MOST PROFITABLE betting angle

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Jfeld

I don't like whining, spoiled, primadonnas who expect others to pay for their own insurance. I suggest you look up the definition of INDEPENDANT CONTRACTOR and then compare that to what the jockey's guild is trying to extort from the industry. Perhaps then you will understand my ire.

I don't respect anyone who empowers totally unqualified clowns to represent them, then choose to blame everyone else except themselves when their leadership they so passionately endorsed is exposed as totally fraudulent.

Your post and a bunch of others on this thread must be the result of a poor ride or a better ride that beat you.

Recent rider recipients of your ire and others include Smith, Sutherland, Garcia, Bridgmohan, Dominguez, Lopez, etc, etc....

Fact is take any of these riders and put them on a lesser circuit and they are top 5 jocks or better. Conversely, take Emigh out of Chicago or Cruz out of So Florida and put them at Aqueduct and see if they can even make the top 15. They won't.

More to the point, see how they LOOK riding a bunch of second and third tier horses. They'll look awful. Good horses make riders look good.

I remember being six years old at the racetrack and hearing people blame losses on jockeys. I didn't understand it then, I still don't.

[GinaIsWild]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

My advice...



Stop blaming your losses on the jockey insurance issue.

My commentary on the riders you have so eloquently spoken about has absolutely nothing do do with gambling on them. It is solely regarding their riding ability, and their attitudes.

If you choose to endorse the cause of the little gnomes then that is your perrogative, however it is quite ignorant of you to assume that my statement that the named riders are incapable of performing their jobs and my assertion that as independant contractors they have no business extorting anything from the industry from which they as a group are already grossly overpaid is in any way related to gambling on them.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Jfeld

My commentary on the riders you have so eloquently spoken about has absolutely nothing do do with gambling on them. It is solely regarding their riding ability, and their attitudes.

If you choose to endorse the cause of the little gnomes then that is your perrogative, however it is quite ignorant of you to assume that my statement that the named riders are incapable of performing their jobs and my assertion that as independant contractors they have no business extorting anything from the industry from which they as a group are already grossly overpaid is in any way related to gambling on them then you are as foolish as your avatar suggests you are.

ok, i'll nibble on the bait.

1. You're wrong about their abilities. Their abilities are relative to the competition. Take any of those riders and put them on a lesser circuit, they rise to the top. Fact. Smith, Martin, Lopez, etc... You tell me different.


4. You say jockeys as a group are overpaid. Really? The median earnings for a jockey in 2004 were:
a. $500,000
b. $150,000
c. $15,000
hint, it's not a or b.

5. You refer to jockeys as gnomes. I assume you know what a gnome is. It's distasteful.

6. You refer to the jockeys' efforts at bargaining for coverage as extortion. Whether I support increased coverage for jockeys is less relevant than you referring to those efforts as extortion. How is it extortion?

7. Stop blaming jockeys, ok, stop blaming Mike Smith for losses. If you know anything you certainly know that you've won as many races as result of a bad ride as you've lost. It evens out.

Good luck.

[GinaIsWild]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

ok, i'll nibble on the bait.

1. You're wrong about their abilities. Their abilities are relative to the competition. Take any of those riders and put them on a lesser circuit, they rise to the top. Fact. Smith, Martin, Lopez, etc... You tell me different.

4. You say jockeys as a group are overpaid. Really? The median earnings for a jockey in 2004 were:
a. $500,000
b. $150,000
c. $15,000
hint, it's not a or b.

5. You refer to jockeys as gnomes. I assume you know what a gnome is. It's distasteful.

6. You refer to the jockeys' efforts at bargaining for coverage as extortion. Whether I support increased coverage for jockeys is less relevant than you referring to those efforts as extortion. How is it extortion?

7. Stop blaming jockeys, ok, stop blaming Mike Smith for losses. If you know anything you certainly know that you've won as many races as result of a bad ride as you've lost. It evens out.

Good luck.

. Your points 1-7 above are completely offbase and without merit of any kind. The Fact is, they ARE responsible for their own insurance, and 99% of them, if they were 2 inches taller would be selling french fries for a living. And by the way, GNOME is right on point.

[paisjpq]

gentlemen...if you cannot refrain from throwing insults at one another then don't respond ...debate the issue not the qualifications of the poster...it's an opinion...there isn't a right or wrong answer for an opinion.

