Would you support Go Fund Me Campaign with your $$$ to fight the Keeneland Take Hike?

[Andy Asaro]

I definitely would. $200


And I'm talking about local ads around Keeneland.

Price Gouging the public

Corporate greed

Keeneland going to pay you less when you win. Tell Keeneland you don't like being ripped off.

This would have to be HANA run. I think we could get at least 25K, probably 50K to pay for the ads.

We need ideas for ads.

[Andy Asaro]

I'm looking for 25% or more to support it for it to work. Sure Keeneland will have it's minions driving down the poll.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

We need ideas for ads.

**** Keeneland Too

[JustRalph]

Andy, I'm with you most of the time. But this is ridiculous.

It won't accomplish a damn thing.

Next time Best Buy raises prices I'll do a GoFundme for that too.

They made a business decision. Horse players can't seem to walk away no matter how bad they are treated. Until that changes, keep your umbrella handy, they are going to keep pissing on you

[cj]

Andy, I'm with you most of the time. But this is ridiculous.

It won't accomplish a damn thing.

Next time Best Buy raises prices I'll do a GoFundme for that too.

They made a business decision. Horse players can't seem to walk away no matter how bad they are treated. Until that changes, keep your umbrella handy, they are going to keep pissing on you

People say this a lot, but horseplayers are walking away and have been for a while now. You basically have done it yourself I believe. I know I don't bet near what I used to bet. It isn't because I don't want to do so. It is because the pickings are slim when it comes to wagers I think offer value.

I personally don't bet for entertainment. I bet to win money, even if that doesn't always happen. The $2 bettors and the "big day" crowd types can have their days, but that won't carry the sport, not as it is constructed now.

[thaskalos]

People say this a lot, but horseplayers are walking away and have been for a while now. You basically have done it yourself I believe. I know I don't bet near what I used to bet. It isn't because I don't want to do so. It is because the pickings are slim when it comes to wagers I think offer value.

I personally don't bet for entertainment. I bet to win money, even if that doesn't always happen. The $2 bettors and the "big day" crowd types can have their days, but that won't carry the sport, not as it is constructed now.

Horseplayers are walking away, Cj...but not because of the takeouts. Many of those who bet for "entertainment" get to a point where their losses make it impossible for them to be "entertained" any longer...so, they walk away. And, many of those who bet to "win money" eventually find themselves with no betting money left...so the choice is either to walk away, or to financially destroy themselves.

No one walks away because of a takeout increase...and the track knows it. In this regard...the track knows us better than we know ourselves.

[Andy Asaro]

Andy, I'm with you most of the time. But this is ridiculous.

It won't accomplish a damn thing.

Next time Best Buy raises prices I'll do a GoFundme for that too.

They made a business decision. Horse players can't seem to walk away no matter how bad they are treated. Until that changes, keep your umbrella handy, they are going to keep pissing on you

It's a poll to see how much support it would have. The takeout will be going up in Ca on WPS if there is not pushback.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

No one walks away because of a takeout increase...and the track knows it. In this regard...the track knows us better than we know ourselves.

I would agree in general, but there is something to be said for the bleeding (no pun to be intended) of customers due to death by a trillion paper cuts. In that sense, I'm kind of honest with myself. It isn't any one thing that pushes you out, but it's all the little things that gradually land you in a spot where you'd rather watch re-runs of Live PD than watch replays of races and hunt for action. I'm hardly a huge Keeneland customer anyway these days, but something like this certainly makes it a whole lot easier to watch more Live PD in lieu of Keeneland.

[cj]

Horseplayers are walking away, Cj...but not because of the takeouts. Many of those who bet for "entertainment" get to a point where their losses make it impossible for them to be "entertained" any longer...so, they walk away. And, many of those who bet to "win money" eventually find themselves with no betting money left...so the choice is either to walk away, or to financially destroy themselves.

No one walks away because of a takeout increase...and the track knows it. In this regard...the track knows us better than we know ourselves.

