SYMPOSIUM: Horsemen, jocks at odds on new losing mount fee increase
 

Jockeys, horsemen clash on mount fees
By Matt Hegarty

http://www.drf.com/news/article/109435.html

TUCSON, Ariz. - Representatives of jockeys and trainers clashed Tuesday afternoon during a panel presentation at the University of Arizona's Symposium on Racing and Gaming over a model rule that sets minimums for the amount of money owners must pay riders in races.

Representatives of two major horsemen's organizations, the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association and the National Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association, said that they strongly objected to Saturday's endorsement by the Association of Racing Commissioners International of the model rule, a vote that was supported by the Jockeys' Guild.

The rule codifies broad matrices of increases in losing mount fees based on the identity of the track and the purses of the race, and it calls for mount fees to be indexed to the government's cost-of-living adjustment used for Social Security payments. Under the model rule, some losing mount fees would increase by 100 percent.

Jeff Johnston, a regional manager for the Jockeys' Guild, said the increases address nearly two decades of stagnation in losing mount fees. Johnston said that jockeys were paid an average of $40 in losing mount fees in 1985 and that mount fees only increased once since then, by $5 in 2001, before the Guild began pushing individual tracks to increase fees last year.

Horsemen's representatives, however, countered that the losing mount fees should be subject to negotiation between a track's jockey colony and its horsemen's group and not set by racing regulators. They also claimed that the cost-of-living adjustment did not properly reflect economic conditions in the racing industry, which started stagnating in inflation-adjusted terms a decade ago and began declining in recent years.

"As newly minted as the model rule is, we seek a repeal of it," said Joe Santanna, president of the National HBPA.

The disagreement between the two groups has largely been played out behind the scenes over the past year, and the public airing of the two sides' grievances reflected the sharp divisions between opponents and supporters. Mike Campbell, president of the Illinois Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association, said that negotiations between jockeys and horsemen this year over the issue at Arlington Park and Hawthorne dominated relations between the groups for 10 months, with trainers accusing other trainers of being traitors and jockeys threatening walkouts.... MORE

This is the stupidest thing to argue about. Jockeys have gotten huge increases in winning mount fees at a lot of tracks which they always seem to forget. But the horseman are too rigid in some cases. What the hell is the difference between giving the guy $50 or $60 bucks a mount?

What I really want to know is what the least effective and biggest joke of an organization in racing (a tough thing to be considering the many useless groups), the ACRI is doing setting fee schedules? They cant effectively run their own house or enforce the rules they have without coming up with complex indexes modeled after federal COLA's? That is a joke. So if the current handle trend continues or levels off the jocks will get a raise every year while everyone else takes it on the chin? C'mon man....

Respectfully giving your trainer 10% of the winning purse vs. 10% of your net is bit off the mark as well IMO.. You win a race 30k you pay 1800 to the jock and then you pay 1800 to trainer. Jock only earns when he cashes(commission) trainer has his day rate.. I realize that nobody gets rich on 2000-3000 a month to take care of a horse but it certainly has some salary built in..

In England no matter the purse structure or the race meet losing jock mount is 100 pounds . Chuck how do you figure jocks have gotten a raise on winning mount fee's ? its 10% , the same as it always has been. In Canada at Woodbine there is additional 1% taken out of the winning purse for the gallop rider of every winning horse , lol be glad you dont race there.

[quote=Honu]In England no matter the purse structure or the race meet losing jock mount is 100 pounds . Chuck how do you figure jocks have gotten a raise on winning mount fee's ? its 10% , the same as it always has been. In Canada at Woodbine there is additional 1% taken out of the winning purse for the gallop rider of every winning horse , lol be glad you dont race there.[/QUOTE]

We will be next year..nice to know the pie gets sliced thinner

[quote=GBBob]You win at WB its a nice payday.. What is the ave purse 65k?

Groom 1pt Jock trainers 20pts race day 75bucks a couple more chops and it becomes a bill instead of a check

Paying 10% of gross is better than paying higher day rates in 99% of cases. Pick your poison.

Uh when the purses contractually negotiated by the horseman go up?

[quote=GBBob]I knew there was a reason why Tom wanted to learn to ride and is slimming down...

[quote=Cannon Shell]
LOL , we could make 3 jocks outta him !!!!! Ill hustle their books.

well no **** trainers get some salary built in... I mean who takes care of the horse, boards it, feeds it and trains it every day?

Who shows up once a month to ride it and maybe work it once and awhile?

You were reaching there buddy!

[quote=freddymo]
Groom gets 1% too from the book keeper? Wow , nice place to be a back stretch worker. Really most bigger time trainers charge 12 or 13 % anyway to cover the 1% they say they give the groom the rider and the asst.

Honestly I think 1% of all purses should be taken out and used to fund insurance for the jockeys.

Actually , at small time race tracks most jockeys work pretty hard in the mornings and they dont get paid for it . When I was doing my best the least amount of horses that I got on in the mornings was maybe 8 but my usual morning was galloping or working 10 or more horses everyday but Monday. I tried to give myself at least one day off a week.
Now at big time tracks like Santa Anita , Churchhill and Belmont the jocks dont work that hard some dont come out hardly at all in the mornings but I guess in a sense they have earned it because they are aat the big tracks.

