22. Horse knocked out of his stride by a cannon during the race. A famous trainer of the old school said, “I have been in this business through a long life; there is little that anybody can teach me in training. I can do all things in this world with a horse except—be inside him.” SCEPTIC. What a splendid letter this is! How true indeed are the 22 reasons! What thought each one gives to the backer if he is a sensible man and will but think over them. How we bookies know full well the absolute truth of them, as do also the jocks, trainers, and owners. We have referred in conversation to the _Sun_ correspondence. What care we for it? It won’t stop the fascinated backer. No fear; we persuade ourselves that nothing will stop him except “running the length of his tether.” It is almost amusing to read in the newspapers the excuses given by the “Racing Prophets” for the predicted horses “not pulling it off.” Almost daily you will find some of the above reasons given. I have just picked up the _Daily Mail_. Racing at Nottingham is described as “an unsatisfactory affair.” For whom? The bookmakers? Certainly not. For whom then? Why, the backers of course. Then comes the usual and oft-told excuses—amongst others—why such and such a horse did _not_ win, as follows:— _Excuse No. 1._—“The well-backed Shot Gun ... threw no resolution into his work.” _Excuse No. 2._—“Eileen Violet too ... ran a snatchy race throughout.” _Excuse No. 3._—“Reminiscence having missed a race at Newmarket through the imprudence of her jockey in leaving off riding too soon, she yesterday, when heavily backed to square matters, had her chance entirely destroyed by the falling of Lady St. George.” _Excuse No. 4._—“The Bestwood Nursery ... demonstrated how fluky was the victory of the Asteria Filly at Newmarket.” The above are cuttings from one paper only—we get such excuses to “soothe the backer” almost every day in one paper or another. In a case reported in the _Daily Telegraph_, the judge of the Clerkenwell County Court made this remark:— I don’t profess to be any authority on horse-racing, but I know it depends upon what the odds are and what the jockeys have been paid as to which horse wins. (Laughter.) I guess that judge knows more about racing than he would wish us to believe. What is the impecunious backer? Why, a fool of the first order. A fascinated idiot. A sharp, flat, and very often a thief, _i.e._ he steals other people’s money in order to “put it on.” If the above cogent reasons and facts won’t decide him to stop backing, then nothing will, except ruin. Let him carefully think over all I have said. Let him think over his own experience—that’s the thing. Has he made money at backing horses? I mean, in the long run. How much has he lost? That’s the point; let him ask himself the question.