Histories of Green Square - City of Sydney

Histories of Green Square
bred racing in part legitimised itself to middle-class critics
by pointing out that it provided better quality horses for the
agricultural sector and to the military. 13 This form of racing
was therefore based around horses which showed proficiency
in speed as well as endurance. Pony racing neglected these
concerns in favour of the excitement and the ‘good betting
races’ that sprint racing provided. We can see that pony racing
was more concerned with presenting a spectacle than the Australian
Jockey Club and other principal clubs. 14
It is tempting to assume that proprietary racing was an inferior
form of racing. However, proprietary racing had different goals
from thoroughbred racing. It appealed to those who enjoyed
tight finishes and a high number of chances, as opposed to
the two-to-four-mile slogs occasionally raced at Randwick in
which the winner was decided early in the race. 15 The idea that
it was ‘inferior’ is more likely a result of the hierarchy of sports
according to ‘worth’, constructed by middle class observers
rather than working class participants.
The Victoria Park Racing Club also followed its own conventions,
suitable to its purposes. The best example of this is the
disciplinary process that the club adopted. Stewards were
employed by proprietary and non-proprietary racing clubs
alike, to find and punish owners, jockeys and trainers who
broke the rules. The stewards at Victoria Park had different
practices, however. While the Australian Jockey Club procedure
stated that the AJC stewards ‘must have before them all persons
who are charged before hearing any evidence’, the stewards at
Victoria Park heard testimony from all witnesses separately. 16
As James Donohoe, stipendary steward at Victoria Park, stated
before a 1923 Parliamentary Select Committee on the conduct
and administration of pony racing: ‘If you call the [jockey] in
and examine him first, he is likely to make statements contrary
to the statements that the owner or trainer make’. 17 He claimed
that interviewing separately was necessary in order to get the
truth from those appearing before the stewards.
This provides an important indication of the mentality of the
racecourse administrators. The Victoria Park stewards were
very keen to impose harsh penalties in order to protect the
reputation of the sport. In fact, when asked whether the AJC
system afforded the accused ‘a better chance’ by the committee,
Donohoe’s sardonic reply was ‘Yes, of getting clear’. 18 There was
clearly a recognition amongst officials that improper practices
had to be stamped out in this code of racing, and they tried
to divert attention away from themselves and onto cheating
competitors.
This was in part a response to the widely held perception
among observers and competitors alike that the administration
of proprietary racing was rife with corruption. Proprietary
racing was often seen as an inferior sporting contest run
by people of dubious character for purely financial reasons. It
was alleged that the standard of the breeding of the horses was
deliberately kept low for ‘no other purpose than to stimulate
gambling’. 19 Pony racing therefore did not have the (so-called)
nationalistic and economic justifications of thoroughbred
racing. The courses were considered the ‘haunt of thieves’
where dubious practices such as doping and rigging races
took place, practices considered to be the result of low prizemoney.
20 The races, it was argued, were run purely for profitmaking,
and the small amount of prize-money put on offer
demonstrated this fact.
Proprietary racing was usually run on weekdays as well as
weekends. This meant that proprietary course attendance
74
rates were not affected by AJC meetings on Saturdays and
public holidays. Here was more ammunition for the enemies
of proprietary racing—their racetrack kept workers from
their jobs and so profit was being placed above the prosperity
of the nation. Workers were expected to work rather than
enjoy recreation. This was the opinion of Joseph A. Wright,
who appeared before the Select Committee of 1923 in his
capacity as a representative of a league for the abolition of
proprietary racing. In his testimony, he also claimed that there
was not an honest racing man alive, and that it was necessary
to ‘stand in with the crooks’ to make a profit in the sport. Sir
Joynton Smith himself, Wright asserted, was disqualified for
life in New Zealand. This last claim was refuted on the basis of
Smith’s membership of the AJC. 21
Accusations of unfair suspension of trainers and owners were
also leveled against the officials of the Associated Racing Clubs.
The stewards were alleged to have abused their power in order
to pursue personal vendettas. Milton Richards, appearing
before the committee, claimed to have been ‘forced out’ of
pony racing by officials. He also complained that officials
required the owner or trainer of any good horse to inform
them of the fact, in order to ‘cash in’ on the horse’s success. 22
The Select Committee heard other complaints of this nature,
including the case of Charles Edward Stephenson, the trainer
of a horse named Queen Costella. The horse was expected
to win a second division race at Victoria Park. However, as
a result of scratchings, it was put in first division in a bad
barrier and was outclassed. According to witness Frederick
James Hodges, the officials (who apparently bet on the horse)
were ‘very vexed and they threatened to have their revenge
on the trainer on some future occasion’. Stephenson was later
suspended for twelve months for ‘pulling’ his horse, which he
claimed ‘ruined’ him. 23
The treatment of the animals involved in the sport was considered
by opponents of proprietary racing to be substandard.