Spending other peoples money on a welfare program, naively sticking up for Obama based on what he "says"...are you becoming a liberal or has Riot rubbed off on you?

If a jock works a horse they should get paid just as a rider would in the AM.. isnt there a fee per horse thing?

In a sense at least here in California the trainers figure their Workmans Comp into their day rate , it used to be really really high out here but thru the years the horseman have taken steps to get it lowered and has come down alot.

Yes , freelance gallop people here in Cali get 15 dollars a horse , Im salary so I ride no more than about 7 a day but I also help around the barn. My wage is broken down into a hourly rate and the reason for this is its the law.

These guys put their life on the line every time the get on the back of a tbred. AND the track / owners / trainers are basically the "employer" of the jockey.. (I know, I know, they are self employed). I find that to be a different situation than not working and asking for free insurance.

And I gotta give credit when credit is due, cause we all know we are quick to criticize when he does something we dont like.

are the jockeys who are riding in the afternoon part of the respective trainers workmans comp?

They dont benefit from learning about the horse they ride?
They dont create some goodwill that hopefully leads to mounts?
Isnt it expensive enough to own horses without being hit up for another expense?

You do understand that we have a shortage of owners but an overabundance of jockeys?

But the 10% stays the same , and when the purses go down the 10% stays the same. Its all relative ....I really dont think many horseman (and you may be an exception )give any thought at all to the jockey's portion when they are trying to get the purses raised.

Yes the workmans comp covers all stable employees and jockeys.

So what? Being in a dangerous job doesnt entitle you to welfare on the backs of others. Are they your employee when they beat you on another guys horse? The Jockeys guild screwed up their insurance, it is their problem. Let them fix it. As for the mount fees, which is what this thread was about i have already said that i support higher fees though this "model rule" seems ridiclously out of touch. The insurance issue has been properly dealt with in many jurisdictions already.

Next time hold off on praising someone till you read the actual "plan" and not the speech (I'm referring to the sm business 'help'). More on that in politics...

Wouldnt you have to pay for the horse to be worked anyway if it was an exercise rider who did it?

Sure at NYRA or some of the big tracks where the jockeys make more money than all of us combined, that jock should wave the fee.

But if a guy/gal is struggling to get by.. why should they not get paid for the work they do?

Its a good thing if it is being properly dealt with.

And I read the cliff notes of the small bus plan and it seemed good to me, tax cuts, etc.

What difference does it make who was thought of? The fact is that when the purses go up the jocks get more money in the same proportion to everyone else. Why should they get more? If the purses go down they have the option to leave for greener pastures. And honestly the last 20 years in he vast majority of circuits have seen an increase in purses.

It is mostly an attempt at pandering that will not really do much of anything. The same program was tried years ago (Dell's man Carter) and failed miserably. The only thing of value is the zero% capital gains for sm bus for a year. Remember we are about to get hit with huge tax increases when the Bush tax cuts expire, but no one in the White house dares mention that. Everything else is propaganda for spending more money in an attempt to see temporary economic gains in an election year.

How much did you pay your gallop rider per head in say 1998? How much do you pay them now? Im sure if you were paying 10$ in 1998 and were still trying to pay that now you would be having to gallop your horses yourself.
I think the fee per mount should go up just like anything else , you dont pay a groom or hot walker what you paid them 10 years ago , not if you are being lawfull anyway. Do you still charge the same day rate as you did in 1998?

They have no one to blame except for themselves for having the same pay scale. No one said the mount fee shouldnt go up but tying it to Cost of living adjustments is seriously flawed.

lol, day rate barely covers expenses. Jocks also gets breeze rates, if they get up and hussle. Some jocks ride for big outfits in the morning on stakes horses bono, but they are looking for the big payday. Trainers don't run in every race, but some jocks do. ;)

What the heck is a breeze rate ?????Are you from Europe because I rode races for 13 years and never heard of a breeze rate. If you are saying that some jockeys gallop horses and get paid for it to suppliment their income then I get ya. Believe me the big boys dont gallop horses , and if a jock is riding the card anywhere they arent galloping horses on the side for money.
Im sure expenses and cost of living has went up for jocks just as it has for everybody else. Goggles have gone up to 7 bucks a pair and that isnt even for the name brand. Pants used to be about 35 bucks a pair but are now closer to 70. A set of girths is around 180$ . So maybe they shouldnt say the increase is for cost of living but for the cost of making a living.

Yeah OK Mr B its 20 bucks to turn a horse out and feed it and 100 a day to have it in training. I don't think 100 is crazy but save the "I am bearly breakin even" for someone who can't do the math. If you aren't paying extra for Gastrogaurd, shoeing, vitamins and tonics(always a fav), and etc 100 a day is ok in NY and Ca. 50 a day is the standard at Penn Nat and that is for 20%plus trainers.. No clue how much Marty Wolfson's shoes cost but if I had a horse with him I think I would be thrilled to pay the premium

Always considered owning a horse a luxury not a utility so I never grind the figs. BUT the disparity is alarming and the cost is NOT a reflection of care. Half the cost is sometimes twice the care.

How would you know?