Problems are brewing...

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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.

Well, if you've been at this a while, the rides should even out.

Though their representation is awful, jockeys are at risk and it's not unreasonable to expect them to at least try to get tracks or other industry interests to contribute. Why would you expect them not to try to get a bigger piece of the pie if they can?

If you own a home and have someone over to fix your roof you either: a, require them to have their own insurance coverage; or, b, cover their risk yourself. How is a racetrack any different? If they wanted, they could deny jockeys from riding unless they showed evidence of insurance. Edgar Prado could probably furnish it. I'm not so sure Reymundo Fuentes could.

Saw some of your show. Nicely done...

[blackthroatedwind]

I agree about the rides basically evening out over time, though to be honest, the better your opinion the more subject to the vagaries of the game you are, as the better your opinion the more frequently your horses will be at least contenders.

I do agree about there right to coverage, and certainly about their right to get whatever they can, but it does anger me when it carries over to ANY increase in takeout to cover them. I feel in the right that we, as bettors, contribute AT LEAST enough, and it hurts me and angers me when anyone is trying to get more from us. It seems like the easiest route groups attempt to take as we have little to no representation.

Thanks about the show.

[Cannon Shell]

I think the thing that I am most worried about is them using a headline seeking politician (Ed Whitfield) to open up a can of worms through legislation that may lead to the interuption of simulcasting or worse. That will affect everyone in a really negative fashion. Using politicians to fight your battles is a very dangerous thing.
Plus someone please inform Mr. Manley that the jockeys in some jurisdictions have gotten a huge pay raise in the form of higher purses, just like the rest of us.
Dont forget that the tracks covered the Jockeys for years until the Guild screwed it up. They let the coverage lapse because they were going to blackmail the industry according to Dr. G.
Manley is playing a similar tune just with a less dramatics.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think the thing that I am most worried about is them using a headline seeking politician (Ed Whitfield) to open up a can of worms through legislation that may lead to the interuption of simulcasting or worse. That will affect everyone in a really negative fashion. Using politicians to fight your battles is a very dangerous thing.
Plus someone please inform Mr. Manley that the jockeys in some jurisdictions have gotten a huge pay raise in the form of higher purses, just like the rest of us.
Dont forget that the tracks covered the Jockeys for years until the Guild screwed it up. They let the coverage lapse because they were going to blackmail the industry according to Dr. G.
Manley is playing a similar tune just with a less dramatics.

Excellent points.

[deltagulf]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think the thing that I am most worried about is them using a headline seeking politician (Ed Whitfield) to open up a can of worms through legislation that may lead to the interuption of simulcasting or worse. That will affect everyone in a really negative fashion. Using politicians to fight your battles is a very dangerous thing.
Plus someone please inform Mr. Manley that the jockeys in some jurisdictions have gotten a huge pay raise in the form of higher purses, just like the rest of us.
Dont forget that the tracks covered the Jockeys for years until the Guild screwed it up. They let the coverage lapse because they were going to blackmail the industry according to Dr. G.
Manley is playing a similar tune just with a less dramatics.

agree 100% the guild is what went wrong.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by deltagulf

agree 100% the guild is what went wrong.

i do as well. this all seems to have come to a head the last couple of years, with that ass gertmenian running the show-into the ground!

jocks want to be contractors, arranging individual rides--yet want someone else to foot the bill for this independance. you can't have your cake, eat it, and send someone else the bill.
trainers hire staff-they are their employees, working for said trainer day in and day out. the jock shows up long enough to get on the horse, ride the race, take a pic if lucky enough, and go to the next horse, with the next trainer, etc.....
seems the whole point in having the guild would be so that the jocks, collectively, could get the coverages they need, without it costing the lesser-paid a fortune.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I agree about the rides basically evening out over time, though to be honest, the better your opinion the more subject to the vagaries of the game you are, as the better your opinion the more frequently your horses will be at least contenders.

I do agree about there right to coverage, and certainly about their right to get whatever they can, but it does anger me when it carries over to ANY increase in takeout to cover them. I feel in the right that we, as bettors, contribute AT LEAST enough, and it hurts me and angers me when anyone is trying to get more from us. It seems like the easiest route groups attempt to take as we have little to no representation.

Thanks about the show.

Sure do agree about the takeout. I'll sign that petition.

Seems to me the racing revenues have been screwed up since simulcasting took off. All the tracks thought this was 'found' money and wouldn't hurt on-track atttendance and handle. It's pretty ridiculous that the host track running the races and incurring the expenses gets only 20% or so of these dollars.

On most Saturdays, the Dog track in West Palm draws 3,000 people. They're all betting Aqueduct and Gulfstream. They have to be wagering $250k on those two tracks alone just at the Dog track.

[sumitas]

National health care is long overdue in this country.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by sumitas

National health care is long overdue in this country.

Absurd...move to Europe.

[sumitas]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

Absurd...move to Europe.

it's not absurd...you move to, ummmm, geesh i can't think of a country (cept us) without national health care, so go back to your stall.

[ELA]

I think part of the misunderstanding is that there are two perspectives here -- one being that of the fan, and the other being someone who is "in" and involved in the industry and works within it. This is not about national health insurance -- and if you think that is the answer, then you are being very myopic and neglecting the economic, sociological, political and numerous other aspects of the United States. This is also not about being an "independent contractor" or an "employee" -- and if there are any labor lawyers here, I am certain they can add an educated and qualified amount of knowledge to the discussion.

This isn't about "pointing fingers" and "blame". Don't get me wrong, there are people and parties who are at fault. However, "proving" it and everything that goes along with that is part of the problem, not the solution.

What this is about is the entire industry -- and all of the parties -- their inability to collabortively and collectively work together. Each party has to give, take, compromise, pay, subsidize, and so on. Until that happens -- all you will see is finger pointing, blame, granstanding, threats, lawsuits, BS, lies, propaganda, BS, committees, studies, BS, no progress, BS, and, did I say BS.

Eric

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by sumitas

it's not absurd...you move to, ummmm, geesh i can't think of a country (cept us) without national health care, so go back to your stall.

I'm not going to get into a political debate on a horse racing board. Obviously there are some problems with the health care system, but Americans generally shy away from Socialists policies. Free trade tends to correct any inefficiencies. Just because other countries have national health care doesn't make it right. If we followed the rest of the world's lead on the economy, we wouldn't be the world leader.