- This topic has 28 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Impressive KS.
An allowance for ladies imo seems patronising. Indeed, the very reason for people pushing this is the the thing that holds women back. ie If owners believe female jockeys need an allowance for parity then they’re going to get fewer rides. I see no evidence. It’s the horse’s feet on the ground, not the jockey’s. This thing about strength in the finish is – in the vast majority of cases – a false one. Male jockeys (even when riding against other males) want to believe their strength has made the difference between winning and losing… and in the media – strength is usually mentioned by a male ex-jockey. If it were true, then you’d expect an even greater male advantage in the amateur ranks. Yet Katie and Nina are as good if not better than any male amateur. It’s more about getting rides/good rides than anything else.
Unless a female jockey is so inexperienced and yet to build up the necessary muscle; in most cases the words “strength in the finish” should instead be replaced by “effectiveness in a finish”. Maybe female jockeys need to work harder on their strength, but once that fitness/strength level is achieved and maintained I see asolutely no reason to think a tip top Hayley Turner would’ve been beaten for strength by any tip top male.
There are a few that might need more strength out in the country, but you can’t give an allowance for every ride just because the allowance might be “fair” for a few rides.
Value Is EverythingOne on the rail just held on to my eyes. Well done KS
You’re right, thank you.
But if you had been offered an allowance when riding would you have accepted the unfair advantage or spoke out against it?
I’d be daft not to accept an advantage, it’s all about winning. I would still claim same riding fee and winning %? If women was given an allowance, it would only take a few years before males were out of the game. Most will know that the apprentice claim is a big advantage, once the rider gets experienced – first 150-200 rides – then it’s a gift.
Wait and see it’s a numbers game – how many female riders held a pro licence 40 years ago percentage wise? How many 20 years ago and so forth…Thanks Ginge, just an other race though (23 years ago) and for the slow ones.
Best Wishes
SilkThat’s what I thought you’d say. Nina Carberry said something similar when McCoy broached the subject about the allowance for women a few months back. You are right regarding the apprentice allowance. One of things I look at very carefully when considering my picks in the big handicaps.
Anyone still think female jockeys should get an allowance?
If Hollie and Rachael had an allowance the male jockeys just as well stay at home.
Value Is EverythingI don’t see why there even needs to be any debate about the gender of the jockey – there should be no difference.
It’s only an issue because race riding used to be an all male preserve.
My last “bust up” with Chapman came at the last Arc meeting when Jessica Marcialis became the first female rider to win a Group One race in France.
Not only did he bang on about her gender, Chapman actually commented she was the first mother to ride a Group One race anywhere . . . . . . sorry but WTF has the jockeys breeding status to do with winning a race?
They don’t say “father of five Frankie Dettori has won such and such a race.”
Even say that type of thing about “mother of” about business women, Paul.
Value Is EverythingLet me turn this around.
At a time when racing has had plenty of negative headlines shouldn’t we be shouting from the rooftops about the fact that not only is racing one of the few sports where women can take on men but they are doing it successfully at the highest level?
One thing that pleased me about the Rachael Blackmore coverage this week (and Bryony’s KG win) is that I didn’t hear any fluffy “horses just seem to run for her” nebulous nonsense, which you hear about female jockeys but never similar about men. Just Ruby and AP pointing out the tactical awareness, judgement of pace etc…a racing brain, really.
Agreed Patriot. Racing should make good use of the women beating men on equal terms angle. Racing has always been seen as a man’s sport and this could bring a lot more people (women) in to our sport. The more women the better.
Value Is EverythingMy dad has no interest in racing, but even he wanted to get back for the Gold Cup in order to see if the Irish woman could win.
Value Is EverythingI’m not sure female riders need it but it’s interesting that in France where they do get an allowance of 1.5kg (except in Pattern races) there were 11 female riders in the top 50 last flat season. How does that compare to the UK?
My understanding is that the allowance was introduced to give French trainers an incentive to use the female riders more and this seems to be working (Jean-Claude Rouget regularly puts up Coralie Pacaut on his horses for example) but at some point will the allowance be scrapped as no longer being needed and female riders are booked for their skills rather than their allowance. It does seem strange that Marie Vellon can ride 84 winners in 2020 yet still be considered as a “claimer” (a useful one to have on your side mind you)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.