"If then the principal winners of Lonchamps, Chan- 

 tilly, and Auteuil agree less in construction with the ideal 

 horse formerly obtained, in our opinion, this evolution 

 can be imputed neither to a change in the system of 

 racing, since the principal basis has not changed ; nor 

 to an error on the part of the contemporary breeders 

 since their principal object is the same as that of their 

 predecessors. 



" By these remarks we intend in no way to detract 

 from the value of Colonel Couste's valuable researches. 

 But we think it right to show that the mistake, if there 

 has been one, goes back to the origin of racing and does 

 not lie in the new tendencies." 



(" Le Jockey," July 24, 1909.) 



As is seen, these two articles present exactly the same 

 objections which can be reduced to the following: 



For one hundred and thirty years in England and for 

 seventy years in France the efforts of breeders have 

 tended toward the production of a Derby or of a St. 

 Leger horse ; it is the winners of these races which have 

 been continually employed as stallions ; the pure sprinters 

 have had but an infinitesimal influence on production; 

 if therefore, the results obtained may be criticized, the 

 responsibility for mistakes made must be carried back to 

 the very beginning of racing instead of being ascribed to 

 new tendencies. 



After all, the facts are not denied, facts which we were 

 not the first to point out ; explanations which we have 

 given of these facts have not been questioned; it is con- 

 sidered sufficient to say " nothing new has been done and 

 tradition has been respected." 



We are quite willing to take up the discussion on this 

 ground. 



Let us go back, therefore, to 1776 and 1780 when were 

 instituted first the St. Leger, and then the Derby, to say 

 nothing of the Oaks. 



72 



