Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7168x8192 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

APPRENTICE líffiERS j
Tiffi CHOKE OF
OF MOUNTS
-»-«I
A Qsesnon Keeámg Cen^Uetatimr
By BÎLÏ-ZAC. ! i
AU credit is due to the trai o«r -who;
gives every opportKiniiy to au appnen-r
tice to gain experlence of race', rifling^
and a fair chance of piloting wanners.j
The general ran of trainers is J&fh .'tOj
run the risk of "entrusting a nata' ap-;
prentice with the handling of a ibo rae
that its ooaoections has backed. >Thus
the average apprentice mostly vgets;
mounts on horses that are not fa,«;ied
-until he has shown skill in the «akËdle
and is considered capable of doin*g *
horse justice. ;
Now that there are so many yet- tt>-¡
be-wound-up horses figuring in raips/
in anticipation ot the big meetin.'Si1
commencing in December, more *p*
prentices than ordinarily aré beluga
given mounts. The idea of parring up4»
newly fledged apprentices serves two 1
purposes-rit gives the boy the chancel
Co gain experience and enables a ul
horse to have a gallop to aid it in itsl*
preparation. One big consideration is \
that because of their inexperience, the
boys are not likely to induce the horse
to show up too prominently.
There are sometimes instances in
which the incompetency of a rider is
insufficient to prevent a horse from
bursting into ttoe limelight. When the
stewards cote such cases and are
convinced that the apprentice te in-
competent the boy loses his right to
£-ide in races. The trainer caa reason-
ably claim that the putting up of a
raw ap j rentiee on a free-mover, even
though ic may not be wound up. is
justified. These free-movers are cer-
tainly the type that gives a boy a
greater chance to make good.
Racegoers are generally sceptical re-
specting the presence in the saddle of
an inexperienced apprentice, and are
not inclined lo give a trainer credit for
having acted with good intentions.
However, when the mount on a horse
is suddenly given to an apprentice that
had yet to "give proof of his prowess
in the saddle, while che customary
rider is without a mount in the race
can the public be altogether blamed
for harboring uncharitable feelings
towards the horse's connections?
The bookmakers, too, have a griev-
ance. With an inexperienced rider, a
horse, usually linds no support from
£ stable and ls never sighted. In its
next start the same horse may have
an experienced pilot, and the money
pours in, and it wins. The unfortu-
nate inexperienced apprentice is
blamed for the unsighted performance.
The horse was a trier as far as the
stable was concerned, but its rider
was of no assistance to it. When- it
wins under an altered rider,. superior
horsemanship is a plea that renders
the owner and trainer immune from
official intervention.
It is somewhat remarkable that an
apprentice may have several mounts in
a race without his imperfections as a
rider being noticed. But when he
manages to be on a horse that figures
in a finish, his shortcomings as a rider
are suddenly realised. Of course.- in
the previous mounts the youngster
may have been too obscured in the
field to permit of detection. Ko one
wants to see apprentices prevented
from getting a fair chance to acquire
experience and a reasonable prospect
of. being aboard a winner, but is it
fair to make a convenience of the
youngsters at the expense of the in-
vesting public and bookmakers?
¡ To the credit of the stipendiary
stewards, they have repeatedly exer-
cised their right to refuse to allow an
apprentice to take the mount on a -
horse which, in their opinion, the boy
would be unlikely to get the best out f
of. That is about all they really can
do.
$