Yeah, but the takeout increases have something to do with all the above, along with promoting all these pie in the sky super exotic bets.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Hmmmmm....,

So I should pay money to lose money? :bang:

[thaskalos]

I would agree in general, but there is something to be said for the bleeding (no pun to be intended) of customers due to death by a trillion paper cuts. In that sense, I'm kind of honest with myself. It isn't any one thing that pushes you out, but it's all the little things that gradually land you in a spot where you'd rather watch re-runs of Live PD than watch replays of races and hunt for action. I'm hardly a huge Keeneland customer anyway these days, but something like this certainly makes it a whole lot easier to watch more Live PD in lieu of Keeneland.

Here's what I think, in a nutshell:

The effect of the takeout can only be properly determined when we take the totality of the racing product into consideration. If the fields are full and competitive, then the profit-minded player can still find worthwhile bets...even if the win-takeout is at 17.5%. But if a track offers an overabundance of uncompetitive 6-horse fields...then the lucrative bets dry up, even if the takeout stands at 14%. These takeout rates don't operate in a vacuum...their effect is dependent on other things.

If a bettor likes the races at Keeneland for the size of the fields and the overall "value" that he finds there...but hates the races in NY because of the plethora of short fields that are offered there...then the takeout difference between the two tracks isn't likely to make him change his mind about these two racetracks.

IMO...Keeneland can get away with charging these higher takeouts...because it's an abbreviated, "marquee" meet, with competitive racing. But this will be interpreted as "horseplayer stupidity" by the other tracks...and we'll soon see these increased takeouts even at the places where the 6-horse fields dominate. It's the PRECEDENT that I rail against...not the Keeneland takeout hike in particular. As a serious bettor...I can easily avoid a particular track that I deem "overly-greedy". But I am left with no track to play when that "greed" spreads everywhere else.

[Andy Asaro]

Current Twitter Poll

36% Yes

64% No

64 votes in.

[thaskalos]

Current Twitter Poll

36% Yes

64% No

64 votes in.

Surprised?

[Valuist]

Here's what I think, in a nutshell:

The effect of the takeout can only be properly determined when we take the totality of the racing product into consideration. If the fields are full and competitive, then the profit-minded player can still find worthwhile bets...even if the win-takeout is at 17.5%. But if a track offers an overabundance of uncompetitive 6-horse fields...then the lucrative bets dry up, even if the takeout stands at 14%. These takeout rates don't operate in a vacuum...their effect is dependent on other things.

If a bettor likes the races at Keeneland for the size of the fields and the overall "value" that he finds there...but hates the races in NY because of the plethora of short fields that are offered there...then the takeout difference between the two tracks isn't likely to make him change his mind about these two racetracks.

IMO...Keeneland can get away with charging these higher takeouts...because it's an abbreviated, "marquee" meet, with competitive racing. But this will be interpreted as "horseplayer stupidity" by the other tracks...and we'll soon see these increased takeouts even at the places where the 6-horse fields dominate. It's the PRECEDENT that I rail against...not the Keeneland takeout hike in particular. As a serious bettor...I can easily avoid a particular track that I deem "overly-greedy". But I am left with no track to play when that "greed" spreads everywhere else.

This is part of the problem Canterbury had last year. Lowered takeout but 6 horse fields of bad horses is not enticing.

[Andy Asaro]

Surprised?

No, I figured between 25% and 40% would be good.

[DeanT]

I would agree in general, but there is something to be said for the bleeding (no pun to be intended) of customers due to death by a trillion paper cuts. In that sense, I'm kind of honest with myself. It isn't any one thing that pushes you out, but it's all the little things that gradually land you in a spot where you'd rather watch re-runs of Live PD than watch replays of races and hunt for action. I'm hardly a huge Keeneland customer anyway these days, but something like this certainly makes it a whole lot easier to watch more Live PD in lieu of Keeneland.

I'm hooked on Live PD.

The odd thing is, I'd never be hooked on Live PD a few years ago because I'd be playing Hollywood Park. Or when they're not racing, studying for the Saturday cards.

How quickly things change.

[Track Phantom]

Money might be better spent to market "goodness" of tracks that do produce a viable product for the players. Don't recall what Oaklawn Park takeout is but I think it's within bounds. They offer a great product, full fields, don't drag their post times, etc. I think overstating this in a variety of ways to the betting community might be a better direction.

I actually don't know what can be done in a meaningful way to curb this issue of higher takeout. My instinct says the price of anything is up to each individual. They can choose to "buy" it or pass because the price is too steep. Hard to coalesce a big group of anonymous players.

