PRAY FOR THOSE WHO DON'T WANT ME BACK

[karlskorner]

From the L.A.Times 4/24/04

Valenzuela "Excited" about his return

Louisville,KY. Pat Venenzuela, who is expected to get a cool reception from fellow jockeys when he resumes riding Sunday at Hollywood Park, said Friday night that he was up to the challenge.

"I have survived more in the past than this" Valenzuela said in a telelphone interview from California. Valenzuela's career, while marked by 3,545 winners, has been interrupted nine times by drug-related suspension. According to a spokesman for the Jockeys Guild, 30 riders at Hollywood Park are opposed to the way Calif. Horse Racing Board, through its chairman John Harris, granted Valenzuela a stay of a suspension after he failed to appear for a mandatory drug test in Januay.

Valenzuela was first suspended indefinitely by Santa Anita stewards then ruled off the rest of the year. He received a stay on 4/16 from Harris, who is convinced that the jockey is suffering from acute depression.

" ALL I CAN DO IS PRAY FOR THE GENTLEMEN WHO DON'T WANT ME BACK " They're entitled to their opinion, But I am riding five horses Sunday, and I'm excited about the chance to get back"

Valenzuela has been exercising horses at Hollywood Park and Santa Anita since Wed. The guild submitted a letter to the racing board at its meeting on Thur. "We feel the (board) has failed in its responsibility of judical control by permitting (Valenzuela) to return". the letter said. "The conditions of his license have been continually violated and yet the (board) sees fit to allow him the privillege of riding. "In fact the dangerousness of our sport demands that racing officials alway err on the side of caution in order to ensure the saftery of its participants"

End of article

The "balls" of the man, he is going to pray for people who don't want him back, and well he should, FOR THEIR SAFETY. He and Pat Day can hold a revival and pray to what ever god they believe in.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by karlskorner
The "balls" of the man, he is going to pray for people who don't want him back, and well he should, FOR THEIR SAFETY. He and Pat Day can hold a revival and pray to what ever god they believe in.


A little extreme, don't you think?

What do you want him to say? Maybe he should say this -- "Yeah, those guys are right...I shouldn't be allowed back!"

If these jockeys want a safe job, maybe they should be working behind a desk instead of riding racehorses. If Valenzuela tests clean, he should be allowed to ride. Do you really believe all the other jockeys out there on the track are 100% clean and sober??!!!

What about the guy who can't see straight because he's starving himself and throwing up all his meals so he can make weight? Is he endangering his fellow riders?? I betcha he is! But that guy will be allowed to ride forever.

There are probably a lot of hypocrites out there in the jockey colony in California. Most of them just want an easier time of making a living with Valenzuela out of the picture.

[bettheoverlay]

Putting moral judgements aside, which I often do, and just as a handicapper who enjoys doing CA tracks each week, I am kinda glad to see his return. With him, and Julie, gone, its been pretty dull.

[karlskorner]

License Suspended not once, not twice,but NINE times. Would you get into a car with anybody whose drivers license has been suspened NINE times for the use of drugs, I don't have a death wish. Have you ever followed a "drunken driver", I have, scary as hell. Everyone of those "suspensions" are for the use of drugs, nothing else. DRUGS.

[Tom]

Karl-agreed. What else do they allow in californina? Multiple battery use? Don't dope your horses more than 10 times?
What message is this sending to kids out there? Screw the system-pray for someone and you have all the crack you want?
Big odds drop on a Hol race last night. 9-1 in the gate, 5-1 at the wire. Is this just more California leniency? You cannot make any bets later than the quarter pole? And we mean it!
No rules, no faith. No faith, no bets.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by karlskorner
License Suspended not once, not twice,but NINE times. Would you get into a car with anybody whose drivers license has been suspened NINE times for the use of drugs, I don't have a death wish. Have you ever followed a "drunken driver", I have, scary as hell. Everyone of those "suspensions" are for the use of drugs, nothing else. DRUGS.

The sad part is, there are drivers out there who have had their license suspended more times than Pval, and are STILL on the road!

The car analogy isn't really applicable, because if I want to travel somewhere, I have little other choice than to be on a road.

Like I said, let the first 100% pure jockey in California cast the first stone. Who knows which jockeys went out drinking all last night and now are riding today hung over?? Are they a danger to their fellow riders? I betcha they are! Will they be allowed to ride? Of course they will. The hypocrisy can go on and on.

I don't have a problem with someone who thinks PVal has had enough chances. I have a problem with someone making the argument that he will be a danger on the track if he rides.

Valenzuela has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the only danger he poses to other jocks when he rides is the danger to their win percentages and bank accounts.

[karlskorner]

I guess I am a little prejudice. Last year this time my wife was broadsided in a 3 week old Mazda626, by a guy going through a red light. When I drove over I couldn't believe she was alive, the entire right side of the car was pushed into the drivers side and she didn't have a scratch on her. When I walked over to the police they were just putting the cuffs on the driver, seems this was the 3rd accident he caused in the past 14 months under the infuuence of drugs. This time he did the crime and now he is serving time. What puzzled me is they never suspended his license for the first 2 accidents. A known "drug user" driving a car and a known "drug user" riding in a horse race, whats not to compare ?

PS. There was over 9K damage to the car, guess who is driving it now, she won't go near it.

[Tom]

Check out the links to Ohio police videas by Just Ralph in Off Topics - scary stuff!

[Skanoochies]

If i were a jockey and were truly worried about my safety, riding in the same race as P.V. I wouldn`t ride. And if thirty jockeys who signed a petition were in fear and refused to ride, P.V. would be home watching t.v. on Sunday. I think these guys are just seeing dollars going out the window for themselves.
JMHO.

Skanoochies.:)

[John]

I have to agree with P.A. There are very few occupations were all employee's are drug free including doctor's and lawyers.How many on this board take alcoholic or some form of a drug.It is a way of life today. But if a person can get clean.You can not deprive him of a livelihood.Who knows P.V. may stay clean.

Monday 4/26 on HBO's "AMERICA UNDERCOVER" A 90 minute documentary shows the dark side of a jockey.stimulants and other things. Watch it and then make your comment

[karlskorner]

Yours "Who knows P.V. " may " stay clean ".

That sort of sums it up, who knows. 2800 (more or less) jocks in the country, name one other who has been suspended NINE times for using drugs. All I keep reading is "give the guy another chance". there are a lot of people in the slammer who would like another chance.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by karlskorner
Yours "Who knows P.V. " may " stay clean ".

That sort of sums it up, who knows. 2800 (more or less) jocks in the country, name one other who has been suspended NINE times for using drugs. All I keep reading is "give the guy another chance". there are a lot of people in the slammer who would like another chance.

