not such a bad idea IMO - Page 2

Cannon Shell · #21 02-04-2007, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paisjpq

I agree with what you are saying...but to lplay devil's advocate...look at it from another perspective...the jockey didn't know that the horse he was on was going to test and he fufilled his obligation to ride the horse to the best of his ability...so why should he get screwed out of purse money when he didn't do anything wrong?

Because the horse he rode was not eligible to earn money. By DQing the horse you are effectively saying that the horse is not eligible because he has an UNFAIR advantage. Has nothing to do with the jockey or obligation to ride. What if the gate opens a half secong early and the horse is deemed a non starter like what happened in Ohio last sumer. Should the jock still get paid his share of the purse?
If the bank makes a mistake and spits out an extra $1000 at the ATM can you keep it?

MaTH716 · #22 02-04-2007, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paisjpq

I agree with what you are saying...but to lplay devil's advocate...look at it from another perspective...the jockey didn't know that the horse he was on was going to test and he fufilled his obligation to ride the horse to the best of his ability...so why should he get screwed out of purse money when he didn't do anything wrong?

This might be a little off topic, but what happens when a jockey screws the trainers and owners by giving crappy rides or getting DQ'd for careless riding or interference. I understand they lose business, but what if the owners demanded part of the purse that they lost. Like in the Top Flight when Rahys' Appeal was DQ's because Alan Garcia hit Malibu Mint in the face with the whip. The stewards made a poor decesion, but still the owners lost out on some dollars. In the grand scheme of it all, who get screwed more? The owners and trainers because of the jocks? Or the other way around?

Cannon Shell · #23 02-04-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

This might be a little off topic, but what happens when a jockey screws the trainers and owners by giving crappy rides or getting DQ'd for careless riding or interference. I understand they lose business, but what if the owners demanded part of the purse that they lost. Like in the Top Flight when Rahys' Appeal was DQ's because Alan Garcia hit Malibu Mint in the face with the whip. The stewards made a poor decesion, but still the owners lost out on some dollars. In the grand scheme of it all, who get screwed more? The owners and trainers because of the jocks? Or the other way around?

good point.

paisjpq · #24 02-04-2007, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

This might be a little off topic, but what happens when a jockey screws the trainers and owners by giving crappy rides or getting DQ'd for careless riding or interference. I understand they lose business, but what if the owners demanded part of the purse that they lost. Like in the Top Flight when Rahys' Appeal was DQ's because Alan Garcia hit Malibu Mint in the face with the whip. The stewards made a poor decesion, but still the owners lost out on some dollars. In the grand scheme of it all, who get screwed more? The owners and trainers because of the jocks? Or the other way around?

a direct act...like giving a horse an illegal medication is different than a bad call by the stewards or a crap ride...IMO
I'm not saying that you're argument doesn't have merit...but judgement calls that don't go your way shouldn't be looked at the same as violations of stated medication rules...

Cannon Shell · #25 02-04-2007, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paisjpq

a direct act...like giving a horse an illegal medication is different than a bad call by the stewards or a crap ride...IMO
I'm not saying that you're argument doesn't have merit...but judgement calls that don't go your way shouldn't be looked at the same as violations of stated medication rules...

What is a more direct act than bearing out into another horse or hitting them in the face with a whip. How do you know that a positive test was the result of a direct act?

Danzig · #26 02-04-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paisjpq

I agree with what you are saying...but to lplay devil's advocate...look at it from another perspective...the jockey didn't know that the horse he was on was going to test and he fufilled his obligation to ride the horse to the best of his ability...so why should he get screwed out of purse money when he didn't do anything wrong?

it's an interesting debate. on the one hand, you have a jock who rode a winner, and did his job-on the other, had the horse not been aided, would he have won? if you assume he would not have, the jockey wouldn't receive his share, as the horse wouldn't have won. but if you assume the horse would have won, then the jock is screwed...
but if the trainer has to pay out-then in future, maybe he wouldn't aid the horse, and let the best one win-rather than make the attempt, and pay out the jocks portion because of dishonesty or carelessness.

but knowing how unions work, the guild i would assume gets paid a portion of jocks earnings...so if two jocks get that portion, they get double too-right? good for the guild!

Danzig · #27 02-04-2007, 01:05 PM

oh boy...

yeah, a HUGE can of worms opening here....

paisjpq · #28 02-04-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What is a more direct act than bearing out into another horse or hitting them in the face with a whip. How do you know that a positive test was the result of a direct act?

maybe my wording was wrong or unclear...I meant a deliberate act (I realize some race riding tactics are deliberate, but not all of them are and that is why there are stewards--good or bad--to decide if there was intent)...and I guess the medications that I am referring to are the kind that would have to be the result of a bad act (and the trainer responsibilty means it falls on you guys)...

