Los Angeles herald., 1906-02-19
RX Law Davidson

have eliminated in a presentment by
certain of the horsemen of formal
charges of misconduct and unfair deal
ings upon the part of Brooks during
the present meeting, and the "bill Of
particulars" specifies the particular
acts wherein the horsemen feel ag-
grieved and seek redress.
At the same time. charges of unfair
methods by Boots" Durnell in racing
horses in his charge are made by j. j..
McCafferty. and one of these charges
relating to the claiming Of Cutter out
Of a selling race several weeks ago
has already been presented and acted
upon, and the decision of Judge Ham
ilton is expected today.
The differences between Brooks ana
the horsemen have been of long dur
alton and the subject of discussion by
the horsemen before sessions of the
board of directors, but no action by
the governing board of the jockey club
has been had to date.
statement of the contentious of the
horsemen, under date of January 1S,
is as follows:
To Directors Of Los Angeles Jockey
Club-Gentlemen: Believing that the
interests of both the Los Angeles
Jockey club and our own are being
placed in a most critical condition un-
der the present management, we desire
to bring the following charges to your
consideration:
First. The interference in the man
agement of your able track superinten-
dent, Mr.. Glass, when the usual track
conditions were ordered changed at the
nP 1,n oil Re1r-
catcher, Handzarra and Cruzados in
order, we believe, that Bearcatcher
might become an almost certain winner
and that a certain clique might win.
Second. In regard to the former
handicapping of horses in certain
stables or stable connections in which
it is common gossip that one of your
officials has a large interest handed
down from the, estate of Caesar Young,
which interest was conveyed In the
horses Watercure and Alencon, who
were transferred or sold into the stable
and stable connections most favorably
treated in the handicaps and condi-
toned races. In support of these
rumors we wish to call your attention
to the following facts:
1. The said official did endeavor to
engage a Jockey for said stable.
2. The special, unusual and discfim-
mating conditions of races in the week
ly program books which virtually bars
nearly one-half Of all horses other than
selling platers.
For example: During the present
week. second race on Wednesday, jan
uary II. why should nearly every g.
year-old filly on the track have to give
Silver Sue ten pounds, a mare that has
won a selling stakes and four selling
purses since June 1 and nine races
before that including stakes that were
not selling races, of a total value of
about $4,000 and on May, 81 won a con-
dition race and because she had not
won a race other than selling since
June l why should fillies that have
never won but one race give her
weight? Why cid she have race of
the same conditions on Thursday, jan
uary II?
Why should every horse that has won
on any of the New York tracks have
to give F'irebalr from five to twelve
pounds in the fifth race January H.,
the fifth race January 20 and the fifth
race on next Saturday, January q?
Why should Alencon, a horse that has
won six races since November 10 and
over $4,000, including the Mt. Lowe
handicap, have to have special race
for next Thursday, January 25?
Why should fillies like L. j. Roses
Neatness and A. B. Spreckels' Daruma,
neither of which has won race since
last April. have to give a filly like Wee
Lass, that won late in July, seven
pounds, as they did in the first race
today, January IS? Why should Theo
Case have to have a special race for
himself on January 3 and again on
January 10?
Why should Hector, a colt that won
one race at Brighton Beach, worth 1910
to the winner, have to have a special
race for himself on January 20, barring
nearly every fair colt on the track?
Take any of the weekly books and
any of us can pick them out on almost
every day and we think they all come
from the same source.
Why should the weights on Rubric
and Varieties be increased in the handi-
caps while they remained the property
of McDanlels or Walker and as soon
as they were sold, why should 1t be
taken off?
8. In the animosty shown to certain
parties since our meeting with some of
the directors on January TO- AS, on jan
uary 10, when Lady Allece, the property
of f. T. Woods, one of the protesting
owners, begain to stop near the finish
of the race in which she ran second,
During the finish of that race your
official Handicapped kept shouting,
BEAT the son of a -"
And again, in regard to throwing out
entries of Ding Dong II and Kinsman,
the property of c. T. Boots, another
protesting owner. From November 80
until January II there was not an en-
try of Boots thrown out. Since that
date he has entered in but four races
other than the handicap on Wewnes-
day, January II, in which BorghesI
started, and in two of the four times
his entry has been thrown out. In the
case of Ding Dong there is no COM
plaint as he has run very poorly, but
in the case of Kinsman it is far differ
ent, for the race in which Kinsman was
entered was for horses that had not
won since November 1, 1905. There
were about forty entries in the race.
The race was split, making two races,
fourteen horses I'm each race, leaving
about twelve that could not start.
In splitting a race, the best horses,
are supposed to be put in the first
division and the next best I'm the Sec
ond division. In the first division of
The fourteen entries there We're five that
had not finished second or third. In