This is the problem I have. He is being treated differently for some reason. You can't find anybody else that has had this many chances.

[Tom]

Originally posted by JustRalph
This is the problem I have. He is being treated differently for some reason. You can't find anybody else that has had this many chances.

Anyone want to start a pool for how many chances he gets?
I feel luky tonight....I'll say 85!

[Dancer's Image]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
A little extreme, don't you think?

What do you want him to say? Maybe he should say this -- "Yeah, those guys are right...I shouldn't be allowed back!"

If these jockeys want a safe job, maybe they should be working behind a desk instead of riding racehorses. If Valenzuela tests clean, he should be allowed to ride. Do you really believe all the other jockeys out there on the track are 100% clean and sober??!!!

What about the guy who can't see straight because he's starving himself and throwing up all his meals so he can make weight? Is he endangering his fellow riders?? I betcha he is! But that guy will be allowed to ride forever.

There are probably a lot of hypocrites out there in the jockey colony in California. Most of them just want an easier time of making a living with Valenzuela out of the picture.

Pace Advantage,
I am surprised and disappointed to see you, the administrator of this forum, post this. I just remarked to JustRalph yesterday in a similar thread about PVal, that I had not seen any reasonable person support the stay of the suspension for PVal. But let me ask you again, do you really believe that PVal should be given a stay of his suspension, and get to ride horses again tomorrow? The reason I ask you to answer this question again is because of what you wrote in your post. You said, "If PVal tests clean, he should be allowed to ride." Well, according to your own words then, you do NOT believe that PVal should be allowed to ride. Because PVal did NOT test clean when he was requested to take the test when he said he sprained his ankle; PVal did NOT even take the test; PVal did not even contact the stewards for 3 weeks after they requested that he come in and be tested. You know all this, I don't need to repeat it all for you. So according to your own words, you do NOT believe that PVal should be able to ride again. So if you'd like to give us a rational reason for why PVal should be allowed to ride again, I would love to hear it. I haven't heard any rational explanation yet for why PVal has been given this stay of his suspension, least of all, Chairman Harris, who granted the stay.

What really aggravates me about your post, is your calling the jockey colony a bunch of hypocrites. They have not done anything wrong. They all have to earn and keep a racing license in order to ride horses; they have done that. PVal has NOT!!!! PVal has violated the conditions of his license and therefore he has no license and therefore he should not ride horses tomorrow. For Chairman Harris to say that PVal doesn't have to follow the rules, like the rest of the jockeys do, is a slap in the face to all those jockeys who do follow the rules. I sincerely hope that the jockeys have the courage of their convictions to take this all the way to a boycott if PVal is allowed to ride tomorrow.

[Buckeye]

He didn't take the test, therefore, he didn't fail it either. He only failed to take the test-- he was depressed. Now by my count, that's one time and one time only he's allowed to use this excuse. Let him ride, but no more excuses, none.

[cj]

Yeah, sure he was depressed! Of course I believe him given his track record. Wake up people, he was doing drugs again. Any idiot can pay a doctor to say he is depressed if he has the money. It is beyond me how anyone can believe a guy who has lied time after time in the past. You have some very naive people on this subject.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't believe a man should be denied his way of earning a living as long as he tests clean. Give him a test. If he tests clean, he should be allowed to ride. Then test him every single week (or twice a week), and charge him for the tests. It's quite simple.

He can go for 100 weeks without being tested for all I care, as long as he isn't riding during those untested weeks. He can tell the stewards he tripped over a pair of socks and can't come in tomorrow morning. It doesn't matter.

However, if he wants to get on a horse, test him right then and there. If he passes, he rides, if not, he doesn't ride.

He's an independent contractor. It's the stewards job to make sure racing is on the up and up, and the races are run in a safe manner. If they determine that PVal is clean and is able to ride safely, then he should ride.

HOWEVER, IT IS ULTIMATELY UP TO THE TRAINERS AND OWNERS WHETHER PVAL RIDES AGAIN, FOR THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WILL HIRE HIM TO RIDE THEIR HORSES.

If the only problem a jockey has is with drugs or alcohol (ie. he's not involved in any race fixing or whatnot), then he should absolutely be allowed to ride whenever he is clean and sober, and this is easily determined by a urine test, which can be administered in full view of track security.

What is the big problem here? Pat Valenzuela has NEVER been accused of riding while high. I don't think he's ever been accused of endangering the lives of other jockeys because of his personal demons. If anything, the only thing people keep saying about Pat as a rider is that he is as GIFTED as they come. If he's CLEAN, let him RIDE (this still doesn't guarantee he'll get out onto the track, cause the trainers and owners still have to give him a leg up....they aren't being FORCED to ride him you know)!

It's all really very simple. This should also apply to any other jockey out there with a substance abuse problem, not just Patrick Valenzuela.

If owners and trainers still want to hire this guy, and he tests clean before he goes onto the track, WHAT ELSE IS THERE LEFT TO PROVE? He's clean, people want to hire him.....let the man work!

[cj]

First off, its not ultimately up to the owners and trainers if he isn't granted a license.

I have as much problem with the Cal board as I do with PVal. Why bother having him sign a contract if it doesn't mean a damn thing?

Lets not forget drugs are illegal, OK? This guy is a criminal. The only thing that keeps me from being totally pissed off is that I know he'll fall again. He is a weak human being in my opinion.

[bettheoverlay]

The SoCal owners and trainers, PVals employers, will be lining up to secure his services. Ironic that a 40 yr old depressed druggie who's missed literally years of employment is still considered the best in the west.

Hell, if I owned a horse out there and I had a choice between Steiner and PVal, its no contest. I'll take winning over righteous indignation anyday. Its the American way.

[John]

Come on CJ, you should know by now that owners and trainers control the game of racing. Track stewards do what Senior management tells them what to do. Owners and trainers tell management what to do or no show. Look at what owners and trainers did to Mike Gill last year at Gulfstream because he upset their apple cart.

By the way I am not sure if I read on this board by a poster That Pat Day was a born again christen.

PATV gets 5 mounts first day back. That is 5 trainers who want P.V. to ride their horse....

[cj]

The stewards had nothing to do with PVal riding, they suspsended him but were overruled.

By the way, where is Julie Krone? I know she came back for a day, haven't heard much since.

[cj]

Here is what I don't get...as a fan of the game, we need to have as good a light cast on the game as possible to promote the sport. How does this guy riding help the sport? I am quite sure racing won't stop without him.

Other sports have thrown guys out for good for doing drugs. Roy Tarpley comes to mind. So, I'm sure its legal. Dexter Manley was tossed for good as well, and there have been others.

