1 meeting a day for jockeys to stay

that's a good move

shares the work around, good for everyone, Buick's still got 8 rides today, over a grand in riding fees, but gives others a chance of surviving.

i think the whole industry should be like this stick to one job i.e a commentator should be a commentator a journalist a journalist a pundit a pundit a presenter to be a presenter or a jockeys agent a jockeys agent a paid newspaper tipster to be be just a paid newspaper tipster
it will give the workers better mental health more jobs available more chances for others and stop certain greedy barstewards milking the sport dry one job should be enough
plus it would be better for the viewers not seeing the same faces every time you watch racing.

I think its a wonderful idea and will help some jockeys from burnout, I have often drove for 5 or six days while racing in England when on holiday and boy do I be tired after a week of driving . They often have to ride out several lots before heading for the motorway poor sods . Then its late or early morning before they arrive home . Its a tough life...

Definitely a good idea for the reasons already stated.

It also helps climate change. No helicopters.

It took over seven hours, but someone finally nailed it.

Does anyone know why the 28% voted against their freedom to earn a living being curtailed?

#AskingForAFriend

28% of Flat jockeys is not an insignificant percentage, yet the RP's report on this is just so one sided, with no questions asked as to why over a quarter of Flat jockeys were against having this restriction on their freedom to earn a living being imposed upon them.

Dunno but it's swings and roundabouts. One meeting a day means Fred can't take rides at a second meeting but it also means that Frankie or Ryan won't be flying in to jock him off.

My guess is that some jockeys might be worried about losing "their" regular rides if connections prefer the replacement.

And 72:28 is a huge margin. Brexit was only 52:48.

As to the RP, maybe if it had rung round a random selection of jockeys, maybe it could not find anyone who felt strongly enough to put their head above the parapet, though knowing the Post, I suspect they never bothered. But note this is an old survey the PJA quoted, so not news. A better question might be what was the verdict of jump jockeys.

And let's put this into context, we're mainly talking a busy four month period in the summer (so maybe it is more relevant to Flat jockeys) when they have a chance to, shall we say, make hay while the sun shines.

This has to be balanced against there being a near-5 month period when there is no turf racing and a lot of jockeys will struggle to get rides when there is just one meeting or maybe two a day.

@GEORGE.B -- "This has to be balanced against there being a near-5 month period when there is no turf racing and a lot of jockeys will struggle to get rides when there is just one meeting or maybe two a day."

Yes and the continued restriction to one meeting a day will mean more jockeys get rides because there won't be half a dozen jocks riding at both afternoon and evening meetings. This helps the poor, struggling riders you care about.

Ramruma, as per usual, regurgitating what he's brainwashed with and told to think.

Then answer the question ffs, as you seem to know a lot about it.

Why did over a quarter of Flat jockeys vote against their freedom to earn a living being curtailed?

No more of your waffle please, try giving a direct answer to that question.

would imagine it's good for jockeys health and wellbeing
but also on the other hand their earning power is being
taken away.
Should really be up to the individual if they want to ride
at 2 meetings,not imposed on them.

@GEORGE.B -- I have already speculated it may be about fear of losing "their" mounts. See my earlier post.

What would be interesting to know is: what percentage of the 28% who voted against this restriction being imposed upon them, and remember they are largely self-employed people, fall into the bottom 25% of jockey earners.

I would speculate that it will be a high percentage of them.

bit pointless putting it to a vote when only a handful of the top jockeys stand to gain from being able to ride at more than 1 meeting a day ...

Are there any employment law experts in da house?

What would happen if this was challenged in the courts?

Are competitions laws being breached?

I agree with the decision. It is only jockeys who are chasing after the championship or those whose owner/trainer retainers oblige them to drive at 90 mph between courses who want the old system to continue. Some will regret not being able to ride a horse that they have always ridden before but that has always been an issue. Don't forget that not so long ago, all jockeys were confined to work riding for 2-4 months between seasons unless they rode abroad.

And by the way, this had already being dealt with by imposing the 9 meeting a week rule on jockeys.