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/896135915168346113

[Tom]

Is anyone seriously addicted enough to have to bet that pay toilet pf a track? It's a couple of lousy weeks twice year. Gut it out - bet $0 there and send them to bankruptcy. No one needs Keeneland to survive.

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter Poll with 89 votes in

Yes = 33%

No = 67%

We need to get Keeneland down 25% or more. Contributing money is a really good indicator of how successful it would be.

[JustRalph]

People say this a lot, but horseplayers are walking away and have been for a while now. You basically have done it yourself I believe. I know I don't bet near what I used to bet. It isn't because I don't want to do so. It is because the pickings are slim when it comes to wagers I think offer value.

I personally don't bet for entertainment. I bet to win money, even if that doesn't always happen. The $2 bettors and the "big day" crowd types can have their days, but that won't carry the sport, not as it is constructed now.

Agreed. I'll amend my comments. Not enough horse players are walking away

[GMB@BP]

I bet and follow the racing for entertainment pretty much. I know you really cant win with the takeouts and racings structures the way they are. I have also learned they wont change, they will just bleed out over time.

15 years ago I bet over a couple hundred grand a year, I dont pretend thats a lot but thats what 30k in takout or so? I bet maybe 15k a year now.

If racing loses a person like me (connections and worked in the industry) how can they hope of keeping the more traditional betting masses?

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/896423055039225857

Twitter poll now has 128 votes

Yes = 34%

No = 66%

Seems like there are a number of experienced players on this board who don't want to donate but will boycott on their own in their own way and that's cool too.

[Jeff P]

Raising money privately for a good cause isn't terribly difficult.

The key is getting some real bang for your buck out of the money you've raised.


-jp

.

[highnote]

Here's what I think, in a nutshell:

The effect of the takeout can only be properly determined when we take the totality of the racing product into consideration. If the fields are full and competitive, then the profit-minded player can still find worthwhile bets...even if the win-takeout is at 17.5%. But if a track offers an overabundance of uncompetitive 6-horse fields...then the lucrative bets dry up, even if the takeout stands at 14%. These takeout rates don't operate in a vacuum...their effect is dependent on other things.

If a bettor likes the races at Keeneland for the size of the fields and the overall "value" that he finds there...but hates the races in NY because of the plethora of short fields that are offered there...then the takeout difference between the two tracks isn't likely to make him change his mind about these two racetracks.

IMO...Keeneland can get away with charging these higher takeouts...because it's an abbreviated, "marquee" meet, with competitive racing. But this will be interpreted as "horseplayer stupidity" by the other tracks...and we'll soon see these increased takeouts even at the places where the 6-horse fields dominate. It's the PRECEDENT that I rail against...not the Keeneland takeout hike in particular. As a serious bettor...I can easily avoid a particular track that I deem "overly-greedy". But I am left with no track to play when that "greed" spreads everywhere else.

Good points.

When I was with HANA I tossed out the suggestion that HANA should organize enough horseplayers to raise money to buy a racetrack. I think Thistledown was on the market at the time.

If horseplayers would buy the track this would give them a chance to put their ideas in action.

My idea was shot down as being unrealistic. Not everyone is an entrepreneur.

My belief is that nothing is unrealistic. If you put your mind to it, make it a priority, and are determined that failure is not an option, then you will succeed.

Anyone know of any distressed racetracks?

What would it cost to buy land, build a track, and offer a simulcasting-only product? You don't need a big grandstand nowadays. You put together a field of 12 cheap claimers 9 times a night with low takeout and you'll have a shot at having a nice little business.

[GMB@BP]

Good points.

When I was with HANA I tossed out the suggestion that HANA should organize enough horseplayers to raise money to buy a racetrack. I think Thistledown was on the market at the time.

If horseplayers would buy the track this would give them a chance to put their ideas in action.

My idea was shot down as being unrealistic. Not everyone is an entrepreneur.

My belief is that nothing is unrealistic. If you put your mind to it, make it a priority, and are determined that failure is not an option, then you will succeed.

Anyone know of any distressed racetracks?

What would it cost to buy land, build a track, and offer a simulcasting-only product? You don't need a big grandstand nowadays. You put together a field of 12 cheap claimers 9 times a night with low takeout and you'll have a shot at having a nice little business.

could you even distribute a signal if you lower take?