Good luck to Pat, I wish him no ill will, but I'll place a side bet with anyone here on the outcome of this sad saga.

I'm done with this topic. I think it is a disgrace, others don't, and so it goes.

[John]

Your right CJ,

this is the end of this topic. really I don't care .I don't play the west coast. just thought I would put my two cents in.

Julie Krone? She is put together with a million pins for all the spills she took. I am sure some days she is not up to riding. I think she has her own site. that might tell you something.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Buckeye
He didn't take the test, therefore, he didn't fail it either. He only failed to take the test-- he was depressed. Now by my count, that's one time and one time only he's allowed to use this excuse. Let him ride, but no more excuses, none.

What do they do next week when he has tummy ache? :confused:

[Tom]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
First off, its not ultimately up to the owners and trainers if he isn't granted a license.

I have as much problem with the Cal board as I do with PVal. Why bother having him sign a contract if it doesn't mean a damn thing?

Lets not forget drugs are illegal, OK? This guy is a criminal. The only thing that keeps me from being totally pissed off is that I know he'll fall again. He is a weak human being in my opinion.

Excellant point. What about a jockey who is arrested 9 times for shopliting? It doesn't affect his riding, so let him ride. What about a jockey who is arrested 9 times for wife beating, or child molestation? Doesn't affect his ridng does it?
If Michael Jackson could make the weight, shoul dhe get a license?
PVal is a dopper, a an unindicted criminal, and a liar-he signed a contract and broke his word, so who is to say he will not further slide downhill and start pulling horses? What faith can anyone have on this guy's creditbility?
9 times is utterly ridiculous.
But then, so is CAlifornia racing, even California itself-the nut capital ofthe world- so I guess he fits right in.

[Dancer's Image]

Buckeye,
I am incredulous at your naivete....but I do have some swampland in Florida to sell you. According to the terms of PVal's conditional license, failure to take a drug test, when requested to by the stewards, is grounds for suspending his conditional license. And you want to give him just this ONE chance for his "clinical depression"...here's a newsflash for you, Buckeye, PVal's already been given at least NINE chances already. So if we just gave PVal one chance, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, since PVal would not have a license.

Now let's bring our fearless site administrator, PA, into the discussion. I actually agree with you, PA, and would be in favor of such a conditional license as you advocate for PVal, where he is tested daily, at his own expense and may ride whenever he is clean. Maybe PVal and his attorneys should have held out for such a conditional license instead of the conditional license that PVal was granted. (I seriously doubt that the racing powers would ever have granted such a conditional license to PVal though, so it's a moot point) But the fact is, that PVal agreed to a conditional license with one of the conditions being that he would submit to a drug test whenever the stewards asked for one. So I ask you again, and since you apparently have difficulty answering a simple question, GIVEN THE FACTS WE HAVE NOW, THAT IS, THAT PVAL VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HIS CONDITIONAL LICENSE, BY NOT TAKING A DRUG TEST WHEN REQUESTED TO TAKE A DRUG TEST BY THE STEWARDS, SHOULD PVAL BE GIVEN A STAY OF THE SUSPENSION OF HIS LICENSE AND BE ALLOWED TO RIDE AGAIN AT HOLLYWOOD TODAY? If you could please answer this question, we could continue a rational discussion.

[Tom]

Dancer.....everyone is entitled to their opinion whether we all agree or not. There is no need to get insulting or condesending to others because they disagree with yours. It was a rational discussion until YOU lowered the bar. That gets by in Off Topics, but not out here, thank you.

There is an expectation of civility in the main horse threads.

[Figman]

The PVAL situation mirrors what has happened in harness racing in recent years. WALTER CASE,JR. was the PVAL on the standardbred side. The fans loved him wherever he competed as he was a consistent winner. He got himself barred from NY and NJ. He got back into the game in Ohio. He got barred from Ohio. He got himself back into the game in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. He ended up in jail and now he is on the outside looking in. A drug problem is very very difficult to overcome! If it wasn't PVAL would not be on his ninth chance.

[Dancer's Image]

Tom,
I don't believe PA needs your assistance; I asked him a question; he did not answer the question, so I asked him again. He, of course, is entitled to his opinion but if he will answer the question, based on the reality of the contract that PVal agreed to with the CHRB, not on the basis of what he thinks the agreement should be, then I can prove to him that his opinion is irrational.

And while we're on the subject of rationality, would you please identify for me, an example of my posts being insulting or condescending? Or an instance where I have breached the bounds of civility? I find these accusations of yours to be insulting, and I eagerly await either some proof or your apology.

Dancer's Image (who just happens to know a thing or two about positive drug tests)

[John]

Ahh, drop this shit....Who cares...

[Tom]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
Buckeye,
I am incredulous at your naivete....but I do have some swampland in Florida to sell you. According to the terms of PVal's conditional license, failure to take a drug test, when requested to by the stewards, is grounds for suspending his conditional license. And you want to give him just this ONE chance for his "clinical depression"...here's a newsflash for you, Buckeye, PVal's already been given at least NINE chances already. So if we just gave PVal one chance, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, since PVal would not have a license.

Now let's bring our fearless site administrator, PA, into the discussion. I actually agree with you, PA, and would be in favor of such a conditional license as you advocate for PVal, where he is tested daily, at his own expense and may ride whenever he is clean. Maybe PVal and his attorneys should have held out for such a conditional license instead of the conditional license that PVal was granted. (I seriously doubt that the racing powers would ever have granted such a conditional license to PVal though, so it's a moot point) But the fact is, that PVal agreed to a conditional license with one of the conditions being that he would submit to a drug test whenever the stewards asked for one. So I ask you again, and since you apparently have difficulty answering a simple question, GIVEN THE FACTS WE HAVE NOW, THAT IS, THAT PVAL VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HIS CONDITIONAL LICENSE, BY NOT TAKING A DRUG TEST WHEN REQUESTED TO TAKE A DRUG TEST BY THE STEWARDS, SHOULD PVAL BE GIVEN A STAY OF THE SUSPENSION OF HIS LICENSE AND BE ALLOWED TO RIDE AGAIN AT HOLLYWOOD TODAY? If you could please answer this question, we could continue a rational discussion.

Your wish is my command. Here it is.

[Dancer's Image]

Tom,
Yep, there it is....and since you didn't identify anything insulting, condescending, or breaching the general bounds of civility, where's your apology?

Dancer's Image

ps. I remain insulted, so much so that it may throw me into the throes of clinical depression, from where I can claim impunity from any insulting, condescending, or uncivil behavior anyway!

pps. It is impossible for me, as a rational human being, to not appear condescending when engaging a monkey in a rational argument.

