APPRENTICE RIDERS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 7, 8 July 1931, Page 7

APPRENTICE RIDERS

QUESTION OF PAYMENT

FEES NOW TOO HIGH ?

One of the revised Rules of Racing that JwSl probably be freely discussed at the annual meeting: of the New Zealand Racing Conference to-morrow week is .Rule which deals with jockeys' fees. The revised rule is ta ; aIL practical effect the r-ame as the present rule, but it is understood that certain changes in the scale of fees, will, be proposed with a view to bringing: them more into line with the present ability of the average owner to pay.

An amendment, however, that has not yet' been/ suggested as being likely to be made, but which nevertheless is much desiderated by owners, is that, a different scale o£ fees should be niud'e applicable to licensed jockeys and experienced apprentice jockey 3on the one, hand, and to inexperienced apprentice jockeys, on the other hand. There is a large body of opinion that believes that the present obligation to pay the, same fee to an experienced jockey or apprentice; jockey and to an inexperienced jockey is not in the best interests of the ypunger apprentices themselves, for under such a system of equal payment, few owners are willing to put an apprentice who has not yet had opportunity to prove himself in the saddle when the service. o£ an experienced rider is available. As a result the average apprentice is often a very long time in obtaining a real chance, and he is discouraged at the very tune when he should have most encouragement. As an apprentice jockey has, under both the present and the revised rules, an allowance of 51b in weight till he has ridden ten inners, and 31b till" he has ridden, twenty winners, but only in races that are not worth more than £250 to the winner, and with certain other specified exceptions, it would not be a reasonable suggestion that all apprentice jockeys should be obtainable at.a cheaper fee than licensed jockeys, for a rule in this form would then work to the detriment of the licensed jockeys, who are dependent on their riding for their living. A rule, however, that provided, say, for half tho scale fee till an apprentice jockey had ridden five, winners, and for three-quarter the scale fee till he had ridden ten winners, would not, it is submitted, have such detrimental effect. Moreover, the lads would be keener at the start of their riding careers, as they would not, so to speak, be on "Ml pay" till they could produce evidence of their worth. The advantage o£ such a rule would be that a trainer might then have reason for recommending the sendees of a stable apprentice to one of his patrons, and thus the younger of the apprentice riders would obtain the opportunities that come their way only very rarely now. Indeed, with some iof the lads, the only occasion on which they can now hope for a ride is when theh: employer has r horse of his own nomination in the race—and then often, only when there is another and more likely stable candidate also m the race, so that his winning, chance is only: just above zero. ■. , i The anomaly of the rule as it stands at present is obvious: a boy cannot obtain rides till he has proved himself; yet he cannot prove .himself till he obtains good rides. Owners themselves are probably much to blamo that first-class riding ability is now; concentrated in a small group of horsemen, for they always deraand the services o£ a proven rider, tor their horses. Nevertheless tho fault is scarcely theirs so much as it is that of the .rules. i , „ -,' There is, it is again submitted, a need for some differentiation in payment, so that owners might, have some inducement ■for putting up apprentice Jockeys who have given promise in their riding work but have not had the opportunity ot proving themselves in races. It is tho.opinion; of many of those who have to arrange. riding engagements that such differentia-j tion would mean the wider engagement.of j promising young apprentice jockeys, and would in the long run have the desirable effect of making the riding profession a. mare attractive one to youths than it is at present. ■ '