The Days Of The Roses

I think it's possible for some ex-jocks to become good officials, but you need more than one. Most of them, because they started riding young and there was no reason for them to continue their education, could not handle the bookwork end of an official's job. There's a future for other riders, but it's an uphill battle, because a jock is treated like a jock and he is looked down upon by people in a higher position. Only the exceptional jock will make it, and he will only make it with help.

Today there are still rules in the book that are completely outmoded and really ridiculous. For example, there's a rule that a trainer is responsible for his horses 24 hours a day. Beautiful rule. The only way he can be responsible for them is to put them all in one stall, get in the middle of them and not go to bed as long as he's training them.

Now, I must admit that they've kind of eased that rule by the stewards taking into consideration each individual case. One of Hirsch Jacobs' horses once came up positive and he was exonerated. I feel that he was rightfully exonerated, because from what I know about Hirsch Jacobs he's an entirely honest guy. I know this. The stewards knew it, and that's why they exonerated him.

But what happens if a nobody, a guy that's got one or two horses, falls into the same situation? He hasn't got this reputation like Hirsch Jacobs built up. The modification of that rule is helpful, but it still is not right.

Another rule that's completely ridiculous is where a jock gets 10 days for careless riding. Who ever heard of taking a man's livelihood away from him for 10 days because he tried to win and through carelessness or a slight question of misjudgment he bothered somebody? Maybe my outlook on the whole thing is wrong, but I just can't see an unbiased jury saying that a rider should be deprived of his livelihood because of a careless act. Perhaps for rough riding or dangerous riding, but even that, if it's not obviously committed on purpose, is going to be tough to prove. I'd use fines, because a fine is taking money out of his pocket and he's got to work to get it back, which is punishment enough.

There's no reason for rules not being uniform. In California you often get five days for carelessness and in Florida and New York you get 10. That isn't very intelligent. When a ballplayer does something wrong, he gets thrown out for one game. A jockey is such a criminal he's got to have his livelihood taken away for 10 days? There are cases in baseball where players slugged an official or spit on an official and were suspended for a short time and fined. If a jock did that, he'd get ruled off for a year. There's got to be a no-excess-punishment rule in here someplace. Take the game of football and unsportsmanlike conduct, which is the same as racing's rough riding. The team gets a 15-yard penalty, but I don't see them taking the man's livelihood away from him. Only if the football player swears at an official or fights is he taken out of the game. And it's generally for that one game. I got suspended one time for using two swear words, and then the Jockeys' Guild wouldn't represent me in the case. I used two swear words and I wrote them an apology for losing my temper. But does racing have a right to take my livelihood away from me for 13 days?

There's another rule in racing that's really beautiful, this rule of guilt by association. I don't gamble on horses but, without knowing it, it's perfectly possible that I may be talking to a gambler or an undesirable. I couldn't recognize a bookmaker if I fell over him. But I imagine I've talked to some in nightclubs on occasion. They don't, you know, have a sign on their back that says, "I'm a bookmaker." They don't look any different from other people. They got two eyes, a nose, a mouth and it's all arranged the same way that ours are. And I could be ruled off, railroaded right out of my livelihood as a rider, just for associating, for talking with one bookmaker.

I maintain that if a man is an undesirable, he ought to be in jail someplace. He shouldn't be allowed on the streets to talk to me. If he is allowed on the streets, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not a criminal. I would have to think that, wouldn't you?

Some time ago a reporter came to me and asked, "If you were told to look around for a so-called czar for the sport of racing, as we used to have in baseball—a powerful and influential man like Judge Landis—is there anybody that particularly comes to your mind?" I told him no, that I didn't have anybody in mind, but that such a job could only be properly handled by somebody who knew all the problems of racing. He would have to understand owners and breeders, know all about training, all about jockeys' problems, and he would have to be prepared to devote more than an eight-hour day to the job. In short, he would have to have a complete in with every facet of racing, and he would have to have the time to judge fairly. He should have a knowledge of the law. I think it would probably take more than one man.

I just couldn't really name any one person among all those I have met in racing. But, at the risk of bragging, though I know it's never going to happen, I think I could help this man—whoever he is—a lot. I really do think so.