[Tom]

For all the idiots and troll we have had here, I have never used the ignore button because even the worst offered something worth reading at one time or anohter.
You do not. For someone who just found this board yesterday, you have managed to insult people on several threads already.
Since you obviously have nothing of any substance to contribute, I am breaking my maiden on ignore.
Good-bye.

ps..Your apology-if you use BOTH hands, you might find it.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by rocajack
Your right CJ,

this is the end of this topic. really I don't care .I don't play the west coast. just thought I would put my two cents in.

Julie Krone? She is put together with a million pins for all the spills she took. I am sure some days she is not up to riding. I think she has her own site. that might tell you something.

if she has her own site, enlighten me.........

I own the rights to "juliekrone.com"

[kenwoodallpromos]

I found no "official" Julie Krone website so far.

[John]

YAH, there was a guy about a year ago that had a web site with all the girl jockeys in it and this guy would traval around the country writeing about these girl jockeys. I would rather talk about the girls. The prettiest girl jockey I ever saw was MARY BACON , who was married to jockey Johnny Bacon and her son rode for awhile.

[Tom]

Both the Bacon's rode regularly at Finger Lakes years ago. Mary rode one of my all time favorites horses, Sam Lord. Brought him home at boxcars one day. She was a pretty good rider if she got a mount. She rode here around the time of Violet (Pinky) Smith, who was really good.

[John]

Tom

The tracks in New England had some good looking girl Jocks Diane Nelson is one. I guess the all time best looker was the girl Jockey that married actor Fred Astaire. Fred went out and bought a stable full of horses just so she could ride on the west coast..

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
So I ask you again, and since you apparently have difficulty answering a simple question, GIVEN THE FACTS WE HAVE NOW, THAT IS, THAT PVAL VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HIS CONDITIONAL LICENSE, BY NOT TAKING A DRUG TEST WHEN REQUESTED TO TAKE A DRUG TEST BY THE STEWARDS, SHOULD PVAL BE GIVEN A STAY OF THE SUSPENSION OF HIS LICENSE AND BE ALLOWED TO RIDE AGAIN AT HOLLYWOOD TODAY? If you could please answer this question, we could continue a rational discussion.

Who created this "conditional license?" Are the creators of this license now altering the contract? If they are, isn't it in their right?

BTW, how many races did Pat Valenzuela win today? Two I believe, and he finished second on another of his 5 mounts. Yeah, some danger he was today....dangerous to the other jocks who vied for those mounts I suppose.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
First off, its not ultimately up to the owners and trainers if he isn't granted a license.

I have as much problem with the Cal board as I do with PVal. Why bother having him sign a contract if it doesn't mean a damn thing?

Lets not forget drugs are illegal, OK? This guy is a criminal. The only thing that keeps me from being totally pissed off is that I know he'll fall again. He is a weak human being in my opinion.


I hope you were this vocal when Steve Howe kept getting chance after chance in baseball. Of course, he only had SEVEN suspensions....can't top PVal, but he came close.

Howe wasn't even that good a pitcher compared to how great a jockey Pat Valenzuela is believed to be, and look how many chances he got.

[Hosshead]

This whole thing reminds me of a Vince Gill song title:
"One More Last Chance"

[Tom]

So we should give more chances to people who are better athletes than others? What's next, more chances to rich people?
Let's get real- if they aren't doing anyhting after 9 times, let the guy do whatever he want whenever he wants to snort it. Be consistent. At least that way we keep the negative press away from the game.
BTW...speaking of negative press, I highly recommend not watching the HBO crap on Jockeys-read Crist's article at DRF about it - it a self-serving slanted hatchett job on our sport by the crappiest cable channel of them all. HBO is a disgusting excuse for a TV channel even by TV standards. Jsut look at what the other progrms in the series are all about-HBO-no tip of the hat to you guys, in fact, go shat in your hats.

[WINMANWIN]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PaceAdvantage

BTW, how many races did Pat Valenzuela win today? Two I believe, and he finished second on another of his 5 mounts. Yeah, some danger he was today....dangerous to the other jocks who vied for those mounts I suppose.

I caught the Patty V double today, As he won back to back races.
I Should have quit after that. shoulda coulda woulda.:rolleyes:

[Buckeye]

They ARE being consistent.
They gave him nine chances before plus one more today-- they are being consistent in giving him another chance, right? What if he makes it this time? Pat Day overcame his addiction problems and who's to say that Pat V. cannot? Nobody knows for sure including those more sophisticated than I :cool:

[Dancer's Image]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
(1)Who created this "conditional license?" (2)Are the creators of this license now altering the contract? (3)If they are, isn't it in their right?

(4) BTW, how many races did Pat Valenzuela win today? Two I believe, and he finished second on another of his 5 mounts. Yeah, some danger he was today....dangerous to the other jocks who vied for those mounts I suppose.

PA,
You never answered my question...again. Oh well, no matter...it's a simple question, it can only be answered yes or no. You can't answer yes, because you've already said that if PVal tests clean, he should be allowed to ride, and we know that PVal didn't even test, let alone test clean. And you can't answer no because then you'd be agreeing with me. So instead of answering my question, (behavior which I consider insulting, condescending, and uncivil to me...where's the forum protector, Tom, when you need him?), you try to shift the focus of the discussion by asking me questions. But I am not afraid to answer your questions...
1) the CHRB
2) Not yet. The stewards followed the terms of the contract with PVal and properly suspended him when he failed to take their requested drug test. PVal was also then properly allowed to appeal the suspension. The CHRB chairman, Harris, then took it upon himself (which he has a right to do as chairman), to override the stewards proper enforcement of the contract and issue a stay of the suspension. This is the crux of the matter. Chairman Harris's issuance of a stay of the suspension is a "slap in the face" to both the stewards, who were properly doing their job by enforcing the contract with PVal, and to the other jockeys, who have to follow all the conditions/provisions of their license, while evidently PVal does not.
3) Yes, the CHRB can change the conditions of PVal's license if they wish....it is in their right. Some people more skeptical than I, (there's an oxymoron), might even say why not just give PVal an unconditional license since they don't want to enforce the conditions they have already applied. But even if the CHRB does change the conditions of PVal's licensure, that won't change a damned thing....PVal will still have been in violation of the terms of his conditional license this January 2004, and he should be held responsible for that violation.
4) 2, I believe. I also believe that whether he wins either 0% or 100% of his rides, he should still be treated no differently than any other jockey. No one in their right mind would argue that PVal has been treated the same as any other jockey....no, he has been given preferential treatment. This whole argument has never been about PVal's talent; I will concede that he is the greatest ever to ride an animal since JC rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday....and I also don't care. He still should have to abide by the rules, and he most certainly did not abide by the rules of his conditional license in January 2004

[PaceAdvantage]

You guys just don't get it. I never once said he should be treated differently because he is better than most. STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. What you INTERPRET is NOT what I SAID (this goes to both TOM and Dancer's Image)

What I have SAID ALL ALONG, is that if he TESTS CLEAN, he should be able to RIDE (I made it a POINT in a couple of posts back that this should apply TO ALL JOCKEYS, not just PVAL). This is my opinion, and THAT'S ALL IT IS. Just because I stated that he is better than most at what he does did not MEAN THAT I THOUGHT HE SHOULD BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY.

