Churchill jockeys boycotting Wed. card

[cj]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/60643.html

[Tom]

I support them and will not makes bets at any track they are "boycotting." Owners, trainers, track officials...not a single one of them puts their LIVES on the line for the game. And they do it every time they get a leg up on a mount.
The trainers do not think the jocks are going about this the right way. Then waive the scale of weights and let the trainers ride their own horses.

[CryingForTheHorses]

Originally posted by Tom
I support them and will not makes bets at any track they are "boycotting." Owners, trainers, track officials...not a single one of them puts their LIVES on the line for the game. And they do it every time they get a leg up on a mount.
The trainers do not think the jocks are going about this the right way. Then waive the scale of weights and let the trainers ride their own horses.

This is a good thing..Bout time the owners and trainers jumped on the bandwagon to help this cause, The jocks that are going to ride, Thats fine but when you do ride, You never know,They need to rethink their career's. Yes Tom these jocks put their lives on the line,They need something to assure them in case! What about the countless other horse people who also do.Workmans comp is also way out of control. Hell I know a trainer here at Calder who pays 104k a year.Dale is wrong, I think its the only way to do this...FINALLY someone will listen..My wife used to ride and I worried for her all the time, I also have friends that are paralized from riding.I dont know what the answer is. I do hope they solve it as it could become natonwide!!!

[Observer]

I don't know if this would become "nationwide" .. because different states have different rules .. which is why Stevens said he would ride in states like NY & CA.

Now .. to nit-pic on the article .. how many times was the word "issue" used .. something like 5,000 I think!
:rolleyes:

[Figman]

§ 213-a. New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, Inc.

New York set up a corporation to handle this problem quite a few years ago. It worked so well in its initial years that the annual premium for insurance paid was refunded at the end of the year for the first few years. In recent years there have some "heavy" claims, however it is still working well. Congrats to its chairman, thoroughbred trainer Richard Violette, Jr. and its Board members. This Fund covers NYRA and Tom's track.....Finger Lakes!

[Valuist]

It figures Sellers is behind this. This guy always is trying to stir up trouble.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I guess they could just open the gate and let them run without jockeys.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Valuist
It figures Sellers is behind this. This guy always is trying to stir up trouble.

I don't know enough about it........but I have heard him referred to as "Norma Rae"

[socantra]

Yep, that Shane Sellars is obviously a dangerous radical bomb thrower. Do you know he even went to some trouble to raise money for disabled Jockey Randy Romero, who's trying to get kidney and liver transplants without adequate insurance.

How dare that outside agitator be concerned with and speak out on issues of jockey health and safety. What soes he know about it anyway.

And how about that other agitator Gary Stevens, who's now refused to ride in states that don't have adequate jockey insurabce. Yet another one of those radical bolsheviki.

They should know that its not right to disrupt racing with their petty little causes. Everyone agrees there is a problem, What we need to do is appoint a commission of distinguished horsemen to study it for a few years. Then they could report to another commission who could talk about it some more.

Or maybe they should just shut up and quitely ride til they're seriously injured or killed. Then we could just throw them away and forget about them like we've always done.

socantra...

[JustRalph]

Most of us know about Shane. Most of us watched him on HBO in the spring. But getting your ass hauled out in handcuffs just when the Jocks are starting to get behind you is probably not the best way to further your cause.

I agree with the Jocks and personally wrote a letter to Mountaineer Race Track complaining about the treatment of Gary Birzer. But, Shane needs to work smarter on this as the ball starts rolling.

[Pace Cap'n]

Originally posted by JustRalph
But getting your ass hauled out in handcuffs just when the Jocks are starting to get behind you is probably not the best way to further your cause.

Missed that one. What happened?

[ceejay]

Originally posted by Pace Cap'n
Missed that one. What happened?

http://sports.yahoo.com/rah/news?slug=ap-jockeysejected&prov=ap&type=lgns

[socantra]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Most of us know about Shane. Most of us watched him on HBO in the spring. But getting your ass hauled out in handcuffs just when the Jocks are starting to get behind you is probably not the best way to further your cause.


As was often shown in the civil rights movement, the fight for women's right to vote and many other social movements throughtout history, there are times when getting your ass hauled out in handcuffs can do a great deal to further your cause.

socantra...

[socantra]

Originally posted by JustRalph

I agree with the Jocks and personally wrote a letter to Mountaineer Race Track complaining about the treatment of Gary Birzer. But, Shane needs to work smarter on this as the ball starts rolling.

The jockeys who refused to ride are now being locked out for the rest of the meet. I would encourage everyone to go to www.churchilldowns.com and voice your opinions through their "contact us" link.

socantra...

[Dancer's Image]

From today's Bloodhorse...

bloodhorse.com >> News
Insurance Conflict Leads to Jockeys' Ejection
by Blood-Horse Staff
Date Posted: 11/8/2004 7:29:57 AM
Last Updated: 11/8/2004 9:13:43 AM
The conflict over adequate medical insurance for jockeys continued to escalate Nov. 7 when Churchill Downs escorted several riders from the grounds after they refused to accept mounts for the Nov. 11 program.
Churchill Downs received commitments from at least nine jockeys to ride Nov. 10 through the remainder of the fall meet, which ends Nov. 27. Track officials expected to speak with several other riders before entries were taken Nov. 9 for the Nov. 11 program.
The riders met after the races Nov. 7 with Churchill Downs president Steve Sexton, who sought a commitment from the jockeys to ride Nov. 11, the track said in a release. Those who refused to do so would be ejected from the track for the remaining 14 days of the 21-day meet.
"We believe the concern expressed by the jockeys over insurance coverage is a legitimate issue, but we do not agree with their approach to addressing that concern," Sexton said. "The issue of health coverage for jockeys is one that demands and deserves industry-wide study and action. We are eager to participate in the effort to address that problem, but it would not be responsible for Churchill Downs to agree to any knee-jerk attempt to achieve a solution over the space of a few days."
Sexton said Churchill provides health coverage of up to $100,000 to all riders during each racing day even though it isn't required to do so. Churchill also joins fellow tracks in the Thoroughbred Racing Associations in providing $2.2 million each year to the Jockeys' Guild for health coverage.
"Jockeys are independent contractors and are not employees of Churchill Downs or any other racetrack," Sexton said. "Independent contractors in all other phases of the economy must accept the cost of their insurance coverage. We recognize the risks faced by our riders each day, but this is not an issue that Churchill Downs or any other track can settle. It is an important issue the requires the attention of the entire industry."
In a recent interview, National Thoroughbred Racing Association commissioner D.G. Van Clief Jr. said the organization could facilitate formation of a task force to study the insurance issue.
The NTRA and Breeders' Cup teamed up with Lone Star Park to increase the minimum coverage for riders for three days the week of the World Thoroughbred Championships. Jockeys' Guild officials, however, said the move was an admission that insurance coverage is inadequate.
Along with Pat Day, riders who have committed to accept mounts for the Nov. 11 card include Larry Melancon, John McKee, Brian Hernandez, Jr., Brice Blanc, Eddie Martin, Jr., Joe Johnson, Tammy Fox, and Juan Molina, Jr. About 12 others were yet to be contacted by the track.
Jockeys who declined to accept mounts for Nov. 11 and have been ejected from the track for the remainder of the 21-day meet include Rafael Bejarano, Robby Albarado, Mark Guidry, Calvin Borel, Willie Martinez, and Craig Perret.


