I never made the statement originallly, someone else did. I just find the logic here very hard to understand. You mentioned something about the owner's horse dying. You did or the other guy did, I guess the other guy did. What's the pt? Dead or alive someone has to pay expenses.

I understand your position and I realize you have an emotional stake involved here. Which is fine, I would just like to keep the thread on a more logical basis.

For example the pt. about paying for your tack, this actually works against the argument that jocks are employees. If they are paying for their own equipment this suggests they are indep. contractors.

There are several factors the IRS looks at in cases such as these, including do they get paid hourly and do they report to a certain location like an office? In the case of jocks, it seems to me that much of the time they maybe doing things that count as work for several employers at once...

For example, a jock diets to make weight, who is he workign for? Well everybody who he is riding for on that day.

Or he studies the condition of the track (something that applies for all his mounts), or goes to get equipment, or he drives to the track, all in the normal day. How do you divide that up among several employers? Seems to me he is basically at the track and working for a number of employers at the same time.

SOunds like an independent contractor.

Now there was another pt. about benefits and the guild and all that. I think it would be in their best interest if they were to be a certified bargaining unit like the NFL players association and then a lot of these issues could be negotiated out and they wouldnt have this ongoing argument about who should pay for what. They wouldnt have to argue about indep. contractor status if the bargaining unit and owners had agreed to it.

OF course owners being rich folks arent likely to bargain as a unit either. So there is a problem there.

You made a pt. about there is no doubt that the owners should pay for medical. Why are you so stuck on this position? It is really an emotional stand you are taking here, logically economically it could be paid for either way. It probably wouldnt change things no matter which way it is done, the jock income probably wouldnt change either way. So why the emotional attahcment to this issue?