There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
at least until the end of 2022, 72% of jockeys voted to keep the 1 day rule to continue to improve mental and physical health.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 84
|
By:
that's a good move
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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...
|
|
By:
Definitely a good idea for the reasons already stated.
|
|
By:
It also helps climate change. No helicopters.
|
|
By:
It took over seven hours, but someone finally nailed it.
|
|
By:
Does anyone know why the 28% voted against their freedom to earn a living being curtailed?
#AskingForAFriend |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
@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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
@GEORGE.B -- I have already speculated it may be about fear of losing "their" mounts. See my earlier post.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 ...
|
|
By:
Are there any employment law experts in da house?
What would happen if this was challenged in the courts? Are competitions laws being breached? |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Excellent news , Seb Sanders talking rubbish. The 1 meeting a day rule helps younger jockeys and also spreads the rides around.
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
glad they done this
|
|
By:
Why?
|
|
By:
so it gives other jockeys a chance and some will be able to live on a decent wage for a change
|
|
By:
So the way to help jockeys earn a "decent wage" is by stopping them from riding at additional meetings?
Thank you, dcotor. |
|
By:
yes because they are greedy fckers who if had the chance would do three meetings if they could
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
so 72 percent of jockeys are wrong lol
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
they are everything to do with it
|
|
By:
so we don't live in a democracy ok
|
|
By:
when jockeys are banned, their income is restricted
banned under the rules of racing understand? |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
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 |