But now they're not letting a good crisis go to waste and they're enforcing the one meeting rule, which was only meant to last during the covid restrictions.

So what next, they can only ride at 6 meetings a week and must take one day off a week, because we say it's beneficial for mental health?

See it's all "incremental"

A bit like: oh, just just 3 weeks to flatten the curve... to having the jab or else you're not coming in.

Excellent news , Seb Sanders talking rubbish. The 1 meeting a day rule helps younger jockeys and also spreads the rides around.

So anyone who thought that when they brought in the 9-meeting a week rule, that was the end of the restrictions imposed on jockeys' freedom to make a living as they pleased, well they were wrong.

And the 9 meeting rule largely applied to the summer months and in effect meant travelling to an extra two or three evening meetings a week.

But now they've gone a step further and imposed more restrictions on self-employed jockeys' right to earn a living as they choose.

So what's coming next, you have to take one day off a week? Two days off a week?

glad they done this

Why?

so it gives other jockeys a chance and some will be able to live on a decent wage for a change

So the way to help jockeys earn a "decent wage" is by stopping them from riding at additional meetings?

Thank you, dcotor.

yes because they are greedy fckers who if had the chance would do three meetings if they could

George
You're right. Why would someone vote to have their chances of earning an income curtailed. It could well be better for someone as an individual to go to one meeting only but that's their choice and nothing was stopping them before. A balnket rule is nonsense and goescagainst freedom of choice. It's up to the individual what they do.

this freedom of choice argument is total bs...they are licenced professionals governed by the rules of racing
they can't just do as they please

so 72 percent of jockeys are wrong lol

Indeed, Joe, and as I've pointed out, this had already apparently been "dealt with" by the first restrictions placed upon jockeys by the 9-meeting rule, which when you think about it, in reality only meant an extra two or three meetings  a week and largely during the summer months.

But they didn't stop there, and I suspect this isn't the end of it either.

wondersobright, you can bet for 7 hours on here a day. When those seven hours are up, we are going to log you out.

We've had a vote on it and we've decided it's what's best for your mental health.

Wonder, that is nonsense. The rules of racing are just that. They have nothing to do where a self employed person chooses to earn a living. As for why 72% voted for it I can only assume they're stupid. Like I say nothing stopped them sticking to one before...it was the individuals choice. Why would someone vote to have more restrictive working practices imposed on them?

they are everything to do with it

so we don't live in a democracy ok

when jockeys are banned, their income is restricted
banned under the rules of racing

understand?

Lets take an example. Oisin Murphy has a full book of rides at Lingfield in the afternoon and his retainer has a well bred 2yo running at Windsor in the evening. This means he can't even go to Windsor for one ride unless he doesn't go to Lingfield. Crazy. Won't be that popular to say it but lazy and mediocre people vote for things like this. Why should hard working people be stopped from earning what they see fit as a self employed person.

Aug 26, 2021 -- 2:06PM, wondersobright wrote:

when jockeys are banned, their income is restrictedbanned under the rules of racingunderstand?

do you understand or not?

jockeys are not comparable to self employed workers for the reasons already explained
they are licenced professionals governed by the rules of racing, they don't do as they please

so its ok for a jockey to earn say 250,000 and another jockey 12,000

Wonder of course I understand I'm saying the rule is nonsense and shouldn't be implemented. Nobody is stopping somebody sticking to one meeting. I'm interested that you think more restrictive working practices are a good thing. Does an individual jockey not know his own mind? Does the decision need taking for him/her.

wondersobright 26 Aug 21 13:11 
jockeys are not comparable to self employed workers for the reasons already explained

That is not for you to decide, it would be for a court of law to decide.

Why is it myself and George seem to be the only ones who can see this for what it is. A rigid rule where before the individual could choose. Those who voted for it likely wouldn't have gone to two meetings anyway. Restrict hard woking people for the benifit of the mediocre. I bet there's plenty who voted against it who aren't happy. Loads of professions have a registered body and must adhere to a set of rules. But telling someone where they can earn a living is an overarching set to far and a slippery slope. The way Dr Atkins is talking he'd like a salary cap to.