From what I understand that has been an issue, seems like Ellis Park had some signal issues when they lowered track takeout a few years ago.

[Andy Asaro]

We need practical solutions specifically to counter the Keeneland takeout hike.

[highnote]

could you even distribute a signal if you lower take?

From what I understand that has been an issue, seems like Ellis Park had some signal issues when they lowered track takeout a few years ago.

I don't know all the economics of today's racetrack business.

Why would low takeout make it hard to distribute a signal? Because of the horsemen?

[highnote]

We need practical solutions specifically to counter the Keeneland takeout hike.

Sorry. Wrong thread for talking about buying racetracks. I'll start it somewhere else.

GMB -- check out off topic. how to start a racetrack business.

[lamboguy]

i have given to people in the racing business that have had some hard luck and injuries.

donating to boycott against a race track doesn't do anything for me

[highnote]

We need practical solutions specifically to counter the Keeneland takeout hike.

Like I said... call PETA. That won't cost you anything but a little time.

[MONEY]

What would it cost to buy land, build a track, and offer a simulcasting-only product? Remove the "buy land, build a track" and you have an ADW.
That costs millions.
Leave in the "buy land, build a track" and it would cost many more millions.

[highnote]

Remove the "buy land, build a track" and you have an ADW.
That costs millions.
Leave in the "buy land, build a track" and it would cost many more millions.

How much land is needed to build a track -- 40 acres?

If I'm not mistaken, in England some of the one and two day meetings are held on private land.

How much does it cost to build a grass course? You mow the grass and put up some barriers to mark the outline of the course.

Maybe you lease it for a few months?

[Andy Asaro]

Like I said... call PETA. That won't cost you anything but a little time.

I have no interest in Peta. Wouldn't call them under any circumstances. Need practical solutions.

[highnote]

I have no interest in Peta. Wouldn't call them under any circumstances. Need practical solutions.

Why not? You want to disrupt handle or not?

[Andy Asaro]

Why not? You want to disrupt handle or not?

Show us the way and take it upon yourself to do whatever you'd like. You're a free agent.

[highnote]

Show us the way and take it upon yourself to do whatever you'd like. You're a free agent.

I've already said I have no dog in this fight.

You asked for suggestions. I gave you one.

I can't imagine anything easier than making a phone call.

I might be willing to wager that your boycott will never go anywhere and you will never do anything that will actually set it in motion.

[highnote]

Here's the problem. In the scheme of things Keeneland raising rates is not a big deal.

Charlottesville, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Flint, New Orleans flooding, those are big deals.

Keeneland's raise in rates is next to nothing in level of importance.

[cj]

Here's the problem. In the scheme of things Keeneland raising rates is not a big deal.

Charlottesville, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Flint, New Orleans flooding, those are big deals.

Keeneland's raise in rates is next to nothing in level of importance.'

You could say the same thing about any business if you want to compare it to world events. In the horse racing world, it is a very big deal.

[highnote]

'

You could say the same thing about any business if you want to compare it to world events. In the horse racing world, it is a very big deal.

Companies raise their prices all the time. Consumers have a choice of where to spend their money.

Raising prices is only a big deal if horseplayers walk away and this causes financial harm to people who depend on racing at Keeneland for a living. If that happens then management is to blame.

If horseplayers don't stay away and keeneland stays in the black then no real harm done.

[cj]

Companies raise their prices all the time. Consumers have a choice of where to spend their money.

Raising prices is only a big deal if horseplayers walk away and this causes financial harm to people who depend on racing at Keeneland for a living. If that happens then management is to blame.

If horseplayers don't stay away and keeneland stays in the black then no real harm done.

No doubt. But I'll stick by what I've been saying. Horseplayers are walking away, and moves like this will only increase the number. The game is close to entering death march stage without some serious changes. Fields are getting worse, the cost to bet them getting higher. Increasing the cost to bet doesn't help fields and it never has.

[GMB@BP]

No doubt. But I'll stick by what I've been saying. Horseplayers are walking away, and moves like this will only increase the number. The game is close to entering death march stage without some serious changes. Fields are getting worse, the cost to bet them getting higher. Increasing the cost to bet doesn't help fields and it never has.

preach on brother!

as I have stated, this whole handle has increased is fools gold...were coming of one of the great recessions of all time, comparing anything from the past 4-5 years ago is statistical games.

