Home » Racing & Sport » Opinion » Jockey’s R5 Million Cover – Pie In The Sky?

Jockey’s R5 Million Cover – Pie In The Sky?

No consultation with associations or individual riders

National Horseracing AuthorityA move by our National Horseracing Authority to almost surreptitiously institute a minimum Life Assurance and Disability cover requirement of R5 million has caught many jockeys unaware.

Without the cover at that level, licences will not be renewed.

Is this pie in the sky guardianship play-acting on the part of the racing regulator?

Race-riding is a dangerous job. It is, after all, one of the only occupations where an ambulance follows while you work.

Some years ago a Medical Journal Of Australia study found that being a jockey is more risky than plying the trade of boxing, with only the job of a deep sea commercial diver having more risk to life.

The report revealed that only skydivers, motorbike racers, loggers and pilots face less risk of being killed than the lightly framed riders of thoroughbreds. Jockeys have a higher risk of fatality than structural metal workers, farm workers, roofers and truck drivers, or participants in sports such as skydiving and motorcycling.

The study covered four years of Stipes reports of more than 75 000 races run Australia-wide and statistics counted 3360 race falls, which resulted in 861 serious injuries and five jockey deaths.

In South Africa, body and head protector equipment is compulsory for race and work-riding, and we have on-course raceday ambulance and medical and first aid services in place on all racecourses. But none during work-riding?

The quality of the medical service is not something the NHA or our racing operators freely engage in discussion about with the media, given the adverse publicity around the subject in recent years. And we must question why no emergency protocol exists for race or work-riding in the NHA’s very comprehensive rules?

 

So the principle of providing sound insurance cover to jockeys is not in dispute.

But communication and consultation once again appear to be the two boxes not ticked in the move to institute a minimum cover requirement by our racing regulator.

The Sporting Post was approached by a local rider who brought the issue of minimum cover to our attention

Rule 23.1 states that no rider shall ride in a race unless, while he is participating as a rider in that racemeeting, he has adequate medical aid cover and , he is adequately insured in resect of any accident, injury or disability which he may suffer during the course of the racemeeting.

In the NHA’s weekly published calendar number 117 – Issue 52, published on 20 July 2018, under the heading ‘Appendix H – Riders’ Insurances’, it is stated that:

In terms of Rule 23.1, all Riders shall maintain Life Assurance and Disability cover at a minimum of R5 000 000, respectively.

Strange, given the publication timing a month after most jockeys renewed their licences for the new term.

The timing of the move to raise the cover minimum for existing riders is also bizarre given the fact that the National Horseracing Authority has itself been instrumental in sanctioning the comeback,  after disability payouts, of a variety of jockeys over the past few years, with the result that many insurance companies have shown the cold shoulder – we can’t blame them – to providing new or increased occupational risk cover to jockeys.

In June this year, Petrie Marx, Product Actuary at Sanlam Individual Life, told the Sporting Post that the company, one of our oldest assurers, is still providing risk cover to jockeys and has been for a number of years.

But they have  stopped issuing new occupational disability cover, in the form of either temporary income protection and lump sum permanent disability benefits, because of excessively high claims ratios on these products.

“Existing contracts with these benefits will, however, still be honoured. In addition, Sanlam is still offering jockeys a number of very valuable benefits, notably, death, physical and functional impairment, accidental injury  and severe illness benefits,” said Mr Marx at the time.

While most of us will probably never have sufficient cover, the mathematics of a specific amount of cover should surely be dependant on the individual’s personal needs and circumstances – including historic earnings, future income needs, as well as broad financial and domestic circumstances?

The individual’s family, or even the state – more than the NHA or the industry – will ultimately carry the burden in the event of a financial shortfall resulting from a catastrophic event.

Reports are that both industry representative bodies, the Coastal Jockey’s Association and the Jockey’s Association of SA, were not consulted or informed of the move by the NHA that will impact directly on their members.

Many of our jockeys are thus caught in something of a catch 22.

No cover – no licence – but probably no assurer willing to provide cover.

Have Your Say

Comments Policy
The Sporting Post encourages allcomers to feel free to have their say in the spirit of enlightening the topic, the participants and the originator of the thread. However, if it is deemed to be either offensive, insulting, personal, false or possibly unsubstantiated, the Sporting Post shall, on it's own assessment, alter or remove comments.

6 comments on “Jockey’s R5 Million Cover – Pie In The Sky?

  1. My Frankel says:

    The words ‘Houston, we have a problem’ are ringing in my ears. Possibly they should be ‘ Horse Racing, the NHRA has a problem’.

    How on earth can the NHRA dictate to jockeys how much Life Insurance they are required to take out when Rule 23.1 has got nothing to do with Life Insurance?

    If I was a jockey, I would go to an insurer and obtain partial disability insurance for R5000000.00 where the disability related to me losing my hair as a result of race riding. The premiums will be minimal and I should be complying with the requirement. I am jesting. The point is this: The NHRA has not defined the type of in Disability cover required. Jockeys should not be left guessing. They should be told exactly what is required of them.

    The rules committee of the NHRA needs help urgently.

    The NHRA needs to be fair. What if a jockey cannot afford the insurance? This seems to be contrary to the Constitution where we are all free to apply our business and trade without unfair interference.

    Good luck and well done to the insurance agent who has spoken to the NHRA and has the perfect policy for jockeys to take out.

  2. bren5604 says:

    How can this kind of rule be introduced without consultation? Bizarre management style.

  3. Bert says:

    Does that mean that all Work Rider races have also come to an end since they wouldn’t be able to afford the premiums?

  4. Ian Jayes says:

    It is a dangerous occupation. Why make it more so? If they would lengthen their stirrups they would have more contact with the horse and better control over the horse. There would be a lot less falls and injuries.

  5. James George says:

    23.3 Notwithstanding the provisions of RULE 23.1 the CHIEF EXECUTIVE may, in his discretion
    and on such terms and conditions as he may determine, authorise a RIDER to ride in one or
    more RACES without having the insurance cover specified in terms of RULE 23.1.

  6. Tony Mincione says:

    “The report revealed that only skydivers, motorbike racers, loggers and pilots face LESS risk of being killed than the lightly framed riders of thoroughbreds.”

    They mean MORE risk of being killed.

Leave a Comment

‹ Previous

Cartier Awards Heating Up!

Next ›

Cape Racing & Breeding Awards 2018

Popular Posts