I'm interested that you think more restrictive working practices are a good thing.

I haven't even expressed an opinion on it

we have jockeys who are good but don't get the rides and we have others who ass lick and get loads of rides best thing ever to happen one meeting only now we see how good some of these so called good jockeys ride

I'm with you on this doc

plus it brings on jockeys who are starting out  look at probert do you think he be getting these rides if jockeys were to ride 2 or 3 meetings a day done him the power of good one meeting rule

its done everybody good doc, not just jockeys

jockeys have a duty of care to everybody to arrive at a meeting fresh, have a run around the track take note of rail movements, see best ground etc
give time for trainer and/or owner feedback after a ride
media commitments

licenced professionals now acting as professionals
times have moved on for the better imo

Until the 9 meeting a week rule came in, jockeys were free to ride at whichever meetings they chose to.

What hard evidence do you have that this was ever a problem?

so again are 72 percent of jockeys who said its improved mental and physical health wrong george b

Aug 26, 2021 -- 2:36PM, dr . atkins wrote:

so again are 72 percent of jockeys who said its improved mental and physical health wrong george b

you can't reason with a booby

like most on here wonders i have found

Then they are free to choose which and how many meetings they ride at, Dr Atkins.

Just as the 28% who are against having their right to earn a living impaired by these *FURTHER* restrictions, should be.

Aug 26, 2021 -- 2:38PM, dr . atkins wrote:

like most on here wonders i have found

yep

I'd imagine some Jockeys are pleased at not having to be 'forced' to ride at 2 meetings and can have some down time. Stable jockeys and retained jockeys must be happy with the rule. I'm sure some felt under huge pressure to be doing double stints and couldn't say no.

I wholeheartedly agree with the decision and it's a very sensible one. Seb Sanders made a right ' you know what' of himself earlier today I thought.

@GEORGE.B -- "What would be interesting to know is: what percentage of the 28% who voted against this restriction being imposed upon them, and remember they are largely self-employed people, fall into the bottom 25% of jockey earners.

I would speculate that it will be a high percentage of them."

Perhaps but I doubt it. In 2018, the jockeys who had most days riding at multiple meetings were (E&OE):-

Luke Morris
Tom Marquand
Nicola Currie
Oisin Murphy
David Probert

Rossa Ryan
Hollie Doyle
Kieran O'Neill
Charles Bishop
Silverstre de Souza


So basically it looks like the rule restricts the top jockeys most, not struggling journeymen.

And in no way answers the question.

If "struggling journeymen" could pick up two rides at Lingfield and then pick up two more at Kempton, for example, they've doubled their income.

They can no longer do this under the restrictions now placed on them by the PJA / BHA, and their ability to earn a fair and reasonable living as self-employed people is being inhibited.

And by the way, these arguments about "mental health", were dealt with by the "middle ground" of a 9-meeting week cap.

But they didn't stop there and I don't they've finished yet.

I wonder how many jockeys didn't want the nine-meeting cap a week, but were persuaded to accept the "middle ground", and see, give an inch...

@GEORGE.B -- stop tugging at our heartstrings with tales of journeymen doubling their incomes. The figures show it is overwhelmingly the top band who were doing this. It may well be the journeymen get more rides now that the top jockeys are restricted.

And who is this mysterious "they" imposing restrictions? It seems to be the jockeys themselves.

Journeymen jockeys vote to impose restrictions so that they limit the choice of their more skilled and hard working rivals. It's not that the journeymen wanted to ride at a second meeting it's just they didn't want the 28% to have that chance. Let the mediocre and lazy decide the rules for everyone. Makes perfect sense.

Ramruma 26 Aug 21 14:34 
@GEORGE.B -- stop tugging at our heartstrings with tales of journeymen doubling their incomes. The figures show it is overwhelmingly the top band who were doing this. It may well be the journeymen get more rides now that the top jockeys are restricted.

And who is this mysterious "they" imposing restrictions? It seems to be the jockeys themselves.