...difficult issue....it needs to be solved, but I don't think the jockeys are doing the right thing by boycotting, but I can certainly understand their frustration and maybe this will serve as the catalyst to get something done!

[Valuist]

They are well aware of the risks when they ride. And Sellers was causing problems trying to change the scale of weights. I agree with Lukas: all that does if make 135-140 lb exercise riders try to become riders.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by socantra
As was often shown in the civil rights movement, the fight for women's right to vote and many other social movements throughtout history, there are times when getting your ass hauled out in handcuffs can do a great deal to further your cause.

socantra...

You are equating the jockeys being short in insurance coverage to those movements? You are kidding right? This isn't a social movement. This is a group of contract labor types. If you think the impact of Shane being removed in cuffs from CD (which they didn't even charge him for i.e no court time for a show) will have any effect on the issue, you are out of your mind. He won't be shown on the news and there is no large outcry to come from it. In fact it will just make it harder on them. It appears that they have removed several other riders also. I don't see any unwashed masses to take to the streets for these jocks, once they see Shane or any other jock in handcuffs............

From the article:
"Rafael Bejarano, the nation's leader in wins; Robby Albarado, Calvin Borel, Mark Guidry and Willie Martinez were among the jockeys prohibited from racing or appearing at the track through the conclusion of the fall meet, which ends Nov. 27."

[Valuist]

Maybe we can have a telethon to raise money for Bejarano, Albarado, Borel and Guidry right after the Latrell Sprewell telethon. What do those 4 pull in a year? Probably at least half a million; I'm sure Bejarano will make well over a million this year.

Here's an idea: give the jock 9% of the purse and use that 1% they're no longer getting to go toward insurance.

[socantra]

Originally posted by JustRalph
You are equating the jockeys being short in insurance coverage to those movements? You are kidding right? This isn't a social movement. This is a group of contract labor types. If you think the impact of Shane being removed in cuffs from CD (which they didn't even charge him for i.e no court time for a show) will have any effect on the issue, you are out of your mind. He won't be shown on the news and there is no large outcry to come from it. In fact it will just make it harder on them. It appears that they have removed several other riders also. I don't see any unwashed masses to take to the streets for these jocks, once they see Shane or any other jock in handcuffs............

[/B]

I'm not equating anything. I'm saying being escorted out publicly in cuffs is quite often a very useful tactic, whether you are involved in a labor dispute, a quest for freedom, or a dispute with your local supermarket. I don't know what the unwashed masses will do. In fact, it is my understanding that many of them bathe these days.

It may have no impact at all. I do notice though, that we're talking about it on this board, the NTRA, Bloodhorse, DRF and other intrests are talking about it, and there seems to be quite a bit of attention being paid to the issue that wasn't there a month ago. Now maybe that's just a coincidence, but I suspect it has something to do with the actions of Gary Dtevens, Shabe Sellars and the boycotting jockeys.


socantra...

[shanta]

Originally posted by socantra
The jockeys who refused to ride are now being locked out for the rest of the meet. I would encourage everyone to go to www.churchilldowns.com and voice your opinions through their "contact us" link.

socantra...



I just used the link and gave them a piece of my mind. Thanx for the link Dick.
Richie

[betchatoo]

Originally posted by shanta
I just used the link and gave them a piece of my mind. Thanx for the link Dick.
Richie

Ditto

[Dancer's Image]

Socantra,
I also took your advice and contacted Churchill Downs to voice my support for their position. Here is CD's reply...

Thank you so much for your comments and your support! We need more race fans like you who understand the complexity of this issue. Below are some key facts about jockeys and the insurance issue. Please share them with others who want to understand more about this dilemma.

FACT: Jockeys are independent contractors. Jockeys do not work for Churchill Downs or any racetrack. They are self-employed. Jockeys are free to work when they want and for whom they want. And just like anyone who is self-employed, jockeys are responsible for their own health, life, disability and accident insurance.

FACT: Even though Churchill Downs does not employ jockeys, the track does provide supplemental insurance coverage for them with a maximum benefit of $100,000 to help cover medical expenses if they are injured while riding at our facility. Churchill Downs is not required by law to provide this insurance for jockeys, but we make it available because we recognize how valuable jockeys are to our sport and understand the risks associated with their chosen profession.

FACT: In addition to providing supplemental insurance to jockeys, every year U.S. racetracks collectively contribute $2.2 million to the Jockeys' Guild, money that can be used to purchase insurance for jockeys nationwide, and to provide disability income for jockeys injured on the job.

FACT: Helping jockeys secure better insurance coverage is an industry-wide problem, and it requires an industry-wide solution. Churchill Downs is willing to work with other members of the racing industry, including jockeys, horse owners and trainers, to find answers. However, neither Churchill Downs, nor any racetrack, should be singled out or asked to independently shoulder this financial responsibility.

The jockeys who were excluded from Churchill Downs on Nov. 7 were asked to leave because they refused to accept mounts for our race cards this week. The exclusions have nothing to do with Churchill Downs' position on jockey insurance.

We agree that jockeys need more coverage. We believe that the entire industry -- including the owners and trainers who actually hire the jockeys to ride their horses -- should be part of the solution. We do not believe that Churchill Downs or other racetracks should bear the sole financial burden for providing that extra coverage.

We hope these facts help you better understand the chain of events and Churchill Downs' position on this matter. We apologize if this issue has in any way impacted your customer experience. We deeply value your patronage and will continue our daily efforts to provide you with an exciting and competitive racing program. That is our promise to you. We appreciate your understanding and look forward to serving you again.

