Jockeys may get weight relief in California

[cj]

The BloodHorse (http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=22821)

[IRISHLADSTABLE]

Its about time .

Jimmy

[andicap]

Interesting comment from Chris McCarron, who you would think would be four-score behind it. Nope.



McCarron, the retired Hall of Fame jockey who is the general manager of Santa Anita Park, said he hoped a relaxed scale would be in effect by Dec. 26, Santa Anita's opening day. McCarron, who spoke passionately in favor of the jockeys at the CHRB meeting in April at Golden Gate Fields, reiterated his backing for them. He said executives of Magna Entertainment, which owns Santa Anita and Gulfstream parks as well as several other racetracks, were also supportive.

But McCarron stopped short of endorsing the CHRB plan.

"As a general manager, I'm concerned with field size," he said, noting that handicap trainers could look for other places to run if assigned weights of 132 pounds or more.

When pressed by commissioner Roger Licht on his postion, McCarron said, "We at Santa Anita want to help the jockeys," McCarron said. "I'm in favor of raising the scale. I'm not sure if I'm in favor of a CHRB rule change to do it."

Several years ago, he said owners convinced racing secretaries to add two or three pounds to their conditions "and that worked fine. This is a much bigger step."

He said he would prefer to see tracks do their own scale, what he called "house rules."

"That way you go down a couple of pounds, if need be," he said.

[cj]

Its a start, but if it isn't done nationally, some trainers (Frankel comes to mind) will simply run elsewhere. He's afraid taking the first step may damage SoCal, and he may be right. But, if you really believe in something, you have to try!

[andicap]

I see McCarron's stance as a bit of a betrayal of his fellow jockeys.

Health over business I always say, and as we saw with Randy Romero, it really is a matter of life and death.

I wonder how jockeys like Shane Sellers feel about McCarron's waffle.

Of course McCarron is just a mouthpiece for the Magna boys here since they sign his paycheck. He's trying to have it both ways, being loyal to his bosses, but supporting the jockeys. I guess he is on a tough position and he's trying to be a politician about it.
Think about that next time you criticize a real politician for waffling on an issue. Taking a strong stance is not always as easy as it sounds. Issues are never black and white. That's why it sometimes seems politicians are on both sides at times.

Still, McCarron is not taking the courageous stance here but the politic one.

[brdman12]

Perhaps Mcarron knows the importance of the jockeys staying light as possible. Health first is right. Health of the horses.

[Buddha]

if you can't make the weight that you are to be jockey, should they change the rules just to accomodate you? i think the biggest thing that it will do is allow bigger people to be jockeys.

[sq764]

damn fatass jockeys..

[andicap]

I guess none of you saw the HBO special.

[sq764]

I see both sides of the coin here.. Starving yourself is not a good practice, as it has longterm negative affects on your body.

However, it is their choice to be jockies and if the job requires them to maintane a certain weight, they must do it or find another profession.

[kenwoodallpromos]

132?LOL! I doubt 125 lb jockeys are the worry; the worry is 2 yr olds with a 7 or 10 lb bug and lbs off for every made up condition in the world.
They need to make minimum weight \for 4 + ups and other than MD and claimers, so apprentices and too light jocks are shut out. That will let the others gain a few.

[NoDayJob]

Heck why not make the minimum jockey's weight 150 pounds? Then the tracks could all have Big Mac Shacks on site. The horses wouldn't have to run as fast either.

NDJ

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by andicap
I guess none of you saw the HBO special.

Rough room huh Andi? You guys are too much...... after watching what some of these guys do to make weight...... You can't honestly believe that a stinkin 4 lbs is going to make that much difference to the horses right? Come on........ it is much less than one percent of their entire body weight.

[highnote]

Here are some general thoughts and questions I had on the issue:

If the weights are raised, then will jockeys who are a few pounds over the new weights complain that the weights still aren't high enough?

I'd like to be a jockey, too. Do you think they should raise the scale of weights to accomodate me -- I weigh about 170 pounds. If they raise the weights to 150 I could probably make it. But what if I couldn't? Should I request that they raise the weights to 155 so it's a little easier for me?

No one makes a jockey flip or sit in a sweatbox to make weight. It's their choice.

I don't blame jocks for trying. In fact, maybe if the weights were higher there would be more jocks. That means more competition. That should mean a better jockey colony.

Here's a thought -- Maybe short people should try to get basketball hoops lowered so they can dunk the ball. Or lobby for tall basketball players to wear 50 pound weights on their ankles so they can't jump as high.

Maybe Jim Brown should have been forced to wear extra weight on his back so he couldn't run as fast on the football field -- just to give the other team a chance.

Maybe world class distance runners should be forced to wear weights so that runners runners like me have a chance against them? I mean, it's not fair that they can run so fast. It's not my fault I wasn't born with a large heart and lungs and the willingness to train for marathons.

[NoDayJob]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by swetyejohn
[B]Here are some general thoughts and questions I had on the issue:

If the weights are raised, then will jockeys who are a few pounds over the new weights complain that the weights still aren't high enough?