Doping (administering drugs to a horse) was said to be
rife. The Select Committee heard the testimony of John Albert
Bonser regarding the doping death of his horse Rosie Colour.
The horse was found to have a large enough quantity of arsenic
in its organs to kill it, but as it had died off the racecourse, the
stewards washed their hands off the issue. However, the role
of doping may have been overstated. James Douglas Stewart,
prominent veterinarian, commented that doping had ‘practically
played itself out. [Dopers] probably realise that it does
not pay’. 24
Horses in this period were put under greater stress than current
racehorses. This can be seen in the case of Uncle Jim, a horse
that ran on Sydney’s pony tracks just before the First World
War. In the six and a half months between 11 th August, 1913
and 28 th February, 1914, Uncle Jim ran in twenty-four races.
He was run in races only four (or less) days apart on eight
occasions between 3 rd January, 1914 and 28 th February, 1914. 25
By comparison, the 2004 Golden Slipper winner Private Steer
recently drew admiration for winning three races on three
successive Saturdays. This enormous workload was tempered
by the fact Uncle Jim usually competed in ‘Flying Handicap’
sprint races. Other sporting contests, such as heavyweight
boxing championships, were also held with greater regularity
than they are today.
There was obviously some degree of malpractice on the part
of the officials and owners of proprietary racing. However, it
would be naïve to suggest that other forms of racing were free
of corruption or the influence of gambling on its officials. Even
© Erik Nielsen
Fig 9.4 Sam Hood ‘Two women collecting winnings’, 1935. Both men and women enjoyed betting on horseraces.
(Source: Hood Collection, courtesy Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales.)
the most prosperous owner in the colonial period needed to bet
and win to keep their interest in the sport profitable. 26 Doping
was also apparent in thoroughbred racing shortly after the end
of proprietary racing in New South Wales. Tarien, winner of
the 1953 AJC Doncaster handicap and trained by T.J. Smith,
was found to be doped. 27 Clearly malpractice could occur in
even the most distinguished of races. Perhaps proprietary
racing was unfairly condemned as its opponents were blinded
by thoroughbred racing’s perceived status and respectability.
Proprietary racing at Victoria Park was run to rules that
generally, but not always, suited its patrons better than other
forms of racing. Bettors were certainly favoured, while participants
(human and equine) fared less well, although they were
given opportunities to compete not afforded them elsewhere.
9.5 Proprietary racing circuit: a site of class struggle
The proprietary racing circuit developed around a relationship
between mainly middle class proprietors and working
class participants. Naturally, the interests of these two groups
came into conflict, and it is interesting to observe how the
participants reacted to these situations, as it illustrates the
dynamics of popular culture. The relationship between the
Association of Racing Clubs (ARC) (the proprietors) and the
New South Wales Pony Owners, Trainers and Jockeys Association
(OTJA) mirrors that of a relationship between employers
and employees in a labour dispute. A major dispute developed
in 1923 over the registration of two trainers by the ARC who
were not members of the OTJA. 28 The OTJA displayed its discontent
in two ways: a boycott on August 1923, and through
testimony to the Select Committee of 1923.
The August boycott was instigated when the OTJA announced
that its members would not compete at the meeting at
© Erik Nielsen
Chapter 9 – A Course of Action
Rosebery on Saturday 10 th August, holding their own meeting
at Kembla Grange instead. As a result, only sixty entries were
received for the Rosebery meeting, with a further twenty-two
entries pulling out on the day. The boycotting trainers maintained
a vigil that outnumbered the sparsely attended meeting
at the sand hill overlooking the track, hooting and jeering
riders and horses who competed. These horses were considered
‘black’ in the same way that non-union labour is in an
industrial dispute. 29
The ARC had fired a pre-emptive strike against the jockeys at
the Kensington meeting on the Wednesday. The jockeys were
notified that failure to turn up to the Rosebery meeting would
result in the cancellation of their registration, a sanction that
was later carried out. 30 The ARC met on Monday, August 20 th
1923 and further resolved to ‘decline to recognise or have any
communication with the New South Wales Pony and Galloway
Owners and Trainers Association’. 31 The ARC also allegedly
mounted an intimidation campaign against bookmakers who
worked at the Kembla Grange meeting. 32 We can see just how
jealously the proprietors guarded their authority, and how
jealously working people guarded their working conditions,
right to organise and recreational activities.
The Select Committee hearings of 1923–1924 were used as a
sounding board by the OTJA to air their grievances against the
ARC. The first witness, Thomas Dominic Kingsley, Secretary
of the Association, used his testimony to express dissatisfaction
with the proprietary arrangement of pony racing. One
grievance was the lack of prize-money available to trainers and
owners compared to their costs. The ARC was only contributing
£875 per usual day of racing, to be divided amongst several
races, an average stake being £60. The cost of running a horse
75