came in for severe criticism at the hands of trainers, some horses being sent home without competing. The very reasonable objection was made that it is scarcely fair to horses to spring a surprise of this sort upon them. It is one thing to school a horse carefully at a new kind of obstacle, and quite another to ask him to race over it. A further item of complaint, with which, however the National Hunt had nothing to do, was against the too solid nature of the end uprights of the hurdles, two coming together, making quite a formidable obstruction that suggested risk to life and limb.
THE LATE MR. W. G. CRAVEN.
By the death of Mr. William George Craven, which occurred at his residence, 63, Curzon Street, Mayfair, last month, the Jockey Club has lost its oldest member, with the exception of the Earl of Coventry, who was elected forty-six years ago, twelve months prior to the election of the late Mr. Craven. The deceased gentleman was instrumental in obtaining several reforms in the Jockey Club which were much needed at the time. Born in 1835, the late Mr. Craven was the eldest son of the late Hon. George Augustus Craven. He was educated at Eton, and served a few years in the 1st Life Guards. He was elected a member of the Jockey Club at the early age of twenty-six, and three years afterwards was appointed a Steward. He was again appointed Steward in 1879, during which period of office he was called upon to deal with the memorable objection to Bend Or after the Derby of 1880. Mr. Craven owned many good horses in his time, and among his winnings were the Gold Vase at Ascot in 1864, and the Great Metropolitan Stakes at Epsom the following year. Most of his horses were, however, sold in 1866, since which date his colours have been seldom seen on the racecourse.