The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-02-07
WESTERN JOCKEY CLUB
HAS PECULIAR CASE
Kentish Shrew Races in the West
as Two-Year-Old When She
Is Three
MISTAKE DISCOVERED
There Is No Evidence of At
tempted Fraud-Foal Book
Overlooked.
MISTAKE

The Western Jockey Club has recently
had most peculiar case TO deal with. 1t
had to do with the age of the filly, Kentish
Shrew. who has been racing on Western
tracks. Kentish Shrew is by Ornament
Maid of Kent H. and was .foaled at the
breeding farm of II. P. Headley in Ken
lucky in 1900, making her a fouryear-old
this season. Despite this fact, she ran on
Jan. in this year in race for three-year-
olds exclusively and in all of her starts
last year she raced as two-year-old.
Kentsh Shrew is one of the Ornament
FLIES purchased by w. X. Vanderbilt in
1901 She was intended for breeding pur-
poses and not raced in her two-year-
old form. Some time last summer j. S.
Mcdonald. acting for Mr.. Vanderbilt. sold
the fiIly. then three-year-old, to John f.
Madden who later sold her to the Western
owner ID. Lamasney.
Lamasney, who bought the FLY to race,
evidently thought he was getting a two
year-old. and entered her as such at Fort
Erie, the first race of her career. There
was no question raised about the age, and
when she next started, on the coast. it was
in a two-year-old race. 1t was not until
after she had run once this year as a
three-year-old that there was an inkling OF
a mistake in her age.
Somehow the word reached the Western
officials that Kentish Shrew had raced one
year behind her real age. The Western
Jockey Club took the matter up with the
registrar of the Jockey Club. His records
bore out the evidence that Kentsh Shrew
is now four years old. To make sure. how
ever, that no mistake had been made, Mr.
Headley. the breeder, was communicated
with. His reply was that Maid of Kent II
had foaled a filly in 1900 which was by
Ornament
This information was sent to the Western
Jockey Club, and it was then ordered that
the FLY be raced as -year-old. Luck
lily in her few starts she had never earned
any money, and there was no evidence
of attempted fraud or of any suggestion
even of 1t on the part of Lamasney, he
was exonerated from blame in the matter
Had KentiSh Shrew won any money in heI
races it would. of course. be forfeited
Maid of Kent III foaled a chestnut coli
by ST. Maxim i'm 1901 that was named
Remington. This colt did not, however
race last year as a year-old, and his
nonappearance helped in manner to clear
the way for the deception l.amasney haC
unwittingly practiced.
1t seems strange, almost beyond reason
that with the many records of foals anC
names kept by the Jockey Club and which
are always at the command of racing Of
fcials that such an error could go so Ions
undectected. Ii is safe to say that il coulC
not occur on the Jockey Club tracks. Rae
ing secretaries in the East invariably refer
TO the foal book issued by the registrar OF
the Jockey Club when the name of a new
wo-year-old is presented for entry. Thi:
is for a verificatiOn OF the pedigree claimed
which, If in error, is corrected.
Happily. cases of this sort are infrequent
and Mr.. I.amasney may think his lucky
stars that he got clear of 1t so easily. H.
probably would not have been able TO hav,
done so had Kentsh Shrew shown any
ability to win races. The question which
naturally arises is, of what value is sht
as a racing proposition If, having the ad
vantage of a year she could not beat tn,
ordinary youngsters against which sh,
RAM
Mr. Lamasney, while entirely innocent o
l any culpability in the matter was Ger
tainly lax in not having ascertained tn,
exact age of the filly, and for the racinl
associations which accepted her entry
there can be really no excuse at all.