Sincerely,

Julie Koenig Loignon


....Not mentioned in her reply, but mentioned in the Louisville Courier-Review article today, (and on the Raceday Las Vegas radio show), was the fact that CD President, Steve Sexton, told the jockeys yesterday that he had found an insurance company willing to sell the jockeys an additional policy to pay above the $100,000 that CD provided, up to $500,000. This would cost the jockeys from $100 to $220 per month depending on their age. The jockeys refused to pay this very reasonable premium, instead demanding that the racetrack pay this for them! UFB!!!!

Jerry Bailey was quoted in the same Louisville Courier-Review article as saying he paid $10,000 per year for additional insurance, and he didn't understand why someone like Gary Stevens couldn't buy his own insurance either. As someone who pays over $600 per month for my health insurance, frankly, I don't either!

[Dancer's Image]

Here's the article, (I hope)...

__Mail this pageChurchill bans four top jockeys from meet
They, others refused to ride_in dispute over insurance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jennie Rees
jrees@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant/ Food Service
WORKING CHEF/WEEKEND CHEF SUPERVISOR. FT...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Healthcare
MARKETING DEVELOPMENT National healthcar...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sales Marketing
SALES/APPLICATIONS TECHNICIAN Local grow...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Health Care
Health Care Attorney Premier, regional l...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sales Marketing
Discover the Difference Apply at: We pro...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skilled Labor
BALANCE CONTROL TECHNICIAN- HVAC Harshaw...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Top Jobs
About Top JobsFour of the top six jockeys at the current Churchill Downs meeting are among a group that will not be allowed to compete for the rest of the meet after they refused to commit to riding this week in a dispute over accident insurance, track president Steve Sexton said last night.
National wins leader Rafael Bejarano, Robby Albarado, Calvin Borel and Mark Guidry are among those who were banned from the track after meetings involving Sexton and many members of the local jockey colony last night.
The meetings were called after some Churchill jockeys yesterday morning said they would not accept mounts on Wednesday's racing card in protest over what they say is insufficient medical coverage for jockeys injured in races.
In most states, including Kentucky, tracks pay for insurance that covers the first $100,000 of such expenses. At issue is who is responsible for buying any supplemental insurance.
Sexton said he told the jockeys that Churchill had found insurance that would cover on-track accidents and would be worth a minimum of $500,000 in benefits at prices ranging from $100 to $220 a month, depending on a rider's age. The jockeys would pay for the extra insurance, he said.
"We asserted the insurance issue is an industry issue and that we understand the importance of it," Sexton said. "We emphasized that it is not a Churchill Downs fall meet issue. This is something the industry needs to address. We have communicated that to them before, and we're willing to be part of the solution.
Sexton said he asked for a "yes" or "no" from each rider at the meetings as to whether he or she would accept mounts for Wednesday and/or Thursday, the next two racing days in the meet, which ends Nov. 27.
"If the answer was `no,' they are ejected for the rest of the meet," he said. "They were asked to pack their stuff in the jocks' room and take it off track property. They will not be allowed in the stable area. They will not be allowed on the track."
Sexton said others who met with him last night and would not commit to riding include Willie Martinez, Brian Peck, Craig Perret and Jeff Johnston. He said he did not have the final list of jockeys who had been barred from the track because some riders either weren't at the meeting or because he didn't recognize them.
Ejections are `shocking'
Of the jockeys ejected, only Martinez could be reached after last night's meetings.
He called the ejections "pretty shocking and sad." Asked if the jockeys' reason for resisting the Churchill plan was that the benefits were not enough or that the jockeys shouldn't have to pay, he said, "pretty much a combination."
"We're not trying to hurt the game," he said. "We're trying to get something for everybody for years to come for the younger riders."
Albert Fiss, vice president for the 1,250-member Jockeys' Guild, which represents jockeys nationwide, said by phone that his organization will "be issuing a press release on behalf of the jockeys (this) afternoon. Until that time they're asking us to make no comment."
Among the riders who gave Sexton assurances that they would ride were all-time track leader Pat Day, Larry Melancon, John McKee, Brice Blanc, Eddie Martin and Joe Johnson, Sexton said. He said that racing would go on as scheduled.
Insurance covering jockeys' on-track injuries has been a national issue since West Virginia jockey Gary Birzer was paralyzed after a spill in July at Mountaineer Park.
Five states cover riders through workers' compensation. In the others, including Kentucky, racetracks have an arrangement with the Jockeys Guild to pay for insurance covering up to $100,000 in medical costs per accident.
Darrell Haire, a member representative of the Jockeys' Guild, said jockeys shouldn't be the ones to pay for increased insurance coverage.
"All racetracks that run should provide something comparable to workman's compensation," Haire said. "This industry&mdashthey keep buying more racetracks and opening up more (off-track betting parlors). It's a $16billion, $18billion industry and they don't take care of the people."
Shane Sellers, one of the leading riders in Kentucky, announced early last month that he wouldn't ride until there was more coverage provided. Later that month, Hall of Fame jockey Gary Stevens, who is based in California, said he would not ride in the Breeders' Cup in Texas or any state that didn't cover riders through workers' compensation.
Wednesday riding mishap
The situation came to a head in Kentucky when jockey Tony D'Amico fractured four ribs and his shoulder and punctured a lung in a riding mishap Wednesday.
"When you see situations when Tony D'Amico, Gary Birzer and Michael Rowland's family (the family of the jockey killed as the result of a spill last winter at Turfway), it's a hard thing to just let it go by" without action, Martinez said.
Jockeys who were barred from riding at Churchill are not automatically prohibited from riding elsewhere in the country. Unlike when a state regulatory body suspends the license of a racing participant, it is up to individual tracks whether to honor an ejection.
The jockeys' call for a job action on Wednesday was the talk of the backside yesterday morning and at the races.
"We feel unsafe," Albarado said then. "Yes, I have (supplemental) insurance. But it's not enough if I'm paralyzed or anything like that. Everything I worked for for 14 years would be gone.... A hundred thousand is nothing."
Albarado, who twice has suffered skull fractures in accidents, said: "My life is in the hands of the other jockeys on the racetrack. We have to watch out for each other. So I'm watching out for everybody else."
However, Tammy Fox, who said she has paid for her own insurance since she was 16 because she never was a member of the Jockeys' Guild, had little sympathy.
"I don't see how they can expect other people to pay for their insurance," Fox said. "I'll ride the card. Just name me on."
Jockey Joe Johnson was practically in tears over the division. He initially said he was riding only because his long-time major client, trainer Gary Hartlage, gave him an ultimatum.
"I'm behind the riders 100 percent," Johnson said. "Well, I guess you could say 90 percent, because if it was a 100 I wouldn't be riding. We definitely need insurance. But I've been riding for the guy for 17 years, and he's stuck behind me."
"I'll probably lose some friends out of the deal," he added. "There will be hard feelings. The ones who really know me will understand. I've got two kids, 5 and 3. I've got to make a living for them."
Trainers speak out
The situation has angered trainers, many of who complain about their own workers' compensation costs they pay for their employees.
"The riders are independent contractors and therefore should be liable for their own insurance," said trainer David Kassen, a former jockey. "We're not insured at all, except what we do for ourselves. We don't insure veterinarians and blacksmiths when they come in and do work for us. When they opt to be a jockey, they know the inherent risks."
Said trainer D. Wayne Lukas: "I'm sympathetic to the fact that maybe $100,000 worth of coverage isn't enough, so I think they should go ahead and call some agent and get some more. Just like the rest of us.... I don't have any problem with what they're doing. I think the way they're going about it is wrong."
New York jockey Jerry Bailey told The Courier-Journal earlier this month that he pays $10,000 a year for $2million in medical coverage for on-track accidents after the track-paid $100,000, which he said he thought was reasonable.
"If I can get insurance, and Pat Day can get insurance, I don't know why Gary Stevens can't get insurance," he said.
Day says he has such coverage but did not name a cost.
Meanwhile, Sellers was ejected from Churchill property until further notice after being escorted off the grounds in handcuffs yesterday morning by a Louisville police officer. Sellers was in the jockeys' room and was asked several times to leave, Churchill spokesman John Asher said.
"There was no altercation of any kind and no charges were pressed," said Asher, who declined to specify why Sellers was ejected.