I AM NO EXPERT IN THE AREA OF DRUG ABUSE, ADDICTION, BEING A STEWARD OR BEING A JOCKEY. All I did was state an opinion. Take it or leave it.

And why is Dancer's Image demanding an answer from me? Who the hell am I, and why do you CARE so much that I answer your question?

BUT, just to calm your ass down, here's my answer:

I AM NOT IN ANY POSITION TO SAY WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO PAT VALENZUELA FOR "VIOLATING THE TERMS OF HIS CONDITIONAL LICENSE"

THE STEWARDS AND THE CHRB ARE THE ONLY ONES WITH THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THIS MATTER.

I can offer my OPINION on what I think is going on, and I HAVE OFFERED THAT OPINION. Take it or leave it.

You see, when I don't have all the facts before me (and I doubt anyone on this thread does), I don't really like to come out and answer questions DEMANDED of me by people like Dancer's Image. I have no answer to this question because I don't know the exact terms of his agreement with the CHRB and the stewards, so I don't really know what violations took place, if any.

If indeed his agreement stated that he should lose his license FOREVER if he refuses to take a drug test when asked, well then I guess his license should have been suspended (which it was). However, in this world, not everything is black and white or cut and dried, especially when you are talking about taking away a man's way of life. Evidently, Mr. Harris sees something else to this situation, which is why there are checks and balances in place. Why not let the process evolve a bit more before we jump on the pile like vultures?

BTW Dancer's Image, welcome to the board. I see you only registered this month but already have 22 posts to your credit. For a newbie around here, you're already duking it out like someone who has played this game before.....

[cj]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
I hope you were this vocal when Steve Howe kept getting chance after chance in baseball. Of course, he only had SEVEN suspensions....can't top PVal, but he came close.

Howe wasn't even that good a pitcher compared to how great a jockey Pat Valenzuela is believed to be, and look how many chances he got.

Sure was, and Daryl Strawberry as well. Of course, I despise the Yankees, so maybe I wasn't objective.

[Dancer's Image]

Thanks PA, for the "warm" (as in "heated" argument) welcome. Yes, I enjoy discussing horseracing, especially when I can pick the right side of the argument, and yes, PA, you are on the wrong side of the argument and I will prove that to you.

First you say, "You guys just don't get it. I never once said he should be treated differently because he is better than most. STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. What you INTERPRET is NOT what I SAID (this goes to both TOM and Dancer's Image)"....
And then you ask, "And why is Dancer's Image demanding an answer from me? Who the hell am I, and why do you CARE so much that I answer your question?"...

Now PA, you can claim all you want that you never said PVal should be treated any differently than other jockeys. But the fact is, that if you say that PVal should be allowed to ride after violating the conditions of his license, then that is by definition, different treatment than any other jockey. That's why I generously (I can't help it, it's just my nature) gave you not just one, but two chances to answer the question of whether PVal should be allowed to ride based on the conditions of his agreement with the CHRB, not based upon what you think should have been the agreement. You could have said, words to the effect, that since PVal broke the terms of his agreement, the stewards had no choice but to suspend his license. That would have been a fair, reasonable response from you. But instead you ignored my question; then answered it based on what you thought the agreement should be instead of based on the facts of the agreement; then you tried to change the focus of the discussion by asking me questions while still refusing to answer my question; then when I pointed out that my question could only be answered yes or no, you now claim,
"I AM NOT IN ANY POSITION TO SAY WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO PAT VALENZUELA FOR "VIOLATING THE TERMS OF HIS CONDITIONAL LICENSE"....you then further say...
"You see, when I don't have all the facts before me (and I doubt anyone on this thread does), I don't really like to come out and answer questions DEMANDED of me by people like Dancer's Image. I have no answer to this question because I don't know the exact terms of his agreement with the CHRB and the stewards, so I don't really know what violations took place, if any."...
Now PA, you are the site administrator of a horseracing information and discussion site, and you expect me to believe that you don't know the facts about the PVal case? Pardon my French, (and I'm glad sensitive Tom is on the ignore list), but that's pure, unadulterated horseshit! All the facts are available in threads right here by the way; PVal signed an agreement with the CHRB for a conditional license 2.5 years ago; one of the conditions was to submit to drug testing WHENEVER the stewards requested; PVal did NOT submit to a test in JAN 2004 and after meeting with the stewards, his conditional license was suspended, not for life, but for one year; PVal has the right to appeal and also to re-apply for a license in one year. What else do you need to know?
I have no problem with letting the process evolve, as you say...
"However, in this world, not everything is black and white or cut and dried, especially when you are talking about taking away a man's way of life. Evidently, Mr. Harris sees something else to this situation, which is why there are checks and balances in place. Why not let the process evolve a bit more before we jump on the pile like vultures?"
...and of course, I agree that in this world, not everything is black and white, but this issue is. It is not a subjective issue like interference in the stretch; it is a black and white, cut and dried issue; PVal's conditional license required him to submit to drug testing WHENEVER the stewards requested it; PVal did NOT submit to drug testing in Jan 2004 and therefore his conditional license is invalid, suspended, null and void, whatever! What could be more black and white than that? How does PVal's claim of clinical depression, prevent him from peeing into a cup?
You know I'm really not as mad at PVal and his lawyers (they're just trying to get the best deal for him), as I am at Chairman Harris. His decision to grant a stay is a slap in the face to both the stewards and the other jockeys. And I probably wouldn't have jumped all over you PA, if you hadn't tried to deflect the blame in this situation from PVal where it belongs, to the other jockeys by calling them hypocrites. They have done nothing wrong in this whole situation; of course I realize that they stand to gain if PVal is not riding; but they didn't do anything to cause PVal to lose his conditional license, PVal did it all by himself. But you also have to realize that the jockeys have a legitimate complaint in that PVal has received preferential treatment from the CHRB. I don't know how you make your money, so I can't make a comparable analogy, but suffice it to say that you wouldn't like it if one of your competitors was given preferential treatment either.

