NHRA Female Jockey permanent sex allowance.

My daughter Nicola an ex jock, tells me she feels this sex allowance feels like a slap in the face - for woman.
She says woman jocks given decent rides will " bring home the bacon " as often as the men do !

I have no real opinion on this subject but it MIGHT give the woman jockeys more rides in future ( because of the claim.... but not so in Rachael's case.. who weighs 55 i believe - as stated above, it might well be a HINDRANCE ! )

CRAIG EUDEY may well have given Rachael the initial learning skills...... but there is no denying... ANY JOCK who is prepared to do hard work & is given MULTIPLE opportunities under EX CHAMPION JOCKEY MUIS ROBERTS..... WILL GO FAR - if u have the talent it's a case of listen & learn from one of the best in the industry...... & that's exactly what she has done.... look at her winning stats for Muis vs any OTHER trainer !

ElvisisKing wrote:

My daughter Nicola an ex jock, tells me she feels this sex allowance feels like a slap in the face - for woman.
She says woman jocks given decent rides will " bring home the bacon " as often as the men do !

I have no real opinion on this subject but it MIGHT give the woman jockeys more rides in future ( because of the claim.... but not so in Rachael's case.. who weighs 55 i believe - as stated above, it might well be a HINDRANCE ! )

I doubt it will be a hindrance. I think they have more maiden races than anything else. Also in handicaps horses with top weight are dropping in class or are improving. If you at the lower end you going up a class or getting an age allowance or your form has been bad recently. The middle weight horses maybe are consistent and the claim will definitely help. That's my opinion.

If it's such a hindrance then the female jockeys should choose not to take up the allowance. You can't be taking up cushy jobs with the champion trainer and then have the benefit of everyone saying how the allowance is a "slap in the face"

Now we need the majority of jockeys to be female to nullify the allowance. As jockettes are so much lighter, the boys will one day be dispensed.


Sent from my Ferrari using Tapatalk

So the joke starts, we are now not offering equal opportunity we are offering unequal outcomes.

The NHA further confirm why there is no confidence by the racing public in them with their "Guns Blazing" reply which is devoid of any coherent argument. The reasoning for the weight allowance is insulting to current competitive female jockeys as well as the customers of horse racing.

Testosterone levels - Can a female jockey forego the weight allowance if they can take testosterone? What about male jockeys with low testosterone levels from wasting, can they supplement so that everyone is equal? The argument is insulting.

It has been a success in France however there is still a bias so far as equality of opportunity. What do you propose, a minimum number of female riders per race to rectify this?

The effect on the problematic MR System can be argued by those Clanners with much more insight than myself.

Increase in number of rides 6% to 16%, and increase in strike rate 5% to 9%. Do male riders with a 5% strike then qualify for a weight allowance or are they destined to their 5% fate? The increase in strike rate reference is disingenuous when the reason for this is purely weight. It also insults the female jockeys who currently are successful based on ability.

"There was ample consultation, this is part of a 5 year plan and the NHA has the ultimate authority to make this decision anyway." There you go further proving what the racing public already think of the organization to be true.

There have been 41 female apprentices admitted to the academy in 34 years with one racing competitively today. That is an attrition rate of 97,56%. If 500 female apprentices enter the academy this month then there will be 12 left racing competitively in 15 years time. Great return on investment.

I am willing to wager that there will not be 3 competitive female jockeys in the top 10 in South Africa in 5 years from today. If i am wrong then i will pay R10 000 to the horse care unit. If i am right then everyone at the NHA today, involved with this decision, must agree to step away from horse racing completely for ever.

I am all for equal opportunity and would happily engage Rachel Venniker to ride my horses, not because of a weight advantage but because of her professional approach, dedication and riding ability.

www.timeslive.co.za/sport/2022-07-31-sou...toughest-horse-race/

Meanwhile down in OZ............................................

Jockey ANGELA JONES..............................

Has ridden 138 winners to date........................
Still claims 3kg......................lucky lassie

Them Ozzies are dom?

www.racenet.com.au/profiles/jockey/angela-jones

So apparently the NHA is enlightened and have implemented a fair and just rule. To ensure I am not one of the few loud voices drowning out the many that agree with this decision, also to ensure objectivity and balance, i invite the NHA to answer the following questions.

1. How many females approached the NHA needing an incentive to become involved in becoming a jockey?
2. Who did the NHA meet with during their claimed consultative period? (Even though they didn't need to.)
3. What is the 5 year plan to get more female jockeys racing, goals, measurements e.t.c. and how will this improve racing?
4. What is the attrition rate of female versus male jockeys?
5. If there have been 41 female admissions to the jockey academy in 34 years with 1 racing currently, an attrition rate of 97,56% then what are the stats for males?
6. What are the reasons for the high attrition rate for jockeys and what are the reasons for a higher attrition rate for female jockeys?
7. If this is an enlightened decision with a sound base then why is the rule being selectively applied and not applied across the board to all races in this jurisdiction?
8. If this change is aimed at transformation then who is it that is calling for transformation? Which are the groups you have met with that have called for this?
9. If France Gallop was proved right based on the the increased number rides and the increased strike rate would this rationale not prove to be the same if you gave all jockeys with a 5% strike the allowance? Hardly scientific but then again nothing scientific has been offered thus far except for anecdotal drivel.
10. What is proved right is that there still is lack of opportunity in the big races, based on the fact that trainers and owners have a right to choose, how do you propose to correct this? Quota's?
11. Where is the research document, facts and figures from the NHA that show that this idea is not just a cut and paste from France Gallo[p?
12. Surely more participation by female owners should be the focus currently based on the downward spiral of ownership I would say we need more horses racing or the all new female jockeys applying will have no horses to ride.

Maybe other racing publications have already asked these questions, who knows. Science, facts and figures have a peculiar knack of lacking subjectivity, I await the answers.

rachel personifies the saying if you fall off a horse get back on might as well go for the double "dont look a gift horse in the mouth"

The fact that the single female apprentice is now getting loaded cards every single race day is shocking and proves that this rule is a farce of note.

Thor wrote:

The fact that the single female apprentice is now getting loaded cards every single race day is shocking and proves that this rule is a farce of note.

"Champion apprentice"