[Tuffmug]

I'm proud of the big time jocks who have taken this stand and will support the boycott by not playing Churchill or any of their affiliated tracks. The big time jocks CAN afford to pay more but they are fighting for the protection of small time jocks and apprentices who CAN'T afford to do so.
Churchill's lock out will only inflame the situation and is an indication of their inflexibility on this issue and the necessity of the boycott to resolve the situation. The infusion of inexperienced riders into the remainder of the meet will make it very dangerous for those regular jocks who aren't supporting the boycott.

[Dancer's Image]

Tuffmug,
So who should pay for the jockeys' health insurance if not the jockeys?

The racetrack? But the jockeys are not employees of the racetrack. The trainers pay for their own workers comp insurance; why shouldn't the jockeys? Valuist had an interesting idea earlier in this thread....instead of giving the jockey 10% of the purse, give the jockey 9% with the other 1% going towards insurance. You know damned well the jockeys wouldn't agree to that; just like the jockeys don't want to be the track's employees but they don't want to be responsible for their own insurance, as other independent contractors are. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Be careful, just like in California, you will possibly end up paying for this, in the form of increased takeout to pay for the jockeys workers comp insurance.

[Tuffmug]

Dancer's Image,

Neither the tracks nor the trainers WANT the Jockeys to be their EMPLOYEES! The concept of independant contractors was created by employers to avoid the legal responsibilities of being an employer. All the risks were shifted to the independant contractor from the employer in exchange for, in this case, the possibility but not the promise of increased compensation and the illusion of freedom to control how they did the job.

In truth, jockeys are defacto employees of the track and the trainers and owners. If they want the mounts they have to work the horses in the morning for no compensation, they have to ride the way the trainer wants them to. The stewards have the power to suspend them and prevent them from making a living not just at that track but throughout the country. The tracks pay them a rate for every mount.

You like the idea of taking 1% out of the jockeys 10%. Why not pay them 11% of the purse and then take out 1%? Then the owners would scream wouldn't they!

[Dancer's Image]

Tuffmug,
The point is that someone has to pay for the health insurance...there is no free lunch!

All I know is what I read in these articles, but it says that CD is not obligated to provide any insurance at all, but that it does provide $100,000 of insurance. Additionally, CD provides $2.2 million in payments to the Jockey Guild for health insurance for the jockeys. And then CD found another insurer willing to provide additional health insurance for the jockeys up to $500,000 for the very reasonable monthly premium of $100-$220 per jockey....and the jockeys declined! Now you tell me who's being reasonable and fair? I say it's CD!

[Valuist]

Tuffmug-

There's two groups that make racing go: the owners and the public. Without them, there are no jockeys. When somebody decides to become a jockey, they know damn well that it is a risky job. Nobody is MAKING them ride; they choose to. Owners have enough in expenses to worry about. Its difficult enough to get new fans and owners to the game yet there's never a shortage of riders. Do not penalize the owners. Give jockeys a choice: ride for 9% and be insured, or stay with the 10% and be uninsured.

[socantra]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
Tuffmug,
The point is that someone has to pay for the health insurance...there is no free lunch!

All I know is what I read in these articles, but it says that CD is not obligated to provide any insurance at all, but that it does provide $100,000 of insurance. Additionally, CD provides $2.2 million in payments to the Jockey Guild for health insurance for the jockeys. And then CD found another insurer willing to provide additional health insurance for the jockeys up to $500,000 for the very reasonable monthly premium of $100-$220 per jockey....and the jockeys declined! Now you tell me who's being reasonable and fair? I say it's CD!

Churchill Downs claims they are under no obligation to provide insurance, but out of the goodness of their corporate heart they provide $100,000 worth. Since that same figure seems to keep cropping up at a number of tracks I sespect there are details we are not hearing. I know Lone Star normally carries $100,000 too, but I'm not sure if that's Texas law, or the goodness of Magna's corporate heart.

The $2.2 million figure is not provided by Churchill Downs alone but by all tracks combined under agreement with the NTRA, I believe.

The insurance that Churchill Downs found for the jockeys sounds good, but we don't know the details. Would that apply only at Churchill Downs, and would jockeys have to provide insurance at every track they ride? Again, insurance can contain many clauses, and we don't know the details.

We don't know the details about most of it, but at least it's being discussed now, and not just another of those ugly little secrets hiding in racing's closet. There are way too many of those as it is, and the entire industry is going to have to put in some serious work solving a bunch of them if it hopes to survive.

Churchill Downs sounds like great folk if you are willing to accept their press release on face value, but I've noticed most people and organizations sound pretty good in their press releases. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between everyone's press releases, and everyone may have to give a little bit to solve the problem.

socantra...

