Lukas And Sellers Sound Off Over Jockey Weights

[PaceAdvantage]

Bloodhorse Article:

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=22156

Despite all the rhetoric involved, I think Lukas raises a very valid point. If we raise the minimum weight to ride, how will this solve the problem of riders abusing their bodies? A raise in the minimum will only allow more people to try and become jockeys. Those near the upper weight limit of this "new group" of potential jockeys will then become the new "flippers", abusing their bodies to make weight by whatever means possible.

Any thoughts?

[GameTheory]

Pretty much all of the jockeys now are "artifically" thin. There is no doubt that if the weight was raised somewhat, this would cut down on the extreme measures taken. Don't think of solving the problem, but rather of alleviating it to some degree. I think it is pretty tough to argue that it doesn't matter at all what the requirements are...

[Dancer's Image]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Bloodhorse Article:

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=22156

Despite all the rhetoric involved, I think Lukas raises a very valid point. If we raise the minimum weight to ride, how will this solve the problem of riders abusing their bodies? A raise in the minimum will only allow more people to try and become jockeys. Those near the upper weight limit of this "new group" of potential jockeys will then become the new "flippers", abusing their bodies to make weight by whatever means possible.

Any thoughts?

PA,
Believe it or not, I just made the exact same point to Ralph Siraco of the Raceday Las Vegas radio show, who yesterday on his radio show was advocating raising the minimal weight.

[Valuist]

Not surprising that Pat Day doesn't want the weights raised. I think he normally weighs around 105 or so; a big edge that he doesn't have to purge or go on a Pincay-like diet to maintain his weight. I think Cordero was the same way.

[schweitz]

Can somebody give me a legitimate reason why weights should not be raised?

[PaceAdvantage]

Because in the long run, it won't solve the problem of jockeys abusing their bodies to make weight. And isn't this why this issue is being raised? To provide the jockeys with a better way of life?

However, when you raise weights, you give new folks who couldn't make weight before, a fighting chance to become a jockey. Then, THESE NEW folks are going to flip, take lasix, starve themselves, etc., so they can make this new higher minimum. The cycle will never end.

What needs to be done is probably more psychological than physical. Some of these jockeys probably need counseling. Why should they be treated any differently than the bulimic or the anorexic woman or man?

[cj]

The problem is there are only so many people small enough to be jockeys that have the desire to be one as well. Most jockeys are raised around the racetrack. You don't get many guys growing up in Detroit or DC aspiring to be a jockey. The pool is small. People are getting bigger, so the pool is only going to get smaller.

By the way, couldn't they find a trainer who wasn't 9-151 to comment on this stuff? The way his horses snap legs, its no wonder he wants light riders! :D:D:D(LOL, that was for you, PA!)

[schweitz]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Because in the long run, it won't solve the problem of jockeys abusing their bodies to make weight. And isn't this why this issue is being raised? To provide the jockeys with a better way of life?

However, when you raise weights, you give new folks who couldn't make weight before, a fighting chance to become a jockey. Then, THESE NEW folks are going to flip, take lasix, starve themselves, etc., so they can make this new higher minimum. The cycle will never end.

What needs to be done is probably more psychological than physical. Some of these jockeys probably need counseling. Why should they be treated any differently than the bulimic or the anorexic woman or man?

PA,
That's speculation on your part. What I want to know is---does any body believe that there is a legitimate reason that 3, 4 , 5lbs. more is detrimental to the sport?

[Figman]

See Indian Charlie article "Is Shane Sellers Right?" in the 4-28 edition.
http://www.indiancharlie.com/newsletter.html

[Dancer's Image]

From the Bloodhorse article linked in the first post of this thread...

``If you're a jockey, you should be small,'' said Lukas."

And therein lies the answer to your question, Schweitz, for every extra pound that a thoroughbred horse carries, it both slows the horse (however slightly) and increases the chance of injury (however slight).

And then Shane Sellers says, (I'm not able to cut and paste twice from the linked article), but words to the effect that if Lukas had his way with only jockeys small enough to meet today's weight limitations being able to ride, they wouldn't be able to fill up one racetrack.

Ok, here's a way to test your hypothesis, Shane....let's get rid of all weight requirements. If trainers want to put up 200# sulky drivers, fine! If they want to put up 80# bug boys, fine also. I guarantee you the same jockeys bitchin now about having to endure cruel and unusual punishment to make weight, will be the same ones crying that it's unfair that the bug boy only has to carry 80# when I weigh 115#. Let this system equilibrate for 5 years or so and I would bet you that the average weight of the riding jockeys would be less than the minimal weight now, not more!

