Check out this article folks.
< a href = \"http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=22171\">
To my mind they are independant contractors. If the tracks want to make them employees and provide benefits to them in the form of health insurance, pensions, retirement accounts and the so on and so forth then the tracks should be able to determine their uniform. But they don\'t and its not a uniform. Its the silks of their clients and if their client has an issue with it fine. But the tracks need to be ruled out of this one. Lets give these guys a break when they\'re right about money issues.
Here here!
THIS IS OUT OF CONTROL !!!!!!!!!
This may make Joe Deegan the KEY GUY. Since he has worked most of the Derby Contenders who does Joe take???
Assuming he doesn't walk also.
I guess we can view the Pletcher horses as \"throw outs\" now, otherwise these guys (JS & JV) wouldn\'t threaten to walk.
Food for thought.
It\'s exactly because jockeys are independant contractors, who must be to perceived by the public as representing only the interests of the connections of the horse they are riding in any particular race, that it is a bad idea to allow jockeys to sport advertising on their silks.
For inevitably a conflict of interest scandal will arise. Jockey A, wearing advertising for a particular company will make a bad move on the track and get nosed at the wire. By a horse it turns out whose owner has major holdings in the company whose advertising Jockey A is being paid to wear.
Now I\'m not saying that Jockey A necessarly did anything wrong. A lot of owners have a lot of business interests and it was probably just an innocent coinicidence. But in racing, because of the gambling aspect, perception is reality.
And so now what? Owners are going to have to disclose all their financial holdings, and the holding of their immediate family members, to the Racing jurisdictions to insure there are no conflict of interests?
I don\'t think so. And in fact, I can think of nothing that would drive established money out of the game quicker than if reporters started investigating the owners finances every time they won a race.
But on the other hand, maybe there will be races where the jockey\'s aren\'t so innocent. After all, it does seem to me that a sponsorship deal is a pretty clean and efficient way to launder a bribe.
No, jockeys must be held to a different standard of commericial ethics than other athletes because, well because they are jockeys. The definiton of their job demands the perception of complete allegiance to the connections who have hired them to ride in any particular race. Lose that, and they probably lose the public.
Your argument makes much more sense than that of the stewards, who say \"We will be distracted by logos when trying to make a decision on an inquiry.\"
In theory, you are correct. Because where there is a will (to cheat), there is a way- for anything. Which only emphasizes my earlier point (on another thread?) that everything should be done to insure that every race is run without any possibility of ANYONE cheating.
The BIGGEST reason racing has a black eye is the perception that racing is fixed. The perception is that racing is full of cheaters. Racing is not full of cheaters, but there are enough cheaters to make it bad for everyone.
Thehoarsehorseplayer wrote:
> It\'s exactly because jockeys are independant contractors, who
> must be to perceived by the public as representing only the
> interests of the connections of the horse they are riding in
> any particular race, that it is a bad idea to allow jockeys to
> sport advertising on their silks.
Assume for a moment the above is true. How do you reconcile that view with the fact that a trainer can enter multiple entries in a race without the public losing confidence in the game or calling into question the trainer\'s fealty to his task? If the public MUST perceive that the connections of a horse are being fully represented how can a trainer who is also an independant contractor enter multiple horses for different owners? Certainly those different owners may have some hidden or speculative business relationship, perhaps even with the trainer. Why should the jockeys bear the sole burden of integrity in the game?
> For inevitably a conflict of interest scandal will arise.
> Jockey A, wearing advertising for a particular company will
> make a bad move on the track and get nosed at the wire. By a
> horse it turns out whose owner has major holdings in the
> company whose advertising Jockey A is being paid to wear.
So a jockey with \"McDonald\'s\" on his pants may be influenced to pull his horse up so that an \"investor\" in McDonald\'s owning or betting on a different horse can win a race and a purse or perhaps cash a bet? Though at the expense of the McDonald\'s backed superstar winning and missing the winner\'s circle ceremony where he would have said \"I think it\'s time for a Happy Healthy Meal\"? Now the thought that a jockey might throw a race is not a new concept, but throwing it over the mere fact that the jockey may have a McDonald\'s patch on his leg is. Should the jurisdictions speculate that far to come up with a reason why a Jockey can\'t endorse a product? Thats a novel conspiracy theory to say the least. Tenuous is too substantial a word for it.
> Now I\'m not saying that Jockey A necessarly did anything wrong.
> A lot of owners have a lot of business interests and it was
> probably just an innocent coinicidence. But in racing, because
> of the gambling aspect, perception is reality.
> And so now what? Owners are going to have to disclose all
> their financial holdings, and the holding of their immediate
> family members, to the Racing jurisdictions to insure there are
> no conflict of interests?
Lets stick to conflicts of interest that are apparent on their face. No one is saying a complete background check is necessary to insure integrity in the game. Its not and it won\'t.
> I don\'t think so. And in fact, I can think of nothing that
> would drive established money out of the game quicker than if
> reporters started investigating the owners finances every time
> they won a race.
Why do I think reporters won\'t be all over this issue?
> But on the other hand, maybe there will be races where the
> jockey\'s aren\'t so innocent. After all, it does seem to me
> that a sponsorship deal is a pretty clean and efficient way to
> launder a bribe.
We aren\'t talking sponsership yet, currently its just a matter of endorsements, but if jockeys could genuinely get sponserships like the golf pros do and get some perks out of an industry essentially void of them, that would be a positive developement. Regarding endorsements being bribes, no comment.
> No, jockeys must be held to a different standard of commericial
> ethics than other athletes because, well because they are
> jockeys.
A different standard than trainers? Why?
The definiton of their job demands the perception of
> complete allegiance to the connections who have hired them to
> ride in any particular race. Lose that, and they probably lose
> the public.
The public\'s still here despite Pletcher\'s multiple entries. If you want to control the wee folk make them employees. Pay them a wage and give them health benefits. Draw their names from a hat to determine who rides which horse. Otherwise, they are independant and its time for the courts to shake them loose from the constraints of the more powerful and greedy.