[Lefty]

As I understand it there were exceptional and extenuating circumstances in PVAL's last disappearance. It turns out his personal life was falling apart in another area and that area was believed to be finances. I can only conclude that maybe some bus. mgr was playing fast and loose with his money. Now if your money was being(millions maybe) tampered with what would you do? Would you rush to see about it or would you wait around for the drug test? Anyway, he was supposed to have many affadavits by influentual people attesting to the fact that he was tending to business and not off on a binge.
Maybe they should have permanently revoked his license a few times back, but this time he is said to have a valid excuse.

[Valuist]

Thats still no excuse for him to miss the drug testing. He's aware of his situation and he should've known going AWOL would just put him in hot water.

[Lefty]

Val, I think it is. If I had, say, a bus. mgr off in another state and I got word he's robbing me blind, i gurantee you i'd be off and running and worry about the drug test later. As I say, he did take the precaution of having some well regarded individuals with him who submitted affidavits. Remember the old adage: It's better to ask forgiveness than permission.

[cj]

Originally posted by Lefty
As I understand it there were exceptional and extenuating circumstances in PVAL's last disappearance. It turns out his personal life was falling apart in another area and that area was believed to be finances.

Just who I want in racing, a drug addict who also has financial problems.

[Dancer's Image]

Originally posted by Lefty
Val, I think it is. If I had, say, a bus. mgr off in another state and I got word he's robbing me blind, i gurantee you i'd be off and running and worry about the drug test later. As I say, he did take the precaution of having some well regarded individuals with him who submitted affidavits. Remember the old adage: It's better to ask forgiveness than permission.

Lefty,
I am incredulous....oops, I'm not allowed to say anymore...

Okay, Lefty, let's look at this situation rationally. I'll concede anything that you like about PVal's situation; marital difficulties, financial problems, clinical depression, you name it; but which of those difficulties prevents PVal from peeing into a cup? (let me answer for you since people here have trouble answering simple questions...NONE)

And insofar as PVal taking the precaution of having some well regarded individuals with him, why didn't these individuals either have PVal get in contact with the stewards or get in contact with them theirselves? It was common knowledge that PVal needed to submit to drug testing whenever he was requested to. But PVal avoided contact with the stewards for 3 weeks(coincidentally, just enough time for illegal drugs like cocaine and/or amphetamines to clear his system). Any lawyer will tell you that when stopped for drunk driving to refuse to take the test....it is much easier to get you off of that charge than to clear you after you have a positive test. No one is saying that PVal is stupid; he did what he had to do. But he broke the terms of his agreement and should have his conditional license suspended!

[PaceAdvantage]

So then Dancer's Image, why is he riding? Why did Chairman Harris reverse the decision of the stewards? What is the ultimate reason we are having this argument? You see, I DON'T have all the facts, but apparently you do, so please, answer that question with a solid fact. Does PVal have some compromising photos of Chairman Harris locked away in a safety deposit box?

[WINMANWIN]

Gents lets put the cards on the table and possibly end the bickering, Everyone makes good points in this thread, but
in life, sometimes others get better treatment or get overlooked more than others, Let's face it Pat V is and was one of the better jockeys in this country.When you have an athlete, politician, corporate exec on the ropes, at times it can be beneficial for them, not always, but it can. Pat V, has had multiple chances, and with the new findings presented to the chairman, it worked out for him now.P.S its souns good, and good wash. P.S. what the heck, calif needs PAT V all the other top jocks are either retired or abroad.......:eek:

[WINMANWIN]

Originally posted by WINMANWIN
Gents lets put the cards on the table and possibly end the bickering, Everyone makes good points in this thread, but
in life, sometimes others get better treatment or get overlooked more than others, Let's face it Pat V is and was one of the better jockeys in this country.When you have an athlete, politician, corporate exec on the ropes, at times it can be beneficial for them, not always, but it can. Pat V, has had multiple chances, and with the new findings presented to the chairman, it worked out for him now.P.S its sounds good. P.S. what the heck, calif needs PAT V, all the other top jocks are either retired or abroad.......:eek:

sorry didn't mean to edit post ..:o

[Dancer's Image]

PA,
You asked...1)"So then Dancer's Image, why is he riding? 2)Why did Chairman Harris reverse the decision of the stewards? 3)What is the ultimate reason we are having this argument?"...

1) Because Chairman Harris reversed the decision of the stewards.
2) WHY? Good question! I don't know why, but I do know that it was the wrong thing for Chairman Harris to do. And furthermore, I don't buy Chairman Harris's reasons for why he did it. He said words to the effect that he was afraid the courts would grant the stay if he did not and he at least could set some conditions on PVal. Well, whoop-de-doo, Chairman Harris, you're some shrewd negotiator....you give PVal everything he wants for breaking his contract with your board and all you add is that PVal must undergo mental health counselling(which PVal was already receiving at the time). In the meantime, by Chairman Harris reversing the stay, he undermined the work of his stewards, who were properly enforcing the terms of the conditional license, and also he infuriated the jockey colony, who can rightly claim that PVal is being given preferential treatment. It would have been infinitely better for the courts to have granted the stay rather than Chairman Harris, an action which I don't think the courts would have taken. And even if the courts did reverse the suspension, Harris could have then expedited the appeals process and the stewards, the jockey colony, and PVal himself would have been happy.
WHY? Damned good question...you asked facetiously, I presume, "Does PVal have some compromising photos of Chairman Harris locked away in a safety deposit box?"...but I don't doubt but there might indeed be some nefarious reason as to why Chairman Harris made such a bad (both for himself and for racing) decision.
3) Because I thought you were a rational person; I am beginning to think that I was wrong in that assumption, hell you can't even answer simple questions (another 3 questions went unanswered by you in my last post). But I'll give you another chance...go back to my first or second post addressed to you and answer the question, I can't cut and paste it for some reason but it was something like, "Do you think that PVal should be given a stay of his suspension of his conditional racing license, after he violated the terms of his conditional license agreement with the CHRB? And if you do, please explain why? (here it is cut and pasted from my earlier post... GIVEN THE FACTS WE HAVE NOW, THAT IS, THAT PVAL VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HIS CONDITIONAL LICENSE, BY NOT TAKING A DRUG TEST WHEN REQUESTED TO TAKE A DRUG TEST BY THE STEWARDS, SHOULD PVAL BE GIVEN A STAY OF THE SUSPENSION OF HIS LICENSE AND BE ALLOWED TO RIDE AGAIN AT HOLLYWOOD TODAY? If you could please answer this question, we could continue a rational discussion.)

And please note that this is a request on my part, not a demand as you erroneously stated in your earlier post.