[tanda]

Pace:

If raising weights has no effect on the issue, then lowering weights would not either. Hopefully, you understand why lowering weights would have the negative effect of making the problem worse.

Your misunderstanding is due to the fact that there will remain people on the margin who must "flip" to make weight. Although this is true, it ignores the fact that the increased weight will increase the number who are not on the margin and can maintain weight without extreme measures. Many of those who now "flip" will be comfortably within the range with increased weights.

For example, assume the industry needs 1,000 jockeys, but only 500 people are able to make weight comfortably while 500 are on the margin and must struggle.

Assume weight is increased to the point that 1,000 people now can make weight comfortably. There would be a new 500 people outside of that 1,000 who would now be on the margin. But, at least the industry then conceivably could meet its labor needs without the need for any "flipping".

A requirement that makes it impossible to meet the labor needs of an industry without these types of extreme measures is flawed. I am assuming that to be the case, to wit, that without "flipping" there would not be enough jockeys to meet the demand for jockeys.

[Speed Figure]

Why is it ok for european horses to carry very high weight, but not ok for U.S horses?

[kitts]

I was at a seminar once where the guest was Laffit Pincay. Somebody asked the jockey what he had for lunch. The reply:
"A peanut, sliced in half"

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image


And therein lies the answer to your question, Schweitz, for every extra pound that a thoroughbred horse carries, it both slows the horse (however slightly) and increases the chance of injury (however slight).


And we know this how?

[chickenhead]

"And therein lies the answer to your question, Schweitz, for every extra pound that a thoroughbred horse carries, it both slows the horse (however slightly) and increases the chance of injury (however slight)."

How much does it slow a horse to have a moron who's only skill is being able to throw up ride the horse?

How much does it slow a horse to have a jockey on the verge of unconsciousness from dehydration ride the horse?

Harder to quantify, but I'm guessing no less valid. It's called a trade-off.

[so.cal.fan]

Speed Figure brings up an interesting point.
In Europe they carry much higher weights with seemingly no ill effects.
I remember years ago at Santa Anita, a famous French jockey, I can't remember his name, now.......was there visiting and rode a race going 6/1/2 furlongs down the hillside turf course.
The horse he rode was listed at 122 lbs........and won the race very easily, when this jockey had weighed in at 129 lbs, they didn't report it, let it go.......and at that time they were not allowed to go 5lbs overweight......the winning horse went on the record of winning that race with 122 lbs,when in fact he carried 129 lbs.
There was a jockey, a great jockey, Howard Grant, who could NEVER tack under 122 lbs.......they used to "cheat" on his weight often, especially at Del Mar, where he was one of the leading riders and used by top stables.....Ron Mc Anally used to enter horses at the high weight of 122 even if they were eligible to run with 116! They would win with Grant.......I'll bet McAnally wouldn't care if they raised the scale.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Europe coincidently uses grass and not as hard surfaces as far as I know. / None of these industry experts have studied weights and results as far as I know, but some handicapping experts have said weight is not that big a factor. I say a certain amout of weight will sometimes slow a horse on an individual basis, but most trainers probably do not put horses in races where they have to use more weight than they can effectively handle. I think all the weight off by racing secretaries to get unqualified horses in a race are doing a dis-service. / I guess they will just have to outlaw Male jockeys and use all female!!LOL!!

[andicap]

PA,
If lifting the weight limit would just keep creating more "flippers" at higher weights, how come it is not a major problem in Europe??

It's a disgrace -- pure and simple.

People will rationalize anything to keep a rule that is convenient for them. How do we KNOW three extra pounds will hurt a horse.

And that's pretty funny coming from an industry whose outrageous breeding style emphasizing speed over stamina and then racing unready 2 yr olds in order to get their money back does much much more to injure (and kill) horses than adding three pounds would do in 10 years.

And I love this argument: People don't HAVE to be jockeys. Let them find another job if its too dangerous.
By that logic we shouldn't regulate ANY professions. Sorry Mr. Factory Worker, we have to keep the machines running 8 hours straight, no breaks for you. Hey, don't like it, get another job!

Hey, mr. police officer bullet proof vests cost money. Don't like it, get a nice cushy office job.

If we want the BEST people in the job we must make the jobs safe for them.

The conditions for jockeys are medieval and bad for the sport.

[PaceAdvantage]

How do you know its not a major problem in Europe? Have you read an article where all the jockeys sit around talking to the reporter while eating a hearty steak dinner?

