Even when we take the purely commercial side of racing, in which the sole object is to bring off a betting coup, we see no reason why the jockey should be made a party to the pecuniary gains. It is, of course, the common custom to make him a party by putting him on so much to win. But why? Surely, looked at dispassionately, five guineas is a very nice reward for riding a race. The question of trying or not trying is, of course, quite outside the question. The jockey who does not try when he is being paid to do so is a thief, pure and simple. Consequently, when a jockey is being bribed by promise of extra reward to try, he is merely being educated to be a thief. Why should one be compelled to say, as one practically is, “If you win I will give you so and so?” The assumption should always be that when a jockey mounts a horse he will do his utmost to win: whatever the practice may be, this is the only tenable theory. But we may set aside the proposition of trying and not trying, and come to the position of a jockey not riding at all except at a certain fee. This position is one which the owners themselves only can deal with, and here, I fancy, the Racehorse Owners’ Association, if ever they come to consider the question, will meet a serious stumbling block. The strength of those owners, racing chiefly for sport, whom, purely for the sake of convenience, I will call the Jockey Club circle, is that they do not meet in fevered competition for the services of jockeys. Here we find the distance between master and man kept as wide as it should be, and as it was in the past. The two parties concerned do not meet on the same plane as is the case when mere money is at issue and the end is considered justified by any kind of means. For the state of things at which we have arrived owners must be considered solely to blame, for they have the remedy in their own hands. No fault can reasonably be found with the jockeys for making what hay they can whilst the sun shines. Owners are not unjustifiably complaining of the heavy expenses of racing. Is not the heavy expense of jockeys an item worthy of consideration?
In this matter of over-paying jockeys it seems as though the trainer is not being treated with justice. If, for the sake of argument, it be right and proper for the rider of a Derby winner to receive a present of £500, how much, in the name of equity, should the trainer not receive? He spends anxious months, even years, with animals of enormous value under his charge, which must be kept well and brought to the post trained to the hour. Upon the successful exploitation of the horses entrusted to his charge he has to bring several qualities to bear; and if outsiders are apt to think £2 10s. per week a considerable sum to pay for the charge of a selling “plater,” it becomes insignificant enough in the case of a possible Derby winner, even if the charge be as high as three guineas. The owner has yet to be met with who says to his trainer: “You have a Derby horse of mine. If he wins I shall pay you £10 per week for his training instead of £2 10s.” But this would not be out of keeping with the presentation of several hundreds of pounds to a jockey for riding a single race. The trainer, of course, takes his chance, but so should the jockey, and it is not at all creditable that he should be made the spoiled child of the Turf that he is. The statement that jockeys make more money than anyone else is scarcely to be contradicted, and such a state of things is entirely wrong. So far from the jockey of to-day doing more work for his money, the contrary is the case, as those in the habit of watching morning gallops can testify. It is a difficult thing now to get a jockey who has reached the stage of “fancying himself” to trouble himself about morning gallops. So much, at least, English jockeys have condescended to learn from the Americans.