[socantra]

Originally posted by Valuist
Tuffmug-

There's two groups that make racing go: the owners and the public. Without them, there are no jockeys. When somebody decides to become a jockey, they know damn well that it is a risky job. Nobody is MAKING them ride; they choose to. Owners have enough in expenses to worry about. Its difficult enough to get new fans and owners to the game yet there's never a shortage of riders. Do not penalize the owners. Give jockeys a choice: ride for 9% and be insured, or stay with the 10% and be uninsured.

You forgot to mention the horses. I don't think people would pay mich to see fat old rich people run around the track (though it does have a perverse sort of appeal to it).

It is difficult enough to get new fans, and a fair portion of the public already sees horse racing as a sport that kills and cripples horses and jockeys. I argue regularly with several of them.

To me your argument about jockeys knowing its a risky business sounds as silly as maintining that police officers and firemen know they are getting into a risky business, so an overburdened public shouldn't have to pay to insure them either. Or maybe we should give them a choice, raises or insurance.

socantra...

[Dancer's Image]

socantra,
You are correct in your suspicions about the $100,000 medical insurance coverage not being out of the goodness of their corporate heart.....this is from the article I posted here....

"Five states cover riders through workers' compensation. In the others, including Kentucky, racetracks have an arrangement with the Jockeys Guild to pay for insurance covering up to $100,000 in medical costs per accident."

...you are also correct in that CD shares in the $2.2 million payments to the Jockey Guild yearly. mea culpa!

I still believe these boycotting jockeys are going about this the wrong way. It's the entitlement mentality that affects so many other aspects of our society. Ironically, Shane Sellers acquitted himself nicely in this situation; he just retired! Likewise Gary Stevens, he just said he wouldn't ride in states such as KY or TX where they didn't have adequate coverage. The jockeys at CD on the other hand knew full well what the situation was when they opted to ride there this fall. For them to now try to extort further coverage out of CD by this boycott is shameful. I hope CD busses in riders from Hoosier or the Louisiana circuit!

[Valuist]

I guarantee you they will bus in riders from Hoosier. Hoosier is a CDI track and the jocks that ride there would love to ride for those juicy Churchill purses.

[foregoforever]

Originally posted by socantra
The jockeys who refused to ride are now being locked out for the rest of the meet.

If the jockeys were truly "independent contractors", as some in the business describe them when it suits their purposes, then you'd think that they could decide to take a day off without getting suspended.

The jocks need to get a good liability lawyer.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by foregoforever
The jocks need to get a good liability lawyer.

for what reason ? they are asking for an increase in coverage...that is all.........what the hell do they need a lawyer for? Under no circumstances do I see why obtaining a "liablility lawyer" is going to aid them? What are you smoking?

No wait a minute, you're a lawyer right? :D

[BillW]

Any contractor I ever hired was subject to the same process as company employees when it came to a day off i.e. permission was required. Contractors with attendance problems could be let go.

[foregoforever]

Originally posted by JustRalph
No wait a minute, you're a lawyer right? :D

:p Hardly. I hate them. (No offense to any around here.)

I just look at the way liability is handled in other situations. Deep-pocket companies are sued for situations in which they had little or no connection with the accident. I'm sure you've heard plenty examples, so I won't go into them.

So then a horse breaks down and a jockey is badly hurt, and the track management and the trainer of the horse seem to waltz away without any questions.

Mike Rowland died last year on a track that had really major problems with the surface throughout the meet. And how many of the horses that broke down were on bute? If these sorts of accidents occurred in any industry, the OSHA folks and the ambulance chasers would be all over them.

I don't want liability lawyers involved in racing any more than you do. But all this "independent contractor" BS that the tracks and trainers are spewing is nonsense. These are workplace injuries, and the industry needs to figure out a way to take care of the catastrophic ones. It's shameful that Gary Birzer has hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills, when several horses sold for $4-5 million in the past few days.

The industry needs to get serious about this problem. Jockeys should certainly contribute to their insurance, but so should the trainers who provide the horses and the tracks that provide the courses. If they don't take it seriously, then the lawyers will get involved and it'll all go to hell from there on.

[Figman]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by foregoforever:

"The jocks need to get a good liability lawyer. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about John Edwards, he's out of a job!

[witchdoctor]

Be careful what you ask for

[Dancer's Image]

the latest from DRF.com....

_
Churchill Downs _
Track bans 15 riders after insurance protest
By MARTY McGEE
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Churchill Downs has banned 15 jockeys for the balance of the fall meet for refusing to be named on horses Wednesday in a dispute over health insurance coverage.
Among the jockeys who will not be permitted to ride through Nov. 27, closing day at the Churchill meet, are the current national victory leader, Rafael Bejarano, as well as Robby Albarado, Mark Guidry, Calvin Borel, and Willie Martinez.
Churchill and other Kentucky tracks currently provide $100,000 in medical coverage in case of an accident, but jockeys maintain that they need a major increase in coverage.
Most of the jockey colony met with the track's president, Steve Sexton, after the races Sunday. Sexton gave them a choice of yes or no in response to whether they intended to ride Wednesday or Thursday at Churchill.
For those who said no, "They will not be back before the end of the meet," a Churchill spokesman, John Asher, said Monday. "We're not happy about it, but they felt like they had to do what they did, and we felt like we did what we had to do."
As of Monday afternoon, about 10 jockeys had told Churchill officials that they did not intend to honor the unofficial boycott, which became known Sunday morning, when entries for the 10-race Wednesday card were taken. At that time, jockeys told their agents not to name them on horses. Among those who said they would ride are Pat Day, Larry Melancon, Eddie Martin Jr., Brice Blanc, John McKee, Joe Johnson, and apprentice Brian Hernandez Jr.
According to Day's agent, Doc Danner, Day originally was going to participate in the boycott. Danner told trainers Sunday morning that Day would honor only calls given well before the jockeys' decision to hold out. But by Sunday evening, Day had informed Churchill officials that he intended to ride through the meet.
"Nobody wants to ride any more than the guys who stood up for what we believe in," said Guidry. "It's just a shame it had to come down to this."
Asher said he expected jockeys who have been riding elsewhere to come to Churchill in the coming days to fill the void.
Earlier in the week, Sexton forwarded to the jockeys an offer from a local health-care provider that would have allowed them to purchase supplemental insurance coverage.
According to both Guidry and Asher, the insurance would have provided $300,000 to $500,000 in health coverage at premiums of about $200 a month, depending on the jockey's age. Jockey Jerry Bailey has said in published reports that he pays $10,000 a year for $2 million in additional medical coverage. Day also has said he has additional insurance.
Guidry said jockeys were "not in a position to bargain" and declined the offer. "We're leaving that up to the lawyers and Dr. G," a reference to Wayne Gertmenian, national manager of the Jockeys' Guild in California.
The Jockeys' Guild, which represents most jockeys in North America and provides them with additional insurance coverage through a group plan, has been embroiled in a number of controversies in recent years. Day, among other prominent jockeys, no longer is a Guild member.
In a Monday release, Albert Fiss, vice president of the Jockeys' Guild, cited several incidents - including an accident at Mountaineer Race Track over the summer that paralyzed Gary Birzer and a spill at Churchill on Wednesday that left Tony D'Amico with a fractured shoulder and ribs and a punctured lung - as "bitter reminders of the lack of adequate insurance provided jockeys riding in the state of Kentucky."
Shane Sellers quit riding Oct. 2, citing inadequate insurance, and Gary Stevens refused to ride in the Breeders' Cup for the same reason.
The National Thoroughbred Racing Association said Monday it is forming a panel to look into the issue of insurance coverage for jockeys.
Asher said that ongoing discussions have been held with the Jockeys' Guild but that nothing new or substantive occurred Monday to change the situation at Churchill.
Sexton called the insurance situation "an extremely complicated issue. We are eager to participate in the effort to address the problem, but it would not be responsible for Churchill Downs to agree to any knee-jerk attempt to achieve a solution."
Predictably, trainers at Churchill are unhappy with the jockeys' stance. "If they have an issue, they're going about it the wrong way," said Dale Romans, the top trainer here the last several years.
Several jockeys were escorted from the track Sunday evening by security personnel. Earlier in the day, Sellers was escorted off the Churchill property in handcuffs by a Louisville Metro Police officer after being asked "several times" to leave the jockey quarters, said Asher.
Sellers has long been at the fore of health-related issues for jockeys.