You're not the brightest, are you?

Several posts from me on this thread and you still think it's all about me "caring" for jockeys.

Well let me put you right on this, it matters not what the profession is, the point being made here are that freedoms are being eroded, jockeys who were once free to ride at whichever meetings they chose to, have in a two step move, been prevented from riding at more than one meeting a day.

Some presumably were 'tricked' into thinking the 9 meeting cap a week was the end of it. Not so and it may not end here.

@GEORGE.B re freedoms being eroded.

Freedoms are eroded all the time. Normally this is to gain other benefits. In today's paper is a case of a jockey being banned for using coke. Jockeys' freedom to take recreational drugs is restricted.

Jockeys' freedom to take rides across Europe was restricted by both Brexit and by Covid. In this particular case of one meeting a day, the people choosing to erode jockeys' freedom are the jockeys themselves, whereas Brexit and Covid restrictions were imposed upon them from outside.

I'm struggling to see any great point of principle here.

Let me take you through this in a 3 point stage

1. In the not too distant past, jockeys were FREE to ride at whichever meetings they chose to. Some even riding at three meetings a day on the odd occasion.

2. Then, under the guise of "mental health", "middle ground" was found between those jockeys who found riding at more than one meeting a day a burden, and those who wanted to keep their FREEDOM to ride at whichever meeting they chose to.

3. Now after being told that while the covid restrictions were in place, jockeys could ride at no more than one meeting a day, they're now being told that despite restrictions being lifted, they are NO LONGER FREE to ride at more than one meeting a day, because it's good for their mental health not to.

If we're to believe the numbers we're being told, a significant percentage of jockeys are NOT HAPPY that their FREEDOM to earn a live has been curtailed in this way.

I would say there is a potential welfare issue with jockeys wasting etc then driving long distances. For them, and other road users. However it's not easy to police. As has been pointed out, a journey between two local courses could be far easier than a long trip to one. Then of course they share transport, or get driven/flown. Some of them are riding abroad and then riding here essentially with no breaks at all.

Cider makes some very valid points , I have had the honour if you can call it that of being in some top jockeys company for many years and to watch the struggles some of them have been through is very sad. Several struggled with their weight , others for rides. I see were George is coming from on the freedom side, but overall I really think most jockeys heaved a sigh of relief...

With the jumps especially, they can take some crunching falls, and then have to drive home for hours, maybe in the dark/poor weather. It's hard to see sometimes how some of them cope with the grind.

I've just heard what Seb Sanders and four of the jockeys had to say.

I not sure what the criticism of Seb Sanders is all about, he basically said jockeys have a window of opportunity in the summer to make a decent living and this is being denied to some of them. Yeah, and he's been there, man!

Of the four jockeys they interviewed in the clip, two were Jim Crowley and William Buick, obviously on the bones of the 'Rses and about to go skint any time soon. Yeah, right.

Millionaire jocks in don't fancy two meetings a day shocker

But the most interesting comments came from David Egan. What an articulate and intelligent young man. "Mixed feelings in the weighing room".

John Egan gave his thoughts on RTV Replay, and he was talking in terms of "restriction of trade to some extent", using the analogy that it's like a plumber has been to your house, so he can't go to your neighbours.

Also pointed pointed out, for example, that some jocks on a Friday evening have to drive past the July course in order to get home, and it wouldn't be a bother to pick up a couple of rides.

I've heard that before, when asked about going to another meeting, they might have said "it's on the way home".


But the major point to me is this, middle ground had been found on this through the 9 meetings a week cap, and we're not talking 12 months a year, predominantly the summer evening racing, but they saw an opportunity to place further restrictions on the freedoms of jockeys to freely earn a living, and they've managed to convince them it's for the sake of their mental health.

“The PJA conducted a comprehensive jockey welfare survey earlier this year,WITH ALMOST HALF THE MEMBERSHIP RESPONDING. The one meeting a day rule was one area we asked members about. The clear message, particularly from Flat jockeys, was that there had been significant benefits to Jockeys from the rule, which for most outweighed any negatives and that the majority, including 72% of Flat jockeys, wanted the rule to remain."


