182 THE RACE AND ITS RESPONSIBILITIES. 
says, and with possibly greater propriety: “If he had been 
left in, he would have run and won, as his lameness was not of 
a serious nature; and why was he struck out and not left in on 
the chance of his recovery?” Thus you may strike out early 
with the most honest intention, or leave in to the last moment 
actuated by the same laudable principles, and circumstances 
over which you may have no control, render each or both 
right or wrong, and you are blamed for breaking faith with 
the public in either event. 
If I take a case or two in point it will more clearly illustrate 
the fallibility of public opinion, and the unreasonableness of 
expecting horses to run when the public think they should, in 
ignorance whether they be lame or otherwise unfit to do so. 
The first case I shall allude to will show the impropriety of 
deciding too hastily, and how desirable it sometimes is to 
hope against hope, and not strike out until the last minute. 
The Hero, after being backed for the Goodwood Cup down 
to a very short price, one day after galloping pulled up lame. 
Off went the touts, running or riding to the telegraph office, 
and wired to their employers the startling information, 
probably in their own emphatic and terse language: “He’s a 
dead ’un, get every guinea.” The horse did not make his 
appearance, either from necessity or stratagem, for a day or 
two; and then was, as they say, “restricted to walking exer- 
cise,” and was looked on as virtually out of the race. After 
being driven to long odds he was reinstated in the market, 
“of course only for hedging purposes,” argued they. Great 
dissatisfaction was expressed on all sides. It was affirmed 
that all chances of his winning were hopeless from the very 
time of his accident, and that he should then have been struck 
out in an honourable and straightforward manner. But the 
owner thought otherwise and left him in, and he won. 