Give me the numbers from 2006 to today, adjusted for inflation.

[cj]

preach on brother!

as I have stated, this whole handle has increased is fools gold...were coming of one of the great recessions of all time, comparing anything from the past 4-5 years ago is statistical games.

Give me the numbers from 2006 to today, adjusted for inflation.

I've posted them before. That is reality. There is too much sugar coating and wearing rose colored glasses in this sport. Any negative is "explained" away and any positive is screamed from the rooftops as if all is back to the 1950s of horse racing.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=8

The max is 2003 converts to about 20,194,850,000 in today's dollars. Last year, 2016, handle was 10,744,000,000. So handle is about 53% of what it was just 14 years ago.

[Lono]

AMEN Amen I say.

[highnote]

No doubt. But I'll stick by what I've been saying. Horseplayers are walking away, and moves like this will only increase the number. The game is close to entering death march stage without some serious changes. Fields are getting worse, the cost to bet them getting higher. Increasing the cost to bet doesn't help fields and it never has.

This is why I started a thread about how to start a racetrack.

I think you have to approach it like Apple computers. You give horseplayers something they don't yet know they need.

[Afleet]

I've posted them before. That is reality. There is too much sugar coating and wearing rose colored glasses in this sport. Any negative is "explained" away and any positive is screamed from the rooftops as if all is back to the 1950s of horse racing.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=8

The max is 2003 converts to about 20,194,850,000 in today's dollars. Last year, 2016, handle was 10,744,000,000. So handle is about 53% of what it was just 14 years ago.

So couldn't a racing executive say handle is up 10% (failing to mention/not adjusted for inflation) since 1990?

[GMB@BP]

So couldn't a racing executive say handle is up 10% (failing to mention/not adjusted for inflation) since 1990?

thats what they are doing to justify their raising track takeout has no affect on handle. its a lie. over the long term you lose customers, run the math and you can see why it takes longer than 6 months to lose all your money with a takeout increase.

[highnote]

I started new thread in General racing about building a new track. Keeneland will not change. Why waste time and effort discussing it.

Join the conversation on starting a horseplayer owned track. Do something that can really make a difference for horseplayers and horsemen.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Andy, I'm with you most of the time. But this is ridiculous.

It won't accomplish a damn thing.

Next time Best Buy raises prices I'll do a GoFundme for that too.

They made a business decision. Horse players can't seem to walk away no matter how bad they are treated. Until that changes, keep your umbrella handy, they are going to keep pissing on you

Exactly right. And how is it "corporate greed? (his term)" They're making a price decision. It may be wrong, but it isn't "corporate greed." Ridiculous.

[Andy Asaro]

Exactly right. And how is it "corporate greed? (his term)" They're making a price decision. It may be wrong, but it isn't "corporate greed." Ridiculous.

They are profitable right now and a lot of that is because of the promotion by HANA since they were rated #1 years ago. What is the proper term for the extreme price increase?

[Andy Asaro]

Laws like this one aren't meant to protect consumers who know better. I have to assume someone or some group felt like anything over the maximums they set would be price gouging. Keeneland setting them to the max is Customer Subsidized Purse Welfare at the expense of those who don't know better IMO



Keeneland Increases Takeout To State Maximums For 2017 Fall Meeting

https://www.paulickreport.com/horseplayers-category/keeneland-increases-takeout-state-maximums-2017-fall-meeting/

[Andy Asaro]

Ken Ramsey just made this thread.

35:45 into the segment. Amazed that Mr. Ramsey knows what to do but HANA doesn't

http://latalkradio.com/content/horse-081517%20#audio_play

[Fager Fan]

They are profitable right now and a lot of that is because of the promotion by HANA since they were rated #1 years ago. What is the proper term for the extreme price increase?

You're kidding yourself.

Keeneland is profitable because they have two very short meets of top class horses, and make millions off their horse sales. Period. HANA sure had nothing to do with it, much less a lot to do with it.

[Andy Asaro]

You're kidding yourself.

Keeneland is profitable because they have two very short meets of top class horses, and make millions off their horse sales. Period. HANA sure had nothing to do with it, much less a lot to do with it.

Ok, we can rewrite history and say HANA didn't promote them or Kentucky Downs.