[GinaIsWild]

Originally Posted by Jfeld

Your points 1-7 above are completely offbase and without merit of any kind. The Fact is, they ARE responsible for their own insurance, and 99% of them, if they were 2 inches taller would be selling french fries for a living. And by the way, GNOME is right on point.

paisjpg has chosen to interefere with the spirit of a healthy rainy Monday afternoon debate by needlessly censoring commentary. Now that is sad. Why don't you participate in the discussion instead of censoring others?

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Jfeld

paisjpg has chosen to interefere with the spirit of a healthy rainy Monday afternoon debate by needlessly censoring commentary. Now that is sad. Why don't you participate in the discussion instead of censoring others?

you are more than free to debate an issue...you are not free to insult.

[GinaIsWild]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

you are more than free to debate an issue...you are not free to insult.

So, any difference of opinion in your world is an insult? This is a perfectly legitimate debate.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Jfeld

Your points 1-7 above are completely offbase and without merit of any kind.

Point #4 is actually very valid and very important. The average "salary" for jockeys is usually quoted as somewhere around $26,000. That even includes the top jockeys and their inflated earnings. Median income is a better look at it, at which point I am sure the original point #4 is closer to the truth, but I thought I'd try to throw you a bone.

Could you utilize one of your plethora of degrees and inform us (ballpark figure is fine) how much you think it would cost a jockey to insure his or herself out of pocket? Of course I only wonder this because I know how much MY insurance is monthly and the huge number it translates to yearly -- and I sit at a desk for work which means (think i might have to spell things out here it seems.....) that I am unlikely to get trampled by a horse, tossed from my chair when it breaks down, or suffer any of the broken bones or punctured lungs or various other bodily injuries that insurance companies would see could happen to jockeys.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Jfeld

So, any difference of opinion in your world is an insult? This is a perfectly legitimate debate.

which is why I merely edited the posts rather than deleting them...

[GinaIsWild]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Point #4 is actually very valid and very important. The average "salary" for jockeys is usually quoted as somewhere around $26,000. That even includes the top jockeys and their inflated earnings. Median income is a better look at it, at which point I am sure the original point #4 is closer to the truth, but I thought I'd try to throw you a bone.

Could you utilize one of your plethora of degrees and inform us (ballpark figure is fine) how much you think it would cost a jockey to insure his or herself out of pocket? Of course I only wonder this because I know how much MY insurance is monthly and the huge number it translates to yearly -- and I sit at a desk for work which means (think i might have to spell things out here it seems.....) that I am unlikely to get trampled by a horse, tossed from my chair when it breaks down, or suffer any of the broken bones or punctured lungs or various other bodily injuries that insurance companies would see could happen to jockeys.

There is a perfectly logical and simple way for the jockey's insurance needs to be covered. You have to first accept the premise that the founding tenet of the jockey's guild is JOCKEYS HELPING JOCKEYS meaning the more successful riders helping their less fortunate bretheren. That being said the logical way to fund their insurance needs is as follows. Instead of them being paid TEN percent of the winner's share of the purse, give them NINE percent. Allow the horseman's bookeeper of each track to automatically withold one percent to be paid into an independent(seperate from the guild) administered fund to pay for their insurance policies. ONE percent of the purse money across the United States is enough to fund every jockey's insurance needs a thousand times over.

You know why they won't agree to it? Because they would rather extort the rest of the industry than be responsible for themselves. The primadonna riders at the top don't really give a damm about any other riders, they would just rather mouth off, and let the industry support them.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Your post and a bunch of others on this thread must be the result of a poor ride or a better ride that beat you.

Recent rider recipients of your ire and others include Smith, Sutherland, Garcia, Bridgmohan, Dominguez, Lopez, etc, etc....

Fact is take any of these riders and put them on a lesser circuit and they are top 5 jocks or better. Conversely, take Emigh out of Chicago or Cruz out of So Florida and put them at Aqueduct and see if they can even make the top 15. They won't.

More to the point, see how they LOOK riding a bunch of second and third tier horses. They'll look awful. Good horses make riders look good.

I remember being six years old at the racetrack and hearing people blame losses on jockeys. I didn't understand it then, I still don't.

I guarantee you Emigh or Cruz would have no problem making Aqu's top 10, let alone top 15. In the winter, they'd probably be in the top 5.

