Jockeys to be paid in drug DQs?

[majxmom]

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=37394


Well, this ought to start something! I confess that I have never one time thought about a jockey's account being deducted after a positive test, but it certainly doesn't seem like that would be fair to them. After all, they performed.

But since the purse account is in the owner's name, it will be the owners who will have to pay even when they earned no purse, right? Yikes! I wouldn't want to be one of Jess Jackson's trainers when he has to deposit money into his account to make up. I'm thinking that this ruling might do more to control doping that any other thing I can think of recently. Tee hee hee! You go, Gonzo!

[mlwinter]

I think the trainer should be responsible for paying the jockey what he/she earned as well. That would put a damper on the funds a little wouldn't it.

[majxmom]

Well, the trainer would, of course, be the person who was responsible. But if the trainers pay, it will wind up being a cost of business. If the owners pay (and I say this as an owner), there will be a lot more pressure on these guys to avoid a positive test.

[mlwinter]

Either way it would work I think. I know as an owner, if I didn't have the trainer I do, I doubt I would be in the business. Too much going on all the time that you can't control with other trainers and their staff.

[angelsprite]

As a former rider and an advocate of clean racing, I think it's imperative that DQs affect everyone connected to the horse. Jockeys know who does and who doesn't. Jockeys often make suggestions to the trainer on what combination of meds to give a horse before a race. When jockeys do that, I nod agreeably, wink knowingly, then send them out in a race pretending the jockey got what he asked for. Invariably, the rider thinks that medications made the horse run better or worse, and talks more about what else we could try, or says, "Don't change a thing." And the horse has nothing in it.
Jockeys don't make enough as it is. They are getting the shaft in this industry. But let's reward the ones who keep their horse in the race and the animal doesn't get a bad test. This is the whole reason the money isn't released immediately from the bookkeeper. I don't see any need to change a rule that says the winning rider gets the winning rider's share of the purse. A DQ is a DQ. The DQed horse is not the winner.

[mlwinter]

Well while we are talking about purse money, lets talk about jock mounts. If a rider is going to get paid for winning a race on a horse that gets DQ, why should a owner have to pay jock mount for a rider that pulls/falls off your horse before it leaves the gates?

I have paided double jock mounts for stupidity out of more than one rider. And I suggest if a jockey wants to make more riding horses, then they need to get their butts out there in the mornings and work those horses themselves. Then more of them would know which horse was good, bad or indifferent. I have can't believe the problem at the tracks with no exercise/jockeys riding in the mornings.

[MidwestTrainer]

Well, as a rider I never suggested any medication to a trainer and as a trainer have never had a medication suggested to me. I do not think the jock should have to give back the money. They did their job and risked their limb in that race. I think the trainer should be responsible for giving all the money back. It was THEIR mistake afterall.

[geowarrior]

Well I agree with mlwinter that jockeys might obtain higher percentages by getting to know the horses through riding them at exercise. My partnership horses are all at Fair Grounds, and it seemed for a while that one would think a rider was engaged and then a whole game of musical jockeys would happen as the agent picked favorites for the jockeys to ride in the races. The result was that more than once a jock was meeting the horse for the first time in the paddock before the race. I've been recently more encouraged as one of our regular jockeys from our home base has moved to Fair Grounds and is now riding the horses at exercise.

I've also had a horse injured by a bad ride last September, and the horse still isn't back racing yet (although he is back at the track).

Given all that, it is still the jockey that risks life and limb more than any other. I do not believe that all jockeys suggest medications, and I believe that the jockey has the most to lose if a horse races on medication and then breaks down. Penalizing the jockey is not the way to go. I'm more keen on penalizing owners, as an indirect way of getting at the trainers who are ultimately responsible.