[Fager Fan]

Ok, we can rewrite history and say HANA didn't promote them or Kentucky Downs.

No rewriting necessary. You're in La La Land if you think HANA ranking them their #1 track is why they're profitable.

[Andy Asaro]

No rewriting necessary. You're in La La Land if you think HANA ranking them their #1 track is why they're profitable.

Never said that. Said HANA promoting them in addition to making them #1 helped them become more profitable.

[Fager Fan]

Never said that. Said HANA promoting them in addition to making them #1 helped them become more profitable.

Equally absurd.

[cj]

Equally absurd.

Keeneland themselves flaunted the rating so they saw some value in it.

[highnote]

No doubt. But I'll stick by what I've been saying. Horseplayers are walking away, and moves like this will only increase the number. The game is close to entering death march stage without some serious changes. Fields are getting worse, the cost to bet them getting higher. Increasing the cost to bet doesn't help fields and it never has.

There will be consolidation and closures. Perhaps the betting product will get better if there are fewer tracks?

The biggest losers (and I don't mean loser in an insulting way) will be the people who handle the horses, those who keep the track running, and those who provide a service -- grooms, trainers, jockeys, stablehands, outriders, cashiers, food vendors, custodians, groundskeepers, track maintenance people, executives, middle managers, taxpayers, tack suppliers, veterinarians, blacksmiths, stationery suppliers, banks, car and truck dealers, farm suppliers, and hundreds of others who have direct or indirect contact with racetracks, etc., etc., etc.

[jimmyb]

Donating on the HANA site would be easier. Since they are a voice for horseplayers, why not? Just did.

[Andy Asaro]

Donating on the HANA site would be easier. Since they are a voice for horseplayers, why not? Just did.

I think Ken Ramsey is all we need.

[jimmyb]

I think Ken Ramsey is all we need.

So much for the little guy. I happily accept refunds

[Andy Asaro]

:ThmbUp:So much for the little guy. I happily accept refunds

[Andy Asaro]

Keeneland can send as many groupies to vote as they want. The twitter Poll has been final for a while.

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/896011084355616768

[CincyHorseplayer]

It makes me sick to my stomach because after Labor Day I'm only thinking Keeneland and Breeder's Cup. They treat us like little insignificant pieces of shit though. An annoyance not a voice. I can hold my dimes.

[exactatom]

Why target Keeneland?

I know they have raised the takeout, but

1. This is a small 3 week meet held twice a year. When you look at your annual wagering budget, how much does a takeout increase really effect you in comparison to long meets like Santa Anita, etc.
2. Keeneland racing is actually a by product of the auction activities. The purses have been supplemented for years by the auction activity. For an interesting couple of days attend the yearling auction and see the big names of the industry all in the same room filling their stables for future years. I had the good fortune of living in Lexington from 201 to 2013 and went to the sale each year. Hearing how the highest level trainers look at a horse helped me as a visual handicapper.
3. Keeneland attracts high quality fields for its races. This does afford the handicapper a better opportunity to find an overlooked, yet talented horse. I am willing to pay higher takeout and wager in fields of 11 or more horses, almost all of which have a chance of winning than I am to ager in the 5 to 7 horse fields you find occurring more frequently.
4. Face facts, tracks in states without alternative gaming have to do something to continue to attract talented horses. I would rather see a racetrack try something instead of nothing like the Illinois tracks.
5. Keeneland does so much more for the sport than other tracks. The library, live video feeds, etc.

Is the track perfect? No. I find way too many people go there to "be seen" or "dress up" for my tastes and it tends to crowd serious handicappers from getting access to the paddock. However, they try to combat this by encouraging tailgating, having people walk through the crowd and take bets from you, etc.

[Andy Asaro]

Why not target Keeneland?

Stand up or standdown.

Keeneland deserves all the misery coming there way.

[fmazur]

I do not blame the Jockey as good & bad trips even out. In 50 plus years of racing, I only remember two times the Jockey was at fault. Both times the Jockey jumped off the horse he was riding, but since I did not bet on them, I was not effected. Although in one case, my buddy had $20 on the horse who was in front (at 8/1) and the Jockey jumped off the horse 10 yards from the wire. The horse was DQ'd for not carrying assigned weight for the full race.