And besides, many tracks around the country have already risen their bottom weight, including NYRA, which did it several years ago. What's the abuse rate at these tracks since the rise in bottom weights? How come nobody has the evidence to support the claim that a rise in weights will cure the problem?

Nobody should have to go through what some of these jocks go through to make a buck. I'm not arguing that. But throw emotion out the window for a minute and lets look at some evidence, if there is any to be found.

And I love this argument: People don't HAVE to be jockeys. Let them find another job if its too dangerous.
By that logic we shouldn't regulate ANY professions. Sorry Mr. Factory Worker, we have to keep the machines running 8 hours straight, no breaks for you. Hey, don't like it, get another job!

Not everyone can be an opera singer, a baseball player, or even a police officer. If you can't pass the physical to become a police officer, you can't become one, period. I have a friend with a bum knee, and when he was in the police academy, it became apparent that he couldn't run very far for very long. He was booted out.

Many jobs have physical requirements which if not met, means you can't have that particular job. Why should meeting the physical requirements of being a jockey be any different?

[cj]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
...Many jobs have physical requirements which if not met, means you can't have that particular job. Why should meeting the physical requirements of being a jockey be any different?

The difference is, there is a reason a cop has to be able to run, or why a military refrigeration mechanic has to be able to lift 100 pounds. No one has shown the scale of weights to be anything but arbitrary. Maybe there is a reason to keep the weights low, but where is the evidence that it makes a difference?

[Dancer's Image]

Originally posted by schweitz
And we know this how?

We know this through "Physics". Not the ones that make you crap, but the course you probably failed to take in high school of college. A horse carrying 200# does twice as much work as it does when it carries 100#. And if you still don't believe me, look at the Handicap races....they assign more weight to the best horses. I can't even believe we're discussing this point; it reminds me of Clinton wanting to argue over the meaning of the word "is"!

And Ken posted this....

" I guess they will just have to outlaw Male jockeys and use all female!!LOL!!"

...I can't believe I (male chauvinist pig that I am) missed this point! This is exactly what is behind this movement to increase the weight limitations! Does anyone doubt that if they removed all weight restrictions, that the average weight of jockeys would decrease rather than increase, and the number of female jockeys would increase?

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
We know this through "Physics". Not the ones that make you crap, but the course you probably failed to take in high school of college. A horse carrying 200# does twice as much work as it does when it carries 100#.




No need to be insulting---What I asked was---is there a legitimate reason to not raise the weights a few lbs.---you posted the extra weight would slow the the horse and cause more physical problems and I assume you are saying that this is the reason owners and trainers are against raising weights. My opinion is that there is no proof that a few lbs. is going to produce more injuries and that any slowing of race times would be minimal and meaningless and therefor in my opinion these are not legitimate reasons.

[Dancer's Image]

Originally posted by schweitz
No need to be insulting---What I asked was---is there a legitimate reason to not raise the weights a few lbs.---you posted the extra weight would slow the the horse and cause more physical problems and I assume you are saying that this is the reason owners and trainers are against raising weights. My opinion is that there is no proof that a few lbs. is going to produce more injuries and that any slowing of race times would be minimal and meaningless and therefor in my opinion these are not legitimate reasons.

No need for you to feel insulted either...are you Tom's brother? On the other hand, you have accused me of being insulting, and that accusation is highly insulting to me. And this is what you asked...

Originally posted by schweitz
And we know this how?

...and that question referred to this...

Originally posted by Dancer's Image


And therein lies the answer to your question, Schweitz, for every extra pound that a thoroughbred horse carries, it both slows the horse (however slightly) and increases the chance of injury (however slight).

...So my last post was responding to your ?..."And we know this how?" (Which you have to admit is pretty stupid) If instead of asking that stupid question, you had said what you said in your last post, "My opinion is that there is no proof that a few lbs. is going to produce more injuries and that any slowing of race times would be minimal and meaningless and therefor in my opinion these are not legitimate reasons.", I would have agreed with you on that point, (remember, I conceded in my earlier answer that the effects would be slight). And I can counter your argument that these are not legitimate reasons to keep the low weight minimal by saying that their are no legitimate reasons to raise the minimal weight either.

[schweitz]

Dancer's Image,

Again with the insults! And yet you say you agree with me that what you posted about a few lbs not being a detriment or a legitimate reason for not raising the weights.
I can only wonder why you posted it in the first place when I asked for legitimate reasons.
I think you have offered all you can on this subject.

[cj]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
A horse carrying 200# does twice as much work as it does when it carries 100#.