Puts a slightly different angle on it....so it was 72% of the less than half that responded !!....if the majority of the other 50+% did not want to be restricted I bet they really regret not filling in the survey. The above was followed by

“Based on the survey results, the PJA board had no hesitation in asking the BHA to take this step, and I am sure that the vast majority of the membership will be pleased that it remains in place throughout 2022.”


I would have hoped that they had "no hesitation" in putting the survey out again, urging as many of the other 50+ % to fill it in, stressing the importance of the decision to all that will be made as a result of the findings.

Thanks for posting, layemall. very interesting.

So let me get my head around this.

There was no "vote"?

The PJA put out a "survey", with questions worded in a certain way?

Less than half of its members responded, but based on the replies they got to whichever way the questions had been worded, they then got their mates at the BHA to make a rule change restricting to an extent the freedoms of jockeys to maximise their earnings, and assumed the other 50%+ would be happy with this?

Have I missed anything here?

Joe asked this excellent question earlier on the thread:

Joe Lampton 26 Aug 21 13:04 
Wonder, that is nonsense. The rules of racing are just that. They have nothing to do where a self employed person chooses to earn a living. As for why 72% voted for it I can only assume they're stupid. Like I say nothing stopped them sticking to one before...it was the individuals choice. Why would someone vote to have more restrictive working practices imposed on them?

I think we know the answer now, Joe. They did not.

Covid will be your epitah for me George

Used to think you were a decent poster on here back in the day when ya talked sense about racing  but you hav completely lost the plot in past 18mths since covid came about - just my opinion though so divnt upset me wiv a comeback that i wont agree wiv

ffs you hav one big agenda wiv arl this sh1t - i even noticed your post on footy forum but lets face it you and the otha nutters that belittle this covid project  need a taste of real life -its out there its killing people and i for one will still wear the face nappy until its time not to.

Been to the chemo unit today/yesterday now after i post this cos of an NHS fook up -was meant to hav it two days ago and yes i was p1ssed off cos of the fook up but guess wot they were short staffed cos of the "covid project" as were they today but despie wot most of the loons on here might think about the NHS until you need em you do not hav the tiniest inkling wot they put up wiv and go thru on a daily basis .


Of course you will come back and spout off some more shyte that you hav read on social media but therein givs Shearer as i still am an open goal - spoke to a guy on my ward today who was having his 1st ever bout of treatment and was planning to go to work tomorrow -self employed joiner so needs muny coming in - but gud look wiv that project cos it aint happening or he wont last the full day  - he had to watch me throwing up only ten mins into my latest sesh and that was b4 the chemo started so the poor fooker must hav thort wot he had let himself in for  and he telt me about his own son and  his girlfriend who are anti jabbers and he has telt his own son to look for a new roof to live in .

All real life mate and not a this or that and i apologise for ranting on too  if any regulars read  but we all hav **** days

Forget blacklivesmatter
#reallivesmatter


lets hav a bit of johnny and deacon to end the night  but not b4 ya luv me

i only added the smileys cos i hav the brain of an  elephant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ogUKZXBMUQ

Theres always been a message in evry song George



I cud go on but i only deal wiv real life issues and i cud put up a million smileys or links to youtube songs - you dont mean nothing to me by nellie but its been a **** day

The best song that cud eva hav hit the forum but some..... no most didnt believe


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv0efmUKP9s


ooooosssss for the mouse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L7GMKClsTg

and for the sunblest man

i luv ya man

tough day but we are still going

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsr9HCOgQe0

Heated debate could be on cards but PJA wants racecourse saunas to stay closed
Jockeys: Britain's weighing room saunas have been closed since racing resumed last June
Jockeys: Britain's weighing room saunas have been closed since racing resumed last June
Alan Crowhurst
1 of 1
By Lee Mottershead
7:00AM, AUG 27 2021
 
The Professional Jockeys Association hopes racecourse saunas will be permanently consigned to the past as it awaits a decision that will significantly influence the way riders manage their weight.