[linrom1]

Well if that wasn't bad enough - - the paragon of corporate shooting one's self in the foot, barred the top four jockeys off the property (including back side). That means that the nation's leading jockey is on the outside at CD. And that with a $140k pick 6 carryover coming up on Wednesday.
The damn the torpedos mind set sure doesn't lead to negotiated solutions to business problems. It's either my way or the highway. That's how we lost several top management people.
The horsemen's contract is pretty straightforward about sharing the sponsorship money. Why make everyone mad and incur the bad publicity?
Surely someone in management should beable to find consensus with the groups that make up racing and at the same time get support from the CEO.


I took the liberty to paste this from CHDN Yahoo Stock board.

[Dancer's Image]

From the Raceday Las Vegas radio show with Ralph Siraco today, all 15 jockeys, who have refused to ride and have been ejected from CD for the rest of the fall meet, can not race anywhere else in the country!

Ralph said that 2 of the principal jockeys in this insurance issue, Stevens and Sellers, both of them retired from racing for a period of time in order to collect a disability payment, and then resumed racing after a period of time. I don't know if it's true or not, but it makes me want to retract my statement of yesterday where I applauded Stevens and Sellers.

[Dancer's Image]

O, 1 other thing from the Raceday show. I posted this yesterday...

Be careful, just like in California, you will possibly end up paying for this, in the form of increased takeout to pay for the jockeys workers comp insurance.

...and sure enough on the show, Don Alvie said that one of the things being discussed at CD is to increase the takeout .3% to cover the costs of the jockeys extra insurance. Now, isn't there some other injustice in this world that the horseplayers can pay for? Perhaps increase the takeout to pay for the war in Iraq?

[Valuist]

Bejarano can now kiss goodbye any thought of an Eclipse Award.

[ceejay]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
O, 1 other thing from the Raceday show. I posted this yesterday...

Be careful, just like in California, you will possibly end up paying for this, in the form of increased takeout to pay for the jockeys workers comp insurance.

...and sure enough on the show, Don Alvie said that one of the things being discussed at CD is to increase the takeout .3% to cover the costs of the jockeys extra insurance. Now, isn't there some other injustice in this world that the horseplayers can pay for? Perhaps increase the takeout to pay for the war in Iraq?

I'm surely in the minority here, but I'd actually be accepting of this if the share of the takeout to purses and the track was also cut some so that the burden is shared.

[Dancer's Image]

Ceejay,
Think about what you're saying....you are willing to not only give up part of your winnings but also part of every other horseplayer's winnings, so that guys like Jerry Bailey don't have to spend $10,000 per year to buy their own insurance.

And what about the Jockey Guild, who gets $2.2 million per year from the tracks in addition to members dues and doesn't provide health insurance for its members anymore because the premiums became too expensive? You want the horseplayer to pay for their insurance?

Why stop there? Right now the trainers are paying for their own insurance for themselves and their employees. Surely you would agree to increase the takeout some more to pay for their insurance too? Might as well pay for the Iraq war while we're at it!

[ceejay]

I know what I'm saying. It's not the Bailey's and Day's that were talking about here. It's the Gary Birzer's. The $500K policy proposed by CD is not enough to cover a total disability caused by a SCI.

My feeling on trainers is different. Trainers have per diem's from owners and can budget appropriately. What do non-winning Jockeys make? $50 on a race?

I won't touch the Iraq thing (but aren't net winnings taxed if you have a signer?); however, I also would support a small portion of takeout going to supporting horses after retirement.

[socantra]

Originally posted by ceejay
I know what I'm saying. It's not the Bailey's and Day's that were talking about here. It's the Gary Birzer's. The $500K policy proposed by CD is not enough to cover a total disability caused by a SCI.

My feeling on trainers is different. Trainers have per diem's from owners and can budget appropriately. What do non-winning Jockeys make? $50 on a race?

I won't touch the Iraq thing (but aren't net winnings taxed if you have a signer?); however, I also would support a small portion of takeout going to supporting horses after retirement.

Thank you for a reaction more thoughtful than "screw them jockey's". Losing jockey rider fees are generally $30-$55 a mount, of which about $10 goes to the Jockey's Guild, which used to pay the insurance out of that $10. Then, in 2001, the premiums went up 43% and that money would no longer cover it. In California, they dumped the whole thing on the trainers, and I understand they are now paying $70-$172 a mount for insurance.

We're looking at an advance issue of the problem that's becoming critical for the entire population, and if we don't get a handle on exploding medical costs and insurance rates, its going to eat up everybody's money. We can blame trial lawyers, but even the most critical studies I've seen can't hold them responsible for more than 5-10% of the increase, and many say its closer to 2%.