I'd like to be a jockey, too. Do you think they should raise the scale of weights to accomodate me -- I weigh about 170 pounds. If they raise the weights to 150 I could probably make it. But what if I couldn't? Should I request that they raise the weights to 155 so it's a little easier for me?


Why not handicap everyone so that we all finish in a dead heat and no one is a winner or a loser. They're doing that in schools with the kiddies so why not in real life? Yeah, let's penalize those that can do what we can't, so we can compete. Let's see I'd like to be the world's heavyweight champion but I'm too old so make allowances. Handcuff all my opponents and put them in leg-irons. That would be fair now, wouldn't it? Yes, I like that!

NDJ

[JustRalph]

Hey........ good idea NODayjob.........

I am 230lbs........and will be riding in the draft horse races at Budweiser park...............just imagine what it will do for my self esteem?

[kenwoodallpromos]

You forgot to ask why they do not categorize amatuer wrestlers and all boxers and others in martial arts competition by weight- (oh yeh, they do!).
I am talking about the jockeys currently riding. Low weights on young horses are hard weights to make. IMO it unfairly penalizes the current higher weight jockeys. more rides for them at higher weights seems fair to me but all are entitled to their own opinion.

[sq764]

This is why I love harness racing.. Anyone can give driving a try.. Whether you are 119 lbs or 300 lbs, it doesn't matter..

(Well, to the horse it might, but to actually be able to do it, it doesn't)

[gene]

It seems to me that all that would happen there would be a new bunch of jockeys who would be doing the same things to make the new wieght,

[cj]

You have to read the article. There would be body fat tests done to make sure the jocks weren't going to extreme measures to make weight.


Jockeys would be required to maintain a minimum body fat content of 5% in order to ride, and they would be checked daily. The standard, optional to riders licensed prior to 2004, would safeguard against internal damage caused by starvation, sweatboxes and vomiting, as well as prevent larger exercise riders from attempting to reach 118 pounds, said Darrell Haire, a representative for the Jockeys' Guild.

[Dancer's Image]

cj wrote:
You have to read the article. There would be body fat tests done to make sure the jocks weren't going to extreme measures to make weight.



No, cj, you need to read the article...the body fat tests are optional for all jockeys licensed before 2004, so this regulation will not make sure that the jockeys are not going to extreme measures to make weight!

[cj]

Here is the point...jockeys of today can already make the weight, so they will make the newer weight without, or at least less, self punishment. The proposal would keep out naturally heavier guys who might try to become jocks using the same methods.

I was commenting on Gene saying a bunch of new jocks would come along, the very post before mine. Since it was right next to mine, I didn't feel the need to quote his post...my bad, I'll try to keep it simple in the future.

[brdman12]

At least its a step in the right direction CJ, however, why don't they just take weights out of the saddlebags and allow the jockeys that weight?
The problem is that these horses are run too far and too often carrying injuries and weaknesses covered by the drugs administered. I'm surprised there aren't more injuries to these horses.
I am more of a casual horse racing fan who owns and loves horses. I guess I am more worried about the horses health. They have less options than the jockeys.

[cj]

brd,

I'd be all keeping the current weights if anyone proves, or even tries to prove, that a few extra pounds causes injuries to horses. We know that carrying less weight is damaging to the humans, who, in my opinion at least, are more important.

Most of the weight is not on the horse anyway. It is not dead weight. The effect of adding a few pounds is negligble, why am I wrong? Until someone proves that I am, I'll be on the side of the humans.

[Dancer's Image]

cj wrote...
Here is the point...jockeys of today can already make the weight, so they will make the newer weight without, or at least less, self punishment. The proposal would keep out naturally heavier guys who might try to become jocks using the same methods.

Oh really? I was under the impression that several of today's jockeys do have <5% body fat? So of course they are now willing to sell out the jockeys of the future and impose this <5% body fat regulation on the new jockeys! Why wouldn't they agree to that, to give themselves an unfair advantage over their competitors?
Of course this sets them up to say that this regualtion is unfair to the new jockeys and in 3 or 4 years they can take it to court and have the mandatory body fat tests repealed. I never said the jockeys or their union were stupid.

And cj, I can prove you are wrong in one note...

"The effect of adding a few pounds is negligble, why am I wrong? Until someone proves that I am, I'll be on the side of the humans."...

...the one note is to abolish all weight requirements and let the trainers/owners decide which jockey, at which weight to put up on their horses. If the weight is negligible, as you say, then we should see heavier jockeys, shouldn't we? Hall of Fame trainer, D. Wayne Lukas puts it simply and best when he says, "If you want to be a jockey, you should be small (lightweight)."

[cj]

Again, you didn't read what I wrote, just what you wanted me to write I guess. I said a few pounds wouldn't mean much in respect to injuries, not on the speed of the horse.

Of course a horse can run faster with less weight. The difference is if they all carry more weight, there is no competitive advantage.

As for the jockeys, nearly every new rule/law has a grandfather clause. Further, these guys can already make the lower weights, they won't need to be below 5% body fat to make higher weights. These are the very guys the rule will help.