[WINMANWIN]

Just another thought.........Today I was betting the races as usual
and when I cap, I always think about what IF ? meaning steed brakes bad, jock is not interesting in perserveing today with there mount etc........This game is not legit by any means.Today I was on 2 speed steeds that needed the lead and had #'s, fractions, 1st calls, pace lines, class lines etc over the early front runners. In one race it was comedy central, jock had 1 mount on the day, steed was 3 to 5,He never wanted to get involved...just imagine if the public Knew what he did, you cash many exacta's knowing when one tries and doesnt. I guarantee, if I know what horse to leave out in Ex's and pick 3's etc, It makes a world of difference, believe me. Point is, these jocks if polygraphed would never in there life time pass a POLYGRAPH TEST, I'm not saying the game is fixed, and the outcome is pre-determined in many of these races, but when jocks dont give honest efforts at times, it can be beneficial, to those that know and can take adavantage
of it. Hey big races are another thing, everyone says, the purses are huge etc. I agree, but 80% of the races run are claimers etc and anyone that follows this game KNOWS what happens on
a daily basis AT ALL TRACKS. Bottom line is A THIEF, IS A THIEF, IS A THIEF, and with that said, I couldn't care less who's in the game. :D

[John]

Hey Joe, good to see you are doing fine. God bless you.

Joe, you make a good point, when I was young was in my prime. I hung out with Jockeys. Owners and trainers tell Jockeys, son we are going to take it easy today.In two weeks is a better race with easier competition. [ condition of the race. ] If that Jockey wants more mounts from that barn he better do what he is told.Does that make him a bad rider and he should he be ruled off . I don't think so. It is a game I chose to play and I have to play by the owner/trainer /jockeys rules.

[WINMANWIN]

Originally posted by rocajack
Hey Joe, good to see you are doing fine. God bless you.

Joe, you make a good point, when I was young was in my prime. I hung out with Jockeys. Owners and trainers tell Jockeys, son we are going to take it easy today.In two weeks is a better race with easier competition. [ condition of the race. ] If that Jockey wants more mounts from that barn he better do what he is told.Does that make him a bad rider and he should he be ruled off . I don't think so. It is a game I chose to play and I have to play by the owner/trainer /jockeys rules.

Yes indeed John, and Thanks for the kind words.
We choose to play and accept the outcomes, but It doesn't mean every now and then, we cant state the obvious to others, that are NAIVE to these DAILY HAPPENINGS;)

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
3) Because I thought you were a rational person; I am beginning to think that I was wrong in that assumption, hell you can't even answer simple questions (another 3 questions went unanswered by you in my last post).

I'm so terribly sorry to have disappointed you. At least you can't say that I'm not consistent.

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem, as I've answered your question. I said that for now I agree with whatever actions have been taken by the officials involved.

I told you I think Pat Valenzuela should be allowed to ride if he is clean and sober. He violated his conditional license and he was suspended. I agree with that action. His suspension was overturned by the chairman of the CHRB for reasons that I will assume are valid, so I agree with that action as well.

So the answer is YES, I agree that he should be given a stay and should be allowed to ride if owners and trainers are willing to hire him.

Happy now?

[Dancer's Image]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
I'm so terribly sorry to have disappointed you. At least you can't say that I'm not consistent.

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem, as I've answered your question. I said that for now I agree with whatever actions have been taken by the officials involved.

I told you I think Pat Valenzuela should be allowed to ride if he is clean and sober. He violated his conditional license and he was suspended. I agree with that action. His suspension was overturned by the chairman of the CHRB for reasons that I will assume are valid, so I agree with that action as well.

So the answer is YES, I agree that he should be given a stay and should be allowed to ride if owners and trainers are willing to hire him.

Happy now?

Yes, very happy. But you, consistent? I think not. First of all, this is the first time you've ever answered the question so don't insult me (where's the forum policeman, Tom?) by saying I have the RC problem. You have said that PVal should be allowed to ride if he tests clean, and I have pointed out that that is not the question. Since it's been so long, here is the question again...

GIVEN THE FACTS WE HAVE NOW, THAT IS, THAT PVAL VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HIS CONDITIONAL LICENSE, BY NOT TAKING A DRUG TEST WHEN REQUESTED TO TAKE A DRUG TEST BY THE STEWARDS, SHOULD PVAL BE GIVEN A STAY OF THE SUSPENSION OF HIS LICENSE AND BE ALLOWED TO RIDE AGAIN AT HOLLYWOOD TODAY?

...and you answered YES. But you also said that you agreed that since PVal violated the terms of his conditional license, that his license should be suspended. No problem there, we agree that PVal should have been suspended. But here's where I am consistent and you (and Harris) are not. If the stewards acted properly, like you and I agree, in suspending PVal for violating terms of his conditional license, why should the chairman of that same board overseeing the stewards, reverse their decision? If you were consistent, you (and Harris) would either agree that the stewards acted properly in suspending PVal or you would have some reason for reversing that decision. You (and Harris) have given no reason for reversing the suspension of PVal's license. But what Harris has done, (and you have agreed with), is to afford preferential treatment to PVal; the other jockeys have to follow the rules, PVal does not.

Let's see how this plays out at the CHRB appeal on 5/18; like I said, if the board wants to change the conditions of PVal license and allow him these little drug holidays, I have no problem with that. But that will not change the fact that PVal was in violation of his contract concerning this conditional license and should face the consequences.
Consistently yours, DI

[schweitz]

Dancer's Image,

Just curious---why is this so important to you?

[John]

So he can have another drink.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
If the stewards acted properly, like you and I agree, in suspending PVal for violating terms of his conditional license, why should the chairman of that same board overseeing the stewards, reverse their decision? If you were consistent, you (and Harris) would either agree that the stewards acted properly in suspending PVal or you would have some reason for reversing that decision.

So then, by your logic, I suppose you would be in favor of abolishing the system of appeals that we have in our judicial system. Not just the appeals court, but the power given to judges presiding over cases to set aside a verdict given out by a jury, if that judge decides that the jury was wrong in their decision.

Chairman Harris was well within his right (as a judge of sorts), to overturn the decision made by the stewards (a jury of sorts). This is nothing new. Let me know when they find out that Chairman Harris was breaking the law or acting outside the scope of his powers.

CEOs override the decisions of their underlings every day, as does every other boss out there in America. That's why they are in charge. They get paid to make the tough judgement calls.

I will agree with you though that a lack of explanation as to why he overturned the decision is puzzling. Are you absolutely sure that no explanation has been given to date?

[PaceAdvantage]

And Dancer's Image, when I said that I was consistent, I meant consistent in that I am constantly disappointing you with my answers (or lack thereof).

