Jockeys' Guild Takes the Bit on Lopez, Remington Issues

As an organization, the Jockeys' Guild tries to keep its cool. They prefer to leave the headlines to the other guys and stick to what truly matters to their membership. For decades, the Guild has been in the forefront calling for more tightly controlled medication rules, and now here we are. They are in a persistent, reasonable struggle with racetracks over surface safety and decent facilities. More recently, the issues of concussion and mental health have occupied much of their mandate. In the past week, however, the Jockeys' Guild seized the news not once, but twice with reactions to controversial events that go to the heart of membership concerns. The message was clear as crystal. On Sept. 23, the Guild revealed that 10 jockeys who had ridden races at Remington Park Sept. 4 and 5 in defiance of 26 of their fellow riders refusing to ride over a fees dispute either were being expelled or suspended. Among the programs lost by those 10 riders will be disability benefits and life insurance provided by the Guild. Two days later, the Guild reacted strongly to the news that Paco Lopez, a member in good standing, was being suspended for six months by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority for violating the terms of an agreement reached late last year. That agreement, triggered by an incident at Parx Racing in which Lopez struck his mount after pulling up from a winning race, required the veteran rider to attend anger management therapy sessions and make contributions to a pair of racing organizations. He was cleared to ride in late January. HISA's justification for the new six-month suspension is murky. There seems to be some connection to Lopez's use of the riding crop aboard Book'em Danno in winning the Forego Stakes (G1) at Saratoga Race Course in August. Lopez is guilty of raising his hand above his head before striking his horse—a violation of HISA rules—but there is no apparent correlation to his behavior in the Parx incident, which was clearly an instance of a frustrated jockey losing his cool and taking it out on his mount. To confuse things further, the six-month penalty came in the wake of the $1,000 fine and three-day suspension levied in early September by New York Racing Association stewards for the Book'em Danno ride, in keeping with what appears to be HISA guidelines. Lopez accepted the penalty without protest. "It makes no sense," said Terry Meyocks, the Guild's president and CEO. "What happened between the three days Lopez received from the New York stewards and the six-month suspension three weeks later? If there were other things being considered, we should have heard about it. What we do know for sure is that PETA is taking credit." Oh, come on. Really? It sounded like Meyocks was reaching for a handy scapegoat. It's no secret that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals would not mind seeing racetracks burned to the ground and all Thoroughbreds released into the wild. But they can't be blamed for everything. "Look at their website," Meyocks said. So I held my nose and tapped those four little letters. Up came an item posted Aug. 26 in which one paragraph began, "In an urgent letter to HISA, PETA noted that Lopez hit Book'em Danno with such force..."—and here I braced myself for images of bleeding slash marks or a reaction from the stick that sent the horse over the rail—"... that we received multiple whistleblower calls and emails about the incident." Multiple whistleblower calls and emails. That's what racing gets for airing some of its best races on a national TV network. But if HISA is basing its penalties on the volume from PETA's anti-racing shock troops deployed and ready at their social media accounts, then the sport is truly doomed. In protesting the Lopez ban, the Guild is worried that similar fates could befall other riders who displease elements in the HISA hierarchy that define PETA as an existential threat, instead of a group of well-monied gadflies who flit from cause to cause depending on the direction of the wind. Lopez deserves his days whenever he violates the rules, for sure. And please do not tell me that he can't change his high-handed style of whipping. I don't care if the new, cushioned riding crops fail to make a mark. It looks awful, striking with what looks like an intent to harm. Part of the deal of retaining riding crops under HISA was to mitigate the foul perception of animals being struck in pursuit of gambling endeavors. It never hurts to point out that during the 2021 meet at Monmouth Park, at a time when the New Jersey Racing Commission banned the use of riding crops to "encourage" horses, Lopez won 109 races, nearly twice his closest competitor. Lopez, clearly a fine talent, never looked better or displayed more consummate horsemanship. As for the Remington issue, the 10 penalized riders who crossed an imaginary picket line come from all walks of jockey life. Many were imported across state lines to fill in for the riders who protested. Apprentice Adrian X. Morales racked up four wins over those two fateful days. Apprentice Lindsey Hebert rode exactly once. Tanner Fincher rode a horse for his father, Todd Fincher of Senor Buscador fame, and won a race for Scott Young. Alex Gonzalez, a 17-year veteran, took a break from his Fairmount Park action to ride 13 races on those two days at Remington, adding two wins to his career total of 558 going in. The disagreement over jockey fees was settled in short order, and Remington returned to its regular programming (other than the power outage that cancelled the racing of Sept. 26). Meyocks was asked what determined if those 10 cited riders would be expelled from the Guild or only suspended. "We had talked to all of the riders and explained the consequences of not settling the dispute over fees," Meyocks said. "It had been going on a long time. HISA costs were being put off on the riders. They'd been deprived of purse payments from state-bred bonuses. We made sure everyone knew all the issues." Because the Guild does not have the same status as a union, jockeys cannot literally strike. Jockeys must act individually in refusing to ride, whether it looks that way or not. Although the names of all 10 riders who rode in the face of protest were widely publicized, Meyocks declined to reveal which ones were expelled and which suspended. "The Guild board went through it case by case," Meyocks said. "Suspensions will vary, depending on certain circumstances. Their experience level was taken into consideration, what they might have been told, what pressures they might have been under from horsemen." Meyocks added that there is no appeals process of the Guild's actions against the 10 riders. Of course, someone can always go to court. "I wouldn't think they would, though," Meyocks said. "They knew the consequences."