I don't know the answer, but I suspect its going to take cooperation from many directions, and as much as everyone seems to love jockey bashing, its not going to help to solve the problem.

socantra...

[saratoga guy]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
From the Raceday Las Vegas radio show with Ralph Siraco today, all 15 jockeys, who have refused to ride and have been ejected from CD for the rest of the fall meet, can not race anywhere else in the country!

What reason did they give for this? Churchill's decision wasn't a stewards' ruling therefore there should be no required reciprocity among other tracks...

[Dancer's Image]

socantra,
Ceejay's so called "thoughtful" reply is really just "screw the players".
And California did not dump the whole thing on the trainers, they raised the takeout .5%.

The Jockey Guild is the most guilty party in all this; they get $2.2 million form the tracks per year plus whatever dues the jockeys pay and they just quit paying the insurance premiums and try to get the tracks to pay it for them.!? I agree that the jockeys need more insurance, but it absolutely ridiculous to have the players pay ANY of it!

[ceejay]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
socantra,
Ceejay's so called "thoughtful" reply is really just "screw the players".
And California did not dump the whole thing on the trainers, they raised the takeout .5%.

The Jockey Guild is the most guilty party in all this; they get $2.2 million form the tracks per year plus whatever dues the jockeys pay and they just quit paying the insurance premiums and try to get the tracks to pay it for them.!? I agree that the jockeys need more insurance, but it absolutely ridiculous to have the players pay ANY of it!

Thank you for putting words in my mouth. You might note that I prefaced this by wanting shared burden.
if the share of the takeout to purses and the track was also cut some

[BigJake]

Guys,

My insurance has gone up 300% in the last 7 years. I could go look for a job where I didn't have to pay as much, but I like where I work. So I pay it and every year they come around and increase it. I complain and pay it and the next year they raise rates again. I complain . . . well you get the point. If the jockeys don't like their working conditions, QUIT!!!! No one is sticking a gun up their ass and forcing them on the horse. I'll hire any of them that want a job. They'll start out at $10 an hour and $35 a week will come out for insurance. They will do mindless work 8 hours a day, 5 sometimes 6 days a week. Life is too short to do something you hate. If they are not willing to work under the conditions presented to them they can come work for me. I would love to have someone to talk racing with. Not many people there are fans.

Big Jake

[CryingForTheHorses]

Originally posted by socantra
Thank you for a reaction more thoughtful than "screw them jockey's". Losing jockey rider fees are generally $30-$55 a mount, of which about $10 goes to the Jockey's Guild, which used to pay the insurance out of that $10. Then, in 2001, the premiums went up 43% and that money would no longer cover it. In California, they dumped the whole thing on the trainers, and I understand they are now paying $70-$172 a mount for insurance.

We're looking at an advance issue of the problem that's becoming critical for the entire population, and if we don't get a handle on exploding medical costs and insurance rates, its going to eat up everybody's money. We can blame trial lawyers, but even the most critical studies I've seen can't hold them responsible for more than 5-10% of the increase, and many say its closer to 2%.

I don't know the answer, but I suspect its going to take cooperation from many directions, and as much as everyone seems to love jockey bashing, its not going to help to solve the problem.

socantra...

In some places like woodbine, You have to PUT money into the bookkeeps office For your Jocks mount,Here in Florida and other tracks they pay you to the last horse. In Canada they pay you to 5th money, The rest goes into the pool for healthcare, Why wouldnt they only pay to 5th money. You see horses making 100 75 bucks for not hitting the board, I think a lot of money would be saved and owners would be forced to pay their own jocks mount,instead of the purse. As it stands now you run and get paid even if you finish last. I also think owners need to share the burden with money coming out of their purses. You as the bettor contribute enough.

[WaHoo]

I hate too see anyone get hurt, but a jobs a job if your worried about being hurt get another job, how many jockeys do you think that has someone bet on a horse or horses that may get in the money, if i knew something i would have them making me money thats why most jockeys that make $30 to $50 a Ride, they know how strong a horse is, if you don't think trainer, jockeys, owner don't place a horse your wrong. i've made more money on knowing something that all the programs i have can tell or show me. Do i feel bad when a jockey gets hurt sure, but H_ll they could get another job, why don't the million dollar winning jockey give part of their winnings to help the poor dirt jocks.LOL.

PS i love it when a trainer says they don't play with real money, they can't make it with purse money or what they charge the owners..

[linrom1]

If those 15 jockeys won't be allowed to race anywhere else, I am willing to put my $ on the line and fight to put racing out of business for good. And I hope that other jockeys join in their cause and boycott the fascists that make up this industry.

[Tom]

Originally posted by BillW
Any contractor I ever hired was subject to the same process as company employees when it came to a day off i.e. permission was required. Contractors with attendance problems could be let go.

Did they sign a contract? I understand jocks do not work for the track. They work for the trainers on a case by case basis.

[BillW]

Originally posted by Tom
Did they sign a contract? I understand jocks do not work for the track. They work for the trainers on a case by case basis.

Yes, typically there was an agreement for services for a certain amount of time -though typically measured in months, as opposed to minutes as with jockeys.

[socantra]

Originally posted by saratoga guy
What reason did they give for this? Churchill's decision wasn't a stewards' ruling therefore there should be no required reciprocity among other tracks...

The Louisville newspaper said there was no required reciprocity. The decision would be up to the individual tracks if it came up. Perhaps the guy in Vegas checked with every track in the country, but more likely he's just blowing smoke like the rest of us.

socantra...

[socantra]

Originally posted by BigJake
Guys,

My insurance has gone up 300% in the last 7 years.
Big Jake

The only figures I've been able to find so far indicate jockey's coverage per mount going up 700 to 1700%. I'm assuming that's not accurate, but its all I've been able to find so far. You probably didn't appreciate what a bargain you were getting.

socantra...

[Dancer's Image]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
[B]From the Raceday Las Vegas radio show with Ralph Siraco today, all 15 jockeys, who have refused to ride and have been ejected from CD for the rest of the fall meet, can not race anywhere else in the country!

Apparently this is NOT correct. I just saw an article at TT saying that Bejarano is riding at Aqueduct on Saturday

[Zman179]

The ban is only up until November 27th (closing day at Churchill), and the ban is only in effect at all tracks owned by Churchill Downs.

