Problems are brewing...

[Honu]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Or, those jockeys that are lucky enough to ride the kind of horses that appear in breeder's ads could simply refuse to ride these horses.

The jockeys have a preposterous sense of entitlement in a game where they are close to the only involved parties making any money.

You call 35 % off the top of someones paycheck and another 2o% to the government "only ones making money". How about when a persons horse flips over backwards and busts the tree in your 400.00 saddle and you foot the bill for a new one. We can hash this out all day , I will never change my mind that racetracks and horseman have an obligation to provide riders with unlimited accident insurance while on the job.

[blackthroatedwind]

What " jockeys " are giving 35% of their paychecks to whom ( and you can't mean their agents because that is part of the cost of doing business....and they get 25-30% anyway ). As for the taxes they pay to the government....we all pay those so spare me that cost.

[citycat]

You are worried about a $400 saddle....................That horse that flipped and had to be put down just cost me 50K !!!

[Honu]

Originally Posted by citycat

You are worried about a $400 saddle....................That horse that flipped and had to be put down just cost me 50K !!!

How many has that happened to that u own ? I have had horse flip in the gate and bust my tree on the tail gate and the horse didnt die. Had horses make the gap and go over the rail and bust my tree and they didnt die.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Honu

How many has that happened to that u own ? I have had horse flip in the gate and bust my tree on the tail gate and the horse didnt die. Had horses make the gap and go over the rail and bust my tree and they didnt die.

All risks of your chosen profession. As far as I know no horses asked to be racing.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

All risks of your chosen profession. As far as I know no horses asked to be racing.

Nope and nobody asked you to be an owner either .

[randallscott35]

Honu, have you seen Mike Smith ride? He should pay us to watch him.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Honu

Nope and nobody asked you to be an owner either .

I am not an owner. I am a bettor and thus am subject to the rampant incompetency of the riding community. Perhaps the riders would like to contribute to my insurance policy against hopelessly inept rides that cost me tens of thousands of dollars annually. I will be more than happy to contribute MORE to them ( as I already pay them by funding the purses from which they derive their living ) if they would help insure me against ghastly inept rides.

Originally Posted by Honu

How many has that happened to that u own ? I have had horse flip in the gate and bust my tree on the tail gate and the horse didnt die. Had horses make the gap and go over the rail and bust my tree and they didnt die.

Would you feel any better about the matter had the horse DID die?

[Honu]

Originally Posted by easy goer

Would you feel any better about the matter had the horse DID die?

No but that was your foundation for your statement .

Originally Posted by Honu

No but that was your foundation for your statement .

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?

[packerbacker7964]

To me if jockeys are employees then you put 15 names in a hat and draw names for who rides what. Just like at the Mountain the jockey silks are the same each and every race.

[NoCarolinaTony]

Originally Posted by citycat

You are worried about a $400 saddle....................That horse that flipped and had to be put down just cost me 50K !!!

Do you run them "uninsured"?

NC Tony

[Honu]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

What " jockeys " are given 35% of their paychecks to whom ( and you can't mean their agents because that is part of the cost of doing business....and they get 25-30% anyway ). As for the taxes they pay to the government....we all pay those so spare me that cost.

25 % to the agent is the common fee and 10 percent to the valet , and if you ride for 35 $ jock mount like at most cheap tracks that is alot of money. Point is moot, jockeys should have unlimited accident insurance no matter what , Im done with this subject , the view will always be jockeys are greedy little bastards and that they dont deserve anything . Well Ill tell you something my life was worth way more than the 22 dollar jock mount that I rode for sometimes and if people cant see that then there is something is something wrong with them.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Honu

25 % to the agent is the common fee and 10 percent to the valet , and if you ride for 35 $ jock mount like at most cheap tracks that is alot of money. Point is moot, jockeys should have unlimited accident insurance no matter what , Im done with this subject , the view will always be jockeys are greedy little bastards and that they dont deserve anything . Well Ill tell you something my life was worth way more than the 22 dollar jock mount that I rode for sometimes and if people cant see that then there is something is something wrong with them.

A jockey needs an agent to get him or her mounts and needs a valet to handle his or her tack. These are costs of doing business. As is insurance. They want the good part of being a private contractor and not the bad. Perhaps if they had some unity within their ranks, and didn't continually hire the wrong people to represent them, they would be in a better position. As it is, they just want, and seem unwilling to give anything in return. The fact is there was a simple, and fair, plan last year in Kentucky which they rejected because they had to contribute one third, and that third would have been weighted more heavily to the riders winning more races, and thus would have been exceedingly fair to the lesser riders. But, they were unwilling to contribute at all. Why should others help those who refuse to help themselves?