As a result of Covid requirements, Britain's weighing room saunas have been closed since the sport resumed last June, with jockeys instead handed a new 3lb weight allowance.

The BHA and PJA this week revealed the protocol limiting jockeys to one meeting a day will continue through 2022. However, it is believed extending the sauna ban and associated weight concession could be more complicated, with a BHA spokesperson stating that the imminent consultation process is set to highlight "a variety of views" among different stakeholders.

Speaking to the Racing Post earlier this year, Jamie Spencer welcomed the sauna ban, and said: "I would say the saunas won't ever come back – and they shouldn't come back, either.

"If you're taking off weight 15 minutes before a race your brain is frazzled. It affects your temper as well. People who would previously have snapped very easily have become much more level. You don't see fellas as angry as they used to be. It would be ridiculous to go back to the old ways."


Jamie Spencer: "It would be ridiculous to go back to the old ways"
Jamie Spencer: "It would be ridiculous to go back to the old ways"
Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
Echoing those comments on Thursday, Dale Gibson, PJA executive director (racing), said: "Without trying to imply nobody else should have a say on this, the vast majority of the input should come from jockeys because it's a jockey welfare issue.

"The riders have got used to not having saunas and, as somebody said to me recently, why would you dehydrate yourself ten minutes before going out to ride?

Jamie Spencer: 'If you don't like the way I ride, don't bet on me or don't book me for a ride' (Members' Club)

"I was lucky, in that I didn't have to get into a sauna in 24 years, but lots of other people have needed them and used them for their weight management. Helped by the three-pound allowance, and combined with the one-meeting protocol, those people are now better for having saunas taken away from them."

Gibson added: "Whether or not the allowance remains at three pounds is debatable, but I feel it has to be a minimum of two pounds because one pound is neither here nor there."



Dual champion jockey Oisin Murphy has given his take on the one-meeting protocol, arguing it has positives and negatives.

Murphy said: "It opens up opportunities for lots of riders, and for the vast majority it's brilliant, but it can be a little frustrating when Qatar Racing or Andrew Balding have horses at an afternoon and evening meeting.

"I wouldn't want to take chances away from other riders, I just like to be working a little harder than I'm allowed to. It's perhaps better for our mental health but every jockey thrives off success and winners."

smirnoff2therescue26 Aug 21 23:37
i even noticed your post on footy forum

Yes, about the young Irish footballer. What was your problem with the post?

Oisin has summed it up perfectly. He is the current champion at the peak of his powers and willing to travel from dawn to dusk to ride winners but he is an exception and his statement recognises that other jockeys are putting their health at risk by chasing around the country for rides. It really stems from the UK's racing programme when there is no real plan to coordinate meetings in an area or to have extended meetings. I know many are opposed to extending Ascot, Goodwood, York (and Cheltenham over jumps) but Santa Anita can happily run the Breeders Cup as 2 big days in a 30 day "meet", Saratoga race for a few weeks, Deauville can race nearly every day in August with the Group 1 races spaced out between run of the mill cards, why can't we? That way, stable staff, trainers and assistants, jockeys and BHA employees can greatly reduce travel and expense. I know that turf tracks can only take a limited number of races so put all weather alternatives in the mix as Lingfield can do.

It seems crazy stopping a jockey going from a Lingield to Sandown/Kempton or between 2 Yorkshire tracks esp. when they have a driver. It used to  make the championship chase a bit more exciting if it really ever was.

Makes everybody safer with one meeting for all rides. I have lost count of times I've seen lunatics driving away from the tracks at ridiculous speeds to get to the other meeting on time.

Oisin Murphy and Paul Kealy briefly discuss it at about 11'30" on this week's Racing Post What A Shout video.
https://youtu.be/X6w21O_EXE0?t=690s

Interesting that Ramruma, Murphy can ride in France or Ireland and come back to the U.K. to ride here in the same day but not  as he said, Ascot and Salisbury.

I do like Oisin Murphy,  not only as a jockey but he's very articulate and professional when he gives interviews.