[Tom]

Is it just me or is Dancer's Inage writing somehow very familiar?
Like he/she has been here before. :confused:

[keilan]

26 posts since the 20th, nah it couldn't be. ;) ;)

[Dancer's Image]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
And Dancer's Image, when I said that I was consistent, I meant consistent in that I am constantly disappointing you with my answers (or lack thereof).

Finally, a post from you that does not disappoint! LOL

[Dancer's Image]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
So then, by your logic, I suppose you would be in favor of abolishing the system of appeals that we have in our judicial system. Not just the appeals court, but the power given to judges presiding over cases to set aside a verdict given out by a jury, if that judge decides that the jury was wrong in their decision.

Chairman Harris was well within his right (as a judge of sorts), to overturn the decision made by the stewards (a jury of sorts). This is nothing new. Let me know when they find out that Chairman Harris was breaking the law or acting outside the scope of his powers.

CEOs override the decisions of their underlings every day, as does every other boss out there in America. That's why they are in charge. They get paid to make the tough judgement calls.

I will agree with you though that a lack of explanation as to why he overturned the decision is puzzling. Are you absolutely sure that no explanation has been given to date?

No, PA, as I said before, I am all for PVal's right to appeal. And I've said earlier in this thread that Harris was acting within his powers/rights to reverse the stewards decision; my point has always been that Harris was wrong in reversing the decision. And I like your analogy with CEO's; they do get paid to make the tough decisions; but when they make the wrong decision, they should pay, and Harris should be fired for reversing the stewards decision. I have posted earlier today, more than my two cents worth on Harris's explanation as to why he reversed the steward's proper suspension of PVal, and I am also like you, puzzled (but I am additionally infuriated and incensed). I have not seen any other explanation from him, and I can not just assume like you have, that his reasons for reversing the steward's decision are valid. I seriously can not think of a legitimate excuse for PVal not taking the drug test or even contacting the stewards for 3 weeks (short of PVal being abducted and restrained at gunpoint). Some of the reasons mentioned in this thread, clinical depression, marital difficulties, financial problems, etc. are ludicrous, ie. they don't prevent PVal from peeing into a cup!

ps to Tom: I thought you were ignoring me? I have no quarrel with you; I hold no hard feelings towards you; and I assure you that I have never posted on this board before this month.
ps to Keilan: Believe it or not, it really isn't important to me....I just like to argue. After almost 40 years of marriage, I have a perfect record in arguments, (I'll let you guess whether zero wins or losses).

[kenwoodallpromos]

DI has not been here before! Some people have tried to come on the board under various names, but DI goofed up trying to edit and sounds overall like a newbie! / Looks like Sunday no cheap shots on P.Val by other jockeys!

[Dancer's Image]

Here ya go, PA...this thread is the reason why I singled you out in the other PVal thread. There were others in this thread who were defending PVal, notably Buckeye, but you made yourself unforgettable by your obstinate refusal to answer simple questions, your illogical defense of PVal, and your trying to shift the blame from PVal to the other jockeys calling them jealous hypocrites.

ps. this is not an "I told you so" post!

[Buckeye]

Dancer,
I am on-board with you now that it is clear to me. No hair no job. I don't think this is a fashion statement.

[Dancer's Image]

Welcome aboard, Buckeye...
Unfortunately, I don't think it's over yet...I wouldn't be surprised to see a repeat of the stay of the suspension by CHRB Chairman Harris or another slap on the wrist (meaning another 1-4 months suspension) by the appeals board.

PVal should be suspended for at least a year, if not indefinitely. More egregious than the drug violations themselves, is the way PVal has taken advantage of the system. The other jockeys have every right to feel like they are being treated unfairly if PVal is allowed to ride again.

[CryingForTheHorses]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
Pace Advantage,
I am surprised and disappointed to see you, the administrator of this forum, post this. I just remarked to JustRalph yesterday in a similar thread about PVal, that I had not seen any reasonable person support the stay of the suspension for PVal. But let me ask you again, do you really believe that PVal should be given a stay of his suspension, and get to ride horses again tomorrow? The reason I ask you to answer this question again is because of what you wrote in your post. You said, "If PVal tests clean, he should be allowed to ride." Well, according to your own words then, you do NOT believe that PVal should be allowed to ride. Because PVal did NOT test clean when he was requested to take the test when he said he sprained his ankle; PVal did NOT even take the test; PVal did not even contact the stewards for 3 weeks after they requested that he come in and be tested. You know all this, I don't need to repeat it all for you. So according to your own words, you do NOT believe that PVal should be able to ride again. So if you'd like to give us a rational reason for why PVal should be allowed to ride again, I would love to hear it. I haven't heard any rational explanation yet for why PVal has been given this stay of his suspension, least of all, Chairman Harris, who granted the stay.

What really aggravates me about your post, is your calling the jockey colony a bunch of hypocrites. They have not done anything wrong. They all have to earn and keep a racing license in order to ride horses; they have done that. PVal has NOT!!!! PVal has violated the conditions of his license and therefore he has no license and therefore he should not ride horses tomorrow. For Chairman Harris to say that PVal doesn't have to follow the rules, like the rest of the jockeys do, is a slap in the face to all those jockeys who do follow the rules. I sincerely hope that the jockeys have the courage of their convictions to take this all the way to a boycott if PVal is allowed to ride tomorrow.

I have made a couple of posts defending PVAL,Unfortunally he is not man enough to face his problems. I do agree with you Mr Dancer and I partly agree with PA.The one problem that I do have is why?. Is PVAL paying off someone??.Hell it seems this guy could run for govenor and win.Just read the other post on PVAL..Looks li he may be going down this time for good!...God Bless you PVAL...our going to need it

[Bruddah]

from start to finish, and I must say, both DI and PA have made great points in their respective arguments. However, there is one FACT which stands out beyond all others. PVAL has yet to convince a group of his peers. (Jockeys) There are 30 of his peers who have voiced an objection to his reinstatement. Now some may not want him back due to the competition he poses. But to believe all of this peer group opposes him because of increased competition, is ludicrous. This is grasping at straws to support one's opinion and cannot be supported factually. They (jockeys) are the ones who are privy to the real truth(s) of his past actions. There are many untold stories, the general public will not hear, and this group knows them.

Normally, the first group to an individual's defense are his peers. Why? Because they also will GAIN or LOSE, if one of their own is being treated unfairly or persecuted. In this case, a sizeable group of his peers have voted NO and if I were making the decision, I would have to respect this beyond all other evidence. (JMHO)

[PaceAdvantage]

If and when the stewards deem him fit to ride again, he should be allowed to ride.

How's that for simplicity?

[Tom]

Only way I would ever believe this guy is that if the NEXT agreement he violates has to do with a sperm sample. If he shows up to ride with THAT shaved off, I say let him ride.