Of course Lukas using lightweight jocks helped him have so few breakdowns of high priced horses ;), nice guy to quote.

[Dancer's Image]

cj,
Don't accuse me of not being able to read...I read your post and even cut and pasted it. This is what you said...

"The effect of adding a few pounds is negligble, why am I wrong? Until someone proves that I am, I'll be on the side of the humans."...

...and that is what I responded to.

But now you want to change your remarks to this....

"I said a few pounds wouldn't mean much in respect to injuries, not on the speed of the horse."

...so let me respond to that. That is your opinion; I contend that you can not prove that either. The point is that the people who should be determining how much weight their horses should carry, are the owners and trainers of those horses, not the jockeys! The jockeys union is trying to ram this down the trainers/owners' throats; the CHRB is supposed to represent all sides of racing; the minimal jockey weight is a negotiable point between the jockeys and the trainers/owners. Whatever they agree upon is fine with me but I can certainly see the point of Lukas and the other trainers/owners who do not want the minimum weight raised. And by the way, owners and even trainers are humans too, so you could still take their side!

[cj]

Like many politicians do, you quoted a part of what I said and didn't take it in the context of the entire post, but I don't care, I'm not running for office.

Fact: We know people are doing harm to themselves trying to keep their weight at current levels.

Fact: Raising the weight will help.

Guess: Raising the weight a 1000 pound animal must carry a few pounds will cause additional injuries to horses.

I agree what I said was my opinion, and I might be wrong. But unless someone can show a real reason, not a guess, to keep the weights the same, they should be changed. And they will be changed, I'll guarentee that. It has to happen sooner or later.

Oh, and please, pick a better horseman than DWL to promote this so called concern over the well being of the horse. Are you kidding me?

[Dancer's Image]

Like many politicians, when caught in a lie, (your lie was to accuse me of not reading what you wrote)you don't apologize, you just change your accusations. So now that I've proved that I can read and that I am responding directly to your own words, now I'm guilty of responding out of context? But that's ok, I'm not a politician either, (but I caught the derogatory intent of your allusion), so I don't care about the apology that you owe me. You just keep posting stuff, and I'll respond to it. Let's start with your "FACTS"....

"Fact: We know people are doing harm to themselves trying to keep their weight at current levels."

I actually agree with that fact. But this is a corollary fact that you also have to agree with...no one is forcing these jockeys to do these harmful things to themselves. Do you agree? And don't say, well, if they want to be jockeys they have to do these things to make weight. That is precisely the point....some of these jockeys are too big to be jockeys, unless of course they can get their union to force the owners/trainers to raise the minimum weight.

"Fact: Raising the weight will help."

BS...this is not a fact, unless you add the phrase, "the current jockeys who are near the present weight minimum". Wherever you set the weight minimum, there will always be jockeys right above that minimum who will have to do harmful things to make that weight minimum. We've already been through the bit about establishing mandatory body fat %'s, (and I might be more in favor of this regulation if the present jockeys would accept it to apply to all), but since it will only apply to jockeys licensed after 2003, this is just another way for today's jockeys to give themselves an unfair advantage over the younger jockeys for the next 20-30 years! Now let's take another one of your quotes...

" But unless someone can show a real reason, not a guess, to keep the weights the same, they should be changed. And they will be changed, I'll guarentee that. It has to happen sooner or later.

Let me take it even further out of context...."they should be changed"....should implies a moral imperative, what's the moral issue here? Why should the minimum weight be raised? And don't say because the present day jockeys have to do harmful things to maintain the present minimum weight. I've already pointed out how that only helps the present jockeys who are at the weight minimum, and who probably should not be jockeys anyway.

You may be right when you say that the minimum jockey weight will be raised, but I certainly don't agree that it has to happen sooner or later. Why does it have to happen sooner or later? Surely you agree that the sport of horseracing has the right to make regulations for the sport which are in the best interest of the sport? If the sport of horseracing, ie. the owners, trainers, track management, and jockeys all agree to raise the minimum jockey weight, I will not have any problem with it. I have a big problem with the jockey union trying to ram this down the throats of the owners/trainers; I'm not on the inside of the horseracing industry to know what, if any, opposition there is to this regulation, but I suspect there must be some or Chris McCarron would not be skating around the issue like he is.

I just don't understand why the jockey minimum weight has to be raised sooner or later. The only reason to do so is to give an advantage to the present day jockeys who are at, or just above, the present minimum weight. I have said over and over that it would be fairer to just get rid of the minimum weight altogether but none of the great minds here have deigned to address that issue. But think about this, as an owner/trainer, I may have an 80# jockey whom I would like to use, but according to this new regulation, he/she would have to carry 38# of dead weight. Now that only penalizes the small man (or woman). If they abolished the minimum jockey weight, over a very short period of time, the jockey weight would equilibrate by itself so that the best pound for pound jockeys got all the rides. Of course the present day jockey union would never accept this because it would mean >50% of their jockeys would be out of a job and also >50% of the jockeys would be female. There's your moral imperative, why should an 80# female have to carry 38# of dead weight to compete with her already stronger male counterpart?