ATTACK ON TRAINERS AND JOCKEYS. 309 
answer every end. Or should these disgraces not be perpe- 
trated, how many are the means by which races may be lost 
or won! A simple breach of confidence may answer the end, 
information may be conveyed sufficient to neutralize the hopes 
of the confiding employer, and the one book be made square, 
although the other may become a memorandum of ruin.” 
We may pause for a moment in our quotation to examine 
the relevancy of what he has said to this point. If such 
things were done, there would be some ground for such an 
argument. But he bases his thesis on an utter hypothesis. 
No jockey or trainer bets in the way he describes, and there- 
fore does not fall under the temptation. And it is on hypo- 
thesis only that he ventures to condemn a class. He says, 
“The elder Chifney was the first to back a horse in a race 
other than the one he rode, and he lost owing to the horse’s 
unfit condition.” This was the rider's opinion, soundly based 
no doubt and justified by the result, though he might have 
been mistaken in his opinion, and might have had to pay 
dearly forit. I confess I cannot conceive the dishonesty that is 
attached to such conduct. It cannot be the mere fact of the 
jockey’s betting, or of his being the first that did so, and 
nothing of an improper nature is proved against him. Allhe 
did was to ride one horse and back another in the same race. 
But why should he not have done so? What reason can be 
given to show, that if a jockey rode a carthorse of his em- 
ployer’s, he should be required, if he betted at all, to back him 
against an £clipse; or if you will, against one of his own 
horses of which he thought well and had confidence in his 
brother professional inthesaddle? For racing has its glorious 
uncertainties. One horse may fall down, or go the wrong 
course, and from various reasons others may be disqualified 
and the carthorse may be the winner, and his jockey having 
