How nice would it be to know that before every event you begin, you have the first $100,000 of your health covered? In most states, horse tracks pay for this amount in insurance. But what happens if the rider becomes paralyzed? What if costs are more than this amount?
Jockeys feel that this is not enough. When asked before the Churchill Downs meet in Kentucky, some jockeys voted no on this issue. Because of this, they were ejected from the rest of the meet. Jockeys who were banned from riding at Churchill are still able to ride elsewhere in the country. It is the individual track that determines whether to stick with the jockeys ejection from another track or to let them ride.
Whey should they be able to obtain more money for their insurance when they put themselves at this risk? Shouldn't they be partially responsible? Honestly, it isn't the track that comes down to the reason why they get hurt. (Except in some cases, which is a completely different issue) It can be the horse, the rider next to them, or just a simple jockey error. Injuries are common in this line of work.
Because these jockeys are not riding, it can hurt the economic point of view as well. There are less jockeys racing, making less award money available. Is this going to hurt the horse owners? The horse owners pay the jockeys to ride. The jockeys don't ride. The jockey's don't get any award money. Therefore, the overall winning dollar amount is lower. Is it worth a horse owner to put a jockey on their horse to race when the cost can be greater than the reward?