FROM the viewpoint of horse racing as a game of chance, one of the questions I have been asked fairly frequently is whether or not jockeys are that important. There is a tendency, among those unfamiliar with the nuances of horse racing, to be dismissive of the role of the riders. For gaming purposes, a normal horse race is an athletic event. Therefore, factors such as favourable handicap weight, distance, and the ability of the rider are competitive advantages.

To answer the question, however, I usually point out that jockeys are professional athletes in every sense of the word, and that strength and stamina are key attributes. In the same way as in track and field, as well as any other sport requiring athletic ability, disciplined preparation and deployment of tactics by jockeys are no different. Naturally, in this regard, there are jockeys gifted with demonstrably superior ability and consequently more marketable skills.

I was fortunate to spend time and discuss the methodology of equalising the form of horses through classification with the late Jamaica Racing Commission Hall-Of-Fame handicapper Lesle B McCrae. Obviously, handicapping is not and will never be an exact science, but it has the capacity to drive wagering and ensure that the promotion of the sport is in the interest of the majority is unquestionable.

The practising handicapper took me through an exercise of looking at the performance of many horses in all classes before being ridden by these outstanding reinsmen. In terms of significant improvement, truth be told, the differences were stark. The new level of performance of these horses was interpreted and expressed mathematically in determining handicap ratings.

There was a period from 1976 to 1992 when seven jockeys — Charles Hussey, Winston Griffiths, Emelio Rodriquez, Hubert Bartley, Joseph Buchanan, Trevor Simpson and Andrew Ramgeet — were the titlists. At that time, there was a constant complaint, mostly from the top trainers, that their horses were being over-adjusted in terms of classification by the rating points to equalise the form. Based on my knowledge of the UK Jockey Club’s methodology, I rightly disagreed.

Since the period highlighted, three jockeys — Omar Walker, Shane Ellis and Dane Nelson — have met the standard with Anthony Thomas, Raddesh Roman, Dane Dawkins, and Reyan Lewis heading the list of the capable up-and-coming cohort. Importantly, in a jurisdiction with a fiercely competitive jockey colony, the positive impact on the sales turnover is significant.

Effectively, horses ran faster times since the immense skills of these riders ensure very good starts, appropriate judgement of pace, and minimal loss of ground, if any, in the running. It is a fact globally that owners of thoroughbreds become aware very quickly that a horse race is not a 100 per cent game of chance, and the superior skill of a jockey and/or the experience of a trainer is directly related to the enjoyment of their “investment”.

The more successful trainers across the industry worldwide are very particular in the choice of who gets their retainer contracts. To state the obvious, horses cannot communicate orally but can send signals that jockeys can interpret, thereby provide invaluable insights for the trainer.

I spoke to the late, great English trainer John Dunlop when he vacationed here and visited Caymanas Park in 1982. He posited that Willie Carson, a wee Scotsman who went scales 100lbs, and one of the greatest British reinsmen ever, was considered a great asset in driving the huge successes and the fortunes of the substantial Dunlop outfit, and here is why.

Dunlop said in specific terms that Carson’s advice related to the maturity or otherwise of a young horse. Also, whether a shorter or longer distance would be optimum, adding or removing headgear, recommended the amount of exercise preparation, and even whether a track with left- or right-hand turns would be more suitable to the conformation of a thoroughbred. To the uninitiated, a horse race will forever be deemed a game of chance, but the evidence is that it is not so in totality.