why doesn't the sport listen to luke harvey?

​Anyone who believes Luke Harvey is a fool because he sometimes acts the fool is a fool himself. I doubt if women think him a fool; I’m sure women adore him, perhaps some even have him as a screen-saver, which in this technological and hard-to-stomach world is next to being worshiped as a minor-league God.
But behind that lunatic grin there is a fine fellow blessed by a whole load of common-sense, even if does choose to keep it well-hidden most of the time. I am sure those who work alongside him are constantly surprised by his capacity to surprise.
As Tuesday’s guest columnist in the Racing Post, he surprised me with the quiet flow of his narrative, with all the punctuation marks in all the right places, and the common decency he displayed in speaking out in favour of all those people who work in this sport who are offered little help in earning any sort of proper living.
Yes, I would agree with Luke on this subject as I have banged-on about it for more years than I care to be reminded. If you trawl the archive of this untidy website you will undoubtedly find more than one piece of writing where I also make the self-same point. People who dedicate their lives to this sport, especially those who risk physical injury on a daily basis and those who throw good money after bad in the forlorn hope of achieving some level of financial or spiritual reward deserve to be given a helping hand by the administrators of the sport.
As Luke Harvey quite rightly suggested, why can’t there be, for example, a number of races restricted to jockeys who have not ridden a certain number of winners during the previous twelve-months? There could easily be four or five such races up and down the country per week, an initiative that would barely impact on the earnings of those jockeys lucky and talented enough to find themselves at the top echelons of the jockeys championship.
This initiative, if it were implemented, would come at no cost to the industry as these races would not need to be additions to the race programme but merely be adapted from existing races. There does not need to be any fanfare, no season-long series with a grand final and a trophy. Just ordinary races; hurdle races, steeplechases, bumpers, flat races, over every distance on every racecourse.
There would be integrity benefits of such an initiative, too. Jockeys who at present find it tough to impossible to get a foothold on the ladder of success, who cannot earn enough money to pay the mortgage, the rent, the repayments on their car, who in their desire and ambition to race-ride rely on their partners to keep the family ship afloat, would be less likely to fall victim to scurrilous individuals who might want them to throw a race or commit other despicable acts that can only tarnish the image of the sport. People who think themselves unfairly treated will always be the easiest to persuade to villainy. 
In Ireland they occasionally stage a meeting restricted to those who are sometimes termed ‘journeyman jockeys’, a gesture that I am sure is appreciated by the beneficiaries. Jockeys who have ridden a limited number of winners and who normally ride a lot of schooling for various trainers, who drive a million miles in hope of the one good horse that will turn their career around, yet achieve only one or two rides a meeting. Also, such meetings allow trainers to repay a long-owed debt for the many hours of schooling by one of these lesser lights of the weighing room.
For this wonderful sport to continue long into a future that is as we speak being manipulated by unelected faceless people around the world we must display to the public and media a good and honest face, to be seen as charitable and kind to human and equine alike. Treating our workforce, our lifelines, in an equitable manner can only enhance the reputation of the sport. It certainly could not produce the opposite effect, could it?
Trainers and owners, too, need a kind thought here and there. Why shouldn’t there be races restricted to stables of less than twenty or thirty horses? And though many journalists and commentators look down their noses at races restricted to horses with the lowest ratings, it is my contention this criticism is selfish and short-sighted. For someone to keep such low-rated horses in training they are displaying a deep love of their horse and the sport and as such deserve at least our respect, if not a little encouragement to continue to back the sport with their enthusiasm and money.
Instead of the negativity of banning horses with the lowest ratings, as some contend, why not simply drop these horses into a lesser tier of the sport, say thousand-pound stake races, shall we call them. Lesser prize-money but allowing the owners of these horses the chance to win back some of their investment and allow them the opportunity of small-game glory. What I am suggesting is that during a regular race-meeting, perhaps at all-weather tracks, one or two of these ‘thousand-pound stakes races’ be staged. 
If we can have celebrity races, charity races, amateur races and so on, why is it so unfeasible to have races designed purely to give opportunities to those we might refer to as the ‘poorer’ owner, the small-time owner/breeders with dreams, occasionally life-long, of breeding a winner?
I suspect Luke Harvey was a far better jockey than the reputation he fosters and though his idiocy at times may confuse the irregular viewer of televised racing, to my mind he is an asset to the sport and the persona he portrays on screen should not deny him the ear of racing administrators. He talks sense (occasionally) and, to his credit, his good heart is always in plain sight.