No, a horse doesn't do twice as much work running a race with twice the weight. No more than if I run a mile carrying a twenty pound weight instead of a ten pound weight. Where did you come up with this?

[chickenhead]

there are plenty of legitimate reasons to raise the weight.

You open up your pool of talent to more individuals, hence you get more talented jockeys. Will this increase in talent likely offset whatever minimal slowing of the horse that might occur? Depends on how much you raise the weight.

According to your theory, a bug boy on a horse at 111 is a better bet than J. Bailey on the same horse at 121.

I'll take your money all day long.

[azibuck]

Dancer's Image--Your 100# vs. 200# example means the horse carries twice the weight, there is no relation to energy expended (in the statement).

I'd post a formula, but I don't want to insult you. That was a joke. Here's a link. I don't know if it has anything to do with anything, but it's called the Energy-Momentum Formula (http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html).

Furthermore, the risk to injury with increased weight (I'm speaking of 5#) is probably unprovable, and the horse, under certain conditions, could go faster (see link, above). Off the top of my head, I'm thinking any downhill course.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I just saw a scale of weights on Cindy Pearson's about.com site that said 4 yr olds weight limit is More in mar-may than in jun-dec!! / I assume a higher % of females can make any weights with less problems than males because of less muscle mass. / Why do people insist on wanting to be jockeys at over 5'4'? I am close to 5'6" and see jockeys at GGF about as tall as I am trying to make weight to ride 2yr olds at 110! / How many lbs off is allowed for 10lb bugs on a horse who has not won at over 1 mile in 2 months at $2,000 less claiming price in the dirt, or some other conditions to let pigs run vs. real racing stock?

[Skanoochies]

Why would well known, successful, hall of fame trainers like Frankel, Lucas, you name them, enter a horse for $60,000 in a claimer written for $62,500 to get 2 lbs. less weight if it didn`t make a difference. I can`t see any other reason than weight break. These guys didn`t get in the hall by being stupid.

Just another opinion.:)

[cj]

Maybe they want to get the horse claimed? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Even so, the a higher weight scale wouldn't change anything, because every horse would carry the same extra weight. There would still be allowances for lower claiming prices, i.e "If entered for 60,000, 2 pounds."

[Dancer's Image]

CJ and Azibuck,
Well of course the horse does some work when it carries 0#, call that amount of work (x); so then when the same horse carries 100# the amount of work is (x+y); and then when the horse carries 200# the amount of work is (x+2y).

And Azibuck said...
"Dancer's Image--Your 100# vs. 200# example means the horse carries twice the weight, there is no relation to energy expended (in the statement)."
...obviously, all other things have to be equal, ie. the amount of energy expended by the horse, the course the horse is running on, etc. but if all other variables are equal (and of course, they never are in the real world) , a horse carrying more weight, according to physics, must travel slower.(however slightly)

[cj]

Here was your post:

We know this through "Physics". Not the ones that make you crap, but the course you probably failed to take in high school of college. A horse carrying 200# does twice as much work as it does when it carries 100#

You insulted someone and offered up a false statement yourself, that is why I brought this up.

Of course it will slow them down somewhat, but it should slow them all equally, so what's the difference? As for the injury thing, no way to prove it. I know steeplechasers don't seem to have much problem jumping with a lot more weight on board.

[Tom]

Reply to Andy.....

To get the best riders we can means we have to increase the weight limits. Right now, we are limiting the pool of people from which jockeys are selected to be the tail end of the normal distribution of weights of adult human beings. If we were to rais the weight limits by 5 pounds, we woul dincread that population size by "x" and probably have X more top nothc jockies available. How many 125 pound Laffit Picays and Angel Cordero's are out their watchin races at OTBs instead of riding in them? And if the current base of jockeys could suddenly stop killing themselves for those extra 3 pounds, how many would find the increased health would lead to increased riding ability? How many average jockeys would suddenly have more potential and become better riders?
I think there is no reason mot to raise the scale of weight. In fact, I do not see any reason whatsoever the even have an assinged weight anymore. Let the ability of the individual rider dictate the mounts he gets.

[brdman12]

Take the weights out of the saddle bags. Be careful of the 2-3 year olds. Maybe we can add some weight. BUT this business is about the horses and owners and the trainers. Jockey concerns, however unfortunate, come up short on the priority list. I, for onr, am very concerned about weight, especially in long races. Especially in this day and age where drugs cover pain and injury, and are the cause of many breakdowns.

[Valuist]

I liked Indian Charlie's comment to Sellers:

"If weight weren't an issue, Sellers wouldn't be riding for Steve Asmussen. Cash Asmussen would."