KENTUCKY
NOTEBOOK
NOVEMBER 12
by Steve Moody
Jockey insurance flap a “Lose, Lose, Lose,
Lose” situation
Churchill Downs’ fall meet is traditionally one of the best in
the country. Full fields are the rule, not the exception, during
the four or five-week meet which runs through most of November.
The last bit of turf racing for the calendar year in Kentucky
provides owners one last opportunity to run their horses before
taking the winter off or going south. Full fields means very
competitive racing and lots of big prices, both on winners and
exotic bets, which are becoming more and more popular with
horseplayers.
But just when you start to think things are going reasonably
well in the racing world, along comes another obstacle.
Churchill Downs had over 26,000 in on-track attendance over
the weekend with good weather in the Louisville area. Sunday’s
attendance of 15,999 was the largest single-day crowd outside of
Kentucky Derby week since 2002 before the construction at the
Downs began. Total wagering for the two-day period topped $18
million while on-track wagering came in over $2.3 million.
Favorites prevailed in the two-year-old stakes races contested on
Saturday while a big upset in Sunday’s Churchill Downs Distaff
(G2) helped to keep the Pick-6 from being hit yet again, leaving
a carryover pool in excess of $140,000 for Wednesday’s card.
What many fans in attendance or betting from home didn’t
realize, however, was that trouble started brewing with
Wednesday’s overnight card. Entries for Wednesday were drawn on
Sunday morning and several of the meet’s top riders instructed
their agents that they would not accept any mounts in protest of
what they felt was insufficient insurance coverage. Fourteen
riders in all and four of the top six in the standings refused to
accept mounts.
The riders’ refusals coming during the middle of the meet was
where the whole process begins to break down.
There’s no question that the riders should have adequate
insurance protection and the current $100,000 policy limit is not
enough in case of a serious or debilitating accident. Riders like
Pat Day and Jerry Bailey carry supplemental coverage on
themselves and they pay the additional premium themselves. Bailey
reported that he carries a $2 million disability policy, which
costs him $10,000 a year.
Churchill Downs realized this and found an insurer who would
provide medical coverage up to $5,000,000 for $100-$220 a month
based on the rider’s age. When Churchill President Steve Sexton
met with riders on Sunday night, the supplemental package was
presented to them along with an ultimatum to ride or get out.
Although Churchill Downs is not required to pay the premiums
on a jockey’s current insurance, they do so because they
understand the obvious importance of the riders to the game and
it benefits them to have the best jockey colony possible.
Churchill Downs and other TRA-member tracks also pay $2.2 million
to the Jockeys’ Guild, which supposedly is to be used to provide
insurance coverage to members. If the jockeys are upset with
their insurance situation, it would seem their first mission
would be to find out where that annual payment of $2.2 million
goes.
After all, it was jockeys who went to court last spring and
won the right to wear advertising logos. They demonstrated they
were independent contractors and not employees of the racetrack.
The court correctly agreed with them. Well, you can’t have it
both ways. You can’t claim to be an independent contractor when
it comes to making money and then want to be covered like an
employee when it comes to spending money on things like
insurance. That’s a cost of doing business. Trainers buy
insurance for themselves and their employees. Jockeys shouldn’t
expect or demand that someone else pick up their tab.
Insurance for riders is not just a local problem, but rather
industry-wide and nationwide. Five racing states cover riders
under workman’s compensation laws while others, including
Kentucky, do not. Gov. Ernie Fletcher was scheduled to meet with
members of the Jockeys’ Guild to discuss the situation, although
it would be foolish to think swift action would be forthcoming.
The wheels of politics tend to move slowly if at all.
Unfortunately, this latest flap is likely just the first of
many. You can expect to see similar confrontations at other
racetracks across the country in states where riders aren’t
covered by workman’s compensation. Until an industry-wide
solution is hammered out, it’s losing situation for all
concerned.
The jockeys who refuse to ride are losing business as well as
alienating owners and trainers. The racetracks where riders are
boycotting are unable to showcase the best riders possible as
well as losing business because bettors are reluctant to back
horses as strongly or at all with an 8 percent rider is aboard as
opposed to a jockey who wins at an 18 percent clip. Lastly, the
industry as a whole absorbs another body blow and receives more
negative publicity, the last thing it needs in the
ultra-competitive battle for gaming dollars.