We are very lucky that here in Cali it is up to a million and i believe a few other states are at that same level.

I read through this thread with interest and was trying to imagine the impact if tracks were the suppliers of an insurance policy. It just seems like things like drug use, actions done to make weight, past exhibited aggression while riding, and previous incidents of injury would be used to determine risk to the track and manipulate jockey participation there. I don't know that we could expect them to merely operate as they have been and pay out when there's an injury--they're gonna want to put their 2 cents in and exert pressure on the jockeys' ability to earn livelihood and perhaps deciding when and where they can ride, as well as when they retire. What about drug tests? Also couldn't they leverage something against overly aggressive jockeys as a way of guarding their investment? We all know not every group of stewards is created equal. Some are going to slap a jockey with some penalty, perhaps they might blame the wrong one or blame nobody when somebody put the lives and careers of other jockeys at risk (and, if we're being cynical, by extension put the track at risk of big payout). Would tracks also be in any way inclined to deal with running horses til they break or issues of unsoundness in general since there's again, additional potential that the jockey would get hurt if a trainer or owner put a risky horse out there. Whole big can of worms and definitely one that needs to be opened. It's just amazing to think of the implications if there are certain approaches taken.