NYRA's take on the insurance flap:
"We don't have a dog in this fight," said Charlie Hayward, the newly appointed president of the New York Racing Association. "If jocks want to come here to ride, we have the insurance. No one has asked us to do anything, and as far as I know, we don't plan to do anything in that regard."

[Dancer's Image]

From today's Bloodhorse...


Kentucky Regulators Willing to Meet With Guild
Date Posted: 11/10/2004 8:02:17 AM
Last Updated: 11/10/2004 8:02:17 AM
by the Associated Press
Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher's administration is willing to meet with the Jockeys' Guild to discuss legislation that would provide workers' compensation for jockeys, a state official said.
"As far as I'm aware, the Guild has not approached the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority or this administration for any input," said Environmental and Public Protection Secretary LaJuana Wilcher, whose cabinet oversees the KHRA.
Churchill Downs ejected 15 jockeys Nov. 7 for the remainder of its fall meet because they wouldn't commit to accept mounts. The riders are protesting what they believe is inadequate medical insurance.
The Guild, which has about 1,250 members, issued a statement Nov. 8 that targeted Churchill and the KHRA for not moving on an upgraded insurance plan. Churchill president Steve Sexton has said the track is willing to work on such a plan, but that it requires national input.
More than 90% of the estimated 1,300 full-time riders in the United States earn less than $30,000 a year before taxes, agent fees, and equipment costs, according to the Guild.
Churchill Downs, like many tracks, provides up to $100,000 coverage for riding accidents for jockeys, who are considered independent contractors. Five states--California, Idaho, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York--offer workers' compensation insurance, which covers more expenses in the event of injuries.
At Churchill, jockeys earn 10% of purse money paid when they finish first through fifth, in addition to $45 to $100 per mount depending on the class of the race.
The Guild used to provide additional insurance to cover medical bills that exceed $100,000, but the coverage lapsed when premiums increased. Sexton said $6.6 million has been paid to the Guild in the last three years by tracks in the Thoroughbred Racing Associations.
"That money was originally agreed to go towards insurance," he said. "Now there are no strings attached to it in terms of how the Guild spends that money...We have asked the Guild dating back to a year ago where those monies are going, and we have yet to get the answer."


...now why should the Jockey Guild spend that money on health/accident insurance for its members when it can get the citizens of the state to provide it through workers comp legislation, or bettor (sp) yet, by passing it on to the players through increased takeout?

[CryingForTheHorses]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
From today's Bloodhorse...


Kentucky Regulators Willing to Meet With Guild
Date Posted: 11/10/2004 8:02:17 AM
Last Updated: 11/10/2004 8:02:17 AM
by the Associated Press
Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher's administration is willing to meet with the Jockeys' Guild to discuss legislation that would provide workers' compensation for jockeys, a state official said.
"As far as I'm aware, the Guild has not approached the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority or this administration for any input," said Environmental and Public Protection Secretary LaJuana Wilcher, whose cabinet oversees the KHRA.
Churchill Downs ejected 15 jockeys Nov. 7 for the remainder of its fall meet because they wouldn't commit to accept mounts. The riders are protesting what they believe is inadequate medical insurance.
The Guild, which has about 1,250 members, issued a statement Nov. 8 that targeted Churchill and the KHRA for not moving on an upgraded insurance plan. Churchill president Steve Sexton has said the track is willing to work on such a plan, but that it requires national input.
More than 90% of the estimated 1,300 full-time riders in the United States earn less than $30,000 a year before taxes, agent fees, and equipment costs, according to the Guild.
Churchill Downs, like many tracks, provides up to $100,000 coverage for riding accidents for jockeys, who are considered independent contractors. Five states--California, Idaho, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York--offer workers' compensation insurance, which covers more expenses in the event of injuries.
At Churchill, jockeys earn 10% of purse money paid when they finish first through fifth, in addition to $45 to $100 per mount depending on the class of the race.
The Guild used to provide additional insurance to cover medical bills that exceed $100,000, but the coverage lapsed when premiums increased. Sexton said $6.6 million has been paid to the Guild in the last three years by tracks in the Thoroughbred Racing Associations.
"That money was originally agreed to go towards insurance," he said. "Now there are no strings attached to it in terms of how the Guild spends that money...We have asked the Guild dating back to a year ago where those monies are going, and we have yet to get the answer."


...now why should the Jockey Guild spend that money on health/accident insurance for its members when it can get the citizens of the state to provide it through workers comp legislation, or bettor (sp) yet, by passing it on to the players through increased takeout?

Im going to get blasted for this one!!

I feel everybody that "rides" horse's whether it be a jockey Exercise rider or ponyperson or trainer riding a pony, ALL these people can get just as seriously hurt on a horse as a jockey,They need to have money taken out of their checks every week,If they gave say 2 dollars a week at every racetrack,If the owners gave 1/2% This fund would get huge! The freelance people would also have to contribute or they wouldnt be licenced, As for the grooms and hotwalkers they also can be very seriously hurt or killed.This fund besides workmans comp would greatly flourish, With everybody paying into this fund,I also feel "we" as owners whether big or small need to do this,I know your going to say what about the big money guys paying more then their share...I think its a great idea.Every racetrack would need to agree and everybody must sign up,You would have a rep at each track to see to all needs for the fund.The jocks guild could be abolished and further funding be added to what the new policy would bring. Am I sounding Crazy???

[Dancer's Image]

the plot thickens....this appeared to be the same article that I cut and pasted here earlier today from the Bloodhorse, but this article from Thoroughbred Times had these additional 2 paragraphs at the end of the artidle...

Gertmenian said in September that the Guild uses money contributed toward insurance to pay the premium on a healthcare plan for all jockeys and their families.
The jockey colony at Belmont Park signed a petition asking the Guild to execute an independent audit of its finances, and a similar petition circulated at many other tracks including Santa Anita Park and Calder Race Course, but Fiss said that the Guild would not honor that request.

...so let me get this straight. The Jockey Guild used to pay for supplemental health/accident insurance for the jockey to cover them above the $100,000 insurance coverage provided by the tracks. They stopped doing this in June 2002 because the premiums were too expensive. Now today we hear for the first time, the the Jockey Guild president, Gertmenian, said in Sept that the Guild uses money contributed towards insurance to pay the premium on a healthcare plan for all jockeys and their families. So which is it? Does the Jockey Guild provide healthcare insurance for the jockeys or not?

[foregoforever]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
Does the Jockey Guild provide healthcare insurance for the jockeys or not?

I'm no expert on this, but my understanding is that the JC's current insurance plan is a standard health plan for the jocks and their families, but does not cover on-track accidents.