PDA

View Full Version : PVal denied stay of suspension


Dancer's Image
07-16-2004, 05:56 PM
Stay Denied, Valenzuela Awaits Stewards
by Margaret Ransom
Date Posted: 7/16/2004 5:38:33 PM
Last Updated: 7/16/2004 5:39:18 PM
Jockey Patrick Valenzuela was denied a stay of his suspension by California Superior Court judge David Yaffe on July 16 and will not be permitted to ride until he appears at a hearing before Del Mar stewards.
Such a meeting could come as early as July 23. The embattled rider was suspended July 2 after failing to comply with the terms of his conditional license and provide hair samples for mandatory hair follicle testing.

Yaffe dismissed Valenzuela's request without prejudice, according to deputy attorney general Jim Ahern. The 41-year-old rider could request another stay if his administrative hearing is not heard by July 29.

"If the administrative hearing isn't held by July 29, then Mr. Valenzuela can go back to court and request another stay," Ahern said. "The judge was more than fair. He went over all the evidence and knew all the terms of (Valenzuela's) conditional license and understood the history.

"Mr. Valenzuela's attorney, Mr. (Neil) Papiano and I, would like to push forward with this and have a hearing ASAP. Right now we're looking at July 23 and July 29 down in Del Mar and which day depends on whether the expert witness on hair follicle testing is available."

Hollywood Park stewards scheduled a meeting for July 15 initially, but it was postponed after they granted a request for continuance to Ahern, who asked for more time to schedule an expert witness to discuss hair follicle testing and analysis.

Valenzuela's most recent suspension came one day after he returned from a 30-day ban for failing to submit to a mandatory drug test in January. Hollywood Park officials claimed the rider was unable to provide hair follicles for testing because he had fully shaved his body and could not comply.

However Valenzuela's attorney, Papiano, said he met with Valenzuela July 6 and said there was hair on Valenzuela's head.

"I'm disappointed, obviously," Corey Black, Valenzuela's agent, said. "But the judge's ruling forces (the stewards) to speed things up."

mhrussell
07-17-2004, 01:49 AM
Think about this:

If this were anyone of us on this board and in context with any of our own jobs;

we would still be in jail and never hope to work again. How many chances is this guy going to get?

It's time to say DONE!

I am divorced and tyring to start over again and can't even afford a median price home yet this guy makes millions and is on drugs. I would be out on the street and never have a hope in hell of ever re-instasting my Defense Dept. Security Clearances needed in my line of work and this guy is going to get yet again one more chance and be even more "successful" than ever. It seems the public and the women love him more than ever the more trouble he gets into. It just makes me sick!

It's time to throw this bastard on his ear and have him face up to his problems, take the consequences and responsibility and find something else to do with his life.

I for one will never bet another horse he rides. I suggest others do likewise.

PaceAdvantage
07-20-2004, 11:14 PM
Matt,

You are forgetting one very important point. Pat Valenzuela, through all of this recent news over the past 6 to 12 months, has not tested POSITIVE for anything.

Yes, he's bent and broken the rules of his conditional license, but he hasn't been proven guilty of any drug taking. So no, he would not be in jail.


==PA

mhrussell
07-21-2004, 09:59 PM
PA

It is inmaterial that he has never tested POSTIVE for drugs. The duplicity is that he has repeatably violated the terms of his re-instatement by not showing up for tests, or more recently, being "able" to provide a hair sample<which was clearly intentional on his part>

My point is that if any of us "normal" folks here pulled that on our jobs; ie. violated the drug testing terms of our employers, we would be GONE in an instant, whether we were stoned or sober. Employers in the real world do not give second chances let alone 5 or 6 second chances.
Enough is enough. It's time to turn the page...

Pace Cap'n
07-21-2004, 10:26 PM
Jockeys, PVal included, are no ones' "employee".

They are independent contractors who sell their services to the highest bidder.

PaceAdvantage
07-22-2004, 03:09 AM
What Pace Cap'n said.....

charleslanger
07-22-2004, 05:47 AM
Pace Cap'n: Jockeys, PVal included, are no ones' "employee". They are independent contractors who sell their services to the highest bidder.
Hhmmm, sorta like building contractors..........hhhmmmm.......