[Sightseek]

Are there programs for the other employees, like grooms, hotwalkers and exercise workers to be insured or would they fall under their trainer's employers policy (if they have them?) in case of injury by a kick or something like that?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Jfeld

There is a perfectly logical and simple way for the jockey's insurance needs to be covered. You have to first accept the premise that the founding tenet of the jockey's guild is JOCKEYS HELPING JOCKEYS meaning the more successful riders helping their less fortunate bretheren. That being said the logical way to fund their insurance needs is as follows. Instead of them being paid TEN percent of the winner's share of the purse, give them NINE percent. Allow the horseman's bookeeper of each track to automatically withold one percent to be paid into an independent(seperate from the guild) administered fund to pay for their insurance policies. ONE percent of the purse money across the United States is enough to fund every jockey's insurance needs a thousand times over.

You know why they won't agree to it? Because they would rather extort the rest of the industry than be responsible for themselves. The primadonna riders at the top don't really give a damm about any other riders, they would just rather mouth off, and let the industry support them.

Let's see about that. Rider at a track making $15,000 a year. Basically what he's doing is risking his life several times a day so that YOU can get your rocks off gambling for the equivalent of $7/hr all year long.

With that established, you also want to now go ask him to take a 10% pay cut?

Awesome. Basically what I'm saying is that idea still sucks big time.

[blackthroatedwind]

The " jockeys risk their lives " argument holds ZERO water ( it is as foolish as people who resort to " you are only complaining becasue you lost your money ) as it avoids the real issue and is an irrelevent last resort. Nobody forces the riders to ride.....NOBODY. They chose this profession.

[GinaIsWild]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Let's see about that. Rider at a track making $15,000 a year. Basically what he's doing is risking his life several times a day so that YOU can get your rocks off gambling for the equivalent of $7/hr all year long.

With that established, you also want to now go ask him to take a 10% pay cut?

Awesome. Basically what I'm saying is that idea still sucks big time.

What I'm saying is that it is the riders responsibility to pay for his/her own insurance. No one has a gun to their heads to be a jockey, and if they are only making $15,000 a year doing it, I suggest they look for another job because they obviously aren't successful doing this one.

Where is it written that everyone choosing to do something is guaranteed to make a living at it? Those that are good and lucky become successful while others not so fortunate must accept reality and find some other way to make a living.

You make the argument that just because someone chooses to ride races they should be guaranteed to make a living doing that. That is an absurd argument.

There are plenty of "risky" professions out there. No one is forced to work in any of them. If the risk outweighs the reward to you, get another job.

The inescapable fact is that is that jockey's are self-employed and as such are responsible for funding their own insurance.

Here are a few examples:

I have a friend who is a very good actor. He has been in a couple of series in minor roles. Is it up to everyone who watches television to guarantee he drives a porsche? Of course not, it's not everyone who watches TV's responsibility, nor is it the production company that developed and put out the series he is in to guarantee him anything. If he wants more than he is being paid doing that job, he gets another. When he isn't acting he works as an accountant.


A horse I own part of was given a poor ride the other day and finished fifth when with a clean trip would've been first or second. Subsequently he didn't earn enough to pay for his feed and training for December. Shouln't I be entitled to bill the jockey for my expenses relating to the ownership of this horse when he is at least complicit and at most the proximate cause as to why my expenses weren't covered last month?


The bottom line is this. No one is forcing these people to do what they do for a living. If they can't make it, they have to get another job. This includes your $ 15,000/year jockey.

[post2post]

smith has been off his top form for a while ....... but is he riding horses with legit chances to finish itm....thats another topic..

jockeys have a difficult lifestyle making weight and staying healthy...it is their choice...but never the less, more could be done to help them with insurance.

[GinaIsWild]

Originally Posted by post2post

jockeys have a difficult lifestyle making weight and staying healthy...it is their choice...but never the less, more could be done to help them with insurance.

Why should anything be done FOR them, when they are totally unwilling to help themselves?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Jfeld

...just because someone chooses to ride races they should be guaranteed to make a living doing that. That is an absurd argument.

Obviously, everyone understands exactly what you're saying in the rest of your post....they just don't agree with that.

And as for the quoted portion above -- that certainly is an insane argument, good thing nobody here has said anything like that. Thanks for fabricating it as an example though.

[GinaIsWild]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Obviously, everyone understands exactly what you're saying in the rest of your post....they just don't agree with that.

And as for the quoted portion above -- that certainly is an insane argument, good thing nobody here has said anything like that. Thanks for fabricating it as an example though. You're a piece of work, that's for sure.

Obviously not everyone. That is precisely the argument you have made. I'm not telling anyone to take a 10% pay cut. I'm suggesting that they pay their own insurance which you say is unattainable for such a "risky" profession. I say here is a logical, simple way for that to be accomplished.