MaTH716 · #29 02-04-2007, 01:28 PM

It is an interesting issue. But would it really happen on the major circuits? Could you guys really see John Velazquez asking Todd Pletcher to give him the purse money from an allowance race at Belmont because the horse got flagged? Mind you, I use those two names purely as an EXAMPLE. I think it could be an issue for some of these jocks at these small time tracks where the purses are really not that big.

Danzig · #30 02-04-2007, 01:30 PM

how quickly is purse money paid out and then divvied up? is it immediate, or do the connections hold the check til everything comes out.
it would suck to be the jock who gets paid, spends said money, and then has to pay it back when the test comes back bad.

#31 02-04-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paisjpq

perhaps it wouldn't truly 'hurt' the big trainers but the message it sends is the same...

the biggest problem with it would be trying to reason out the 'accidental' overages and the blatant abuse of illegal medications...ie a bute positive vs. a mepivicaine positive...they are not the same thing and should not be looked at the same...a rule like this probably creates more chaos than solution...

It's a good thing I'm not "god of racing," because I would be a real pain in the you-know-what, lol.

I'm against raceday medications of almost every kind. Bute, for example, has it's place in the equine world. If I need to quickly reduce inflammation, I drop a dose of bute in their feed, but beyond that I don't use the stuff. It's hard on kidneys and hard on the equine tummy - one of my personal show horses is quite colic prone, and bute is only ever used for him in an emergency situation (i.e. a puncture wound suffered last summer).

I don't think racehorses should be allowed to run on bute or banamine, and I don't think horses should be allowed to run on Lasix unless they're a proven bleeder. I never liked the idea of Lasix... but that's another debate for another time.

Like I said, I'm one of those "no tolerance" kind of people, which is sometimes good and sometimes... not so much. I could go into a 5 page long ramble on all kinds of alternatives for medications, but this isn't the place or time, lol. In fact, I think my "Strike 3" theory is pretty tolerant, compared to what I'd REALLY like to do.

sumitas · #32 02-04-2007, 02:48 PM

I still like the idea of a track pharmacy. All medicines for the horses must come from the parmacy and be recorded. Any substances found that cannot be documented, yer DQd and punished. This should be required for all tracks.

Left Bank · #33 02-04-2007, 02:57 PM

The way I see the guild taking this is the good old american way:SUE THE BASTARDS!

Honu · #34 02-04-2007, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This idea is one of the most shallow attempts by the Jockeys Guild to extort money yet.

If a horse comes up positive it is DQed because it supposedly was artificially enhanced and had an advantage over the other horses in the race. If this is true then why should the jockey benefit?

Because the jockey fullfilled his or her engagement by showing up , pulling weight , taking the risk and riding the race. Ive had it happen to me when I was riding , the trainer got a bad test and the next week they took it out of my paycheck, I didnt do anything wrong , infact I did everything right and so now Im going to get screwed out of my money that I earned because the trainer was a bonehead.

MaTH716 · #35 02-04-2007, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu

Because the jockey fullfilled his or her engagement by showing up , pulling weight , taking the risk and riding the race. Ive had it happen to me when I was riding , the trainer got a bad test and the next week they took it out of my paycheck, I didnt do anything wrong , infact I did everything right and so now Im going to get screwed out of my money that I earned because the trainer was a bonehead.

As a rider did you ever know or have suspicions that one of the trainers that you were ridng for was illegally medicating some of his horses that you might or might not have been riding?

Cannon Shell · #36 02-04-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu

Because the jockey fullfilled his or her engagement by showing up , pulling weight , taking the risk and riding the race. Ive had it happen to me when I was riding , the trainer got a bad test and the next week they took it out of my paycheck, I didnt do anything wrong , infact I did everything right and so now Im going to get screwed out of my money that I earned because the trainer was a bonehead.

Yes you earned your riding fee but you do not deserve the winners purse because the horse you rode had AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE that has nothing to do with you or anything that you did. It does not matter if you rode well or fulfilling your obligations it is about the the fact that the horse was illegally enhanced therefore anything that the horse does is moot.

Cannon Shell · #37 02-04-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig188

it's an interesting debate. on the one hand, you have a jock who rode a winner, and did his job-on the other, had the horse not been aided, would he have won? if you assume he would not have, the jockey wouldn't receive his share, as the horse wouldn't have won. but if you assume the horse would have won, then the jock is screwed...
but if the trainer has to pay out-then in future, maybe he wouldn't aid the horse, and let the best one win-rather than make the attempt, and pay out the jocks portion because of dishonesty or carelessness.

but knowing how unions work, the guild i would assume gets paid a portion of jocks earnings...so if two jocks get that portion, they get double too-right? good for the guild!

Guild is not a union