P Val

[BillW]

TVG just reported the CHRB suspended his license for it's term (12/31/04) and recommended not renewing it in any capacity in perpetuity, i.e. they banned him from the industry in CA.

Bill

[garyoz]

I personally agree with this decision. I don't think he should have been allowed back that last few times. Looks like Corey Black made a bad decision in hooking his wagon to PVal. I noticed last week that he mentioned he wasn't getting air time at TVG. I guess he's back to a part-time TVG analyst and exercise rider.

[PaceAdvantage]

Well then, I guess that settles that!

[BillW]

The California courts will have P Val back in the saddle before the end of the year ... just watch. :rolleyes:

Re. C Black, betcha he pocketed more $$$$ in that little bit of time than he lost in air time on TVG. Probably good for his resume also.

Bill

[JimG]

Originally posted by BillW
The California courts will have P Val back in the saddle before the end of the year ... just watch. :rolleyes:

Re. C Black, betcha he pocketed more $$$$ in that little bit of time than he lost in air time on TVG. Probably good for his resume also.

Bill

Bill W,

I'm interested in why you think the court will overrule or modify today's ruling. What argument do you think will help PVal on that one?

Regarding Corey Black, your absolutely right...and I did not miss his hindsight analysis or his never ending dribble concerning changing leads at all.

Jim

[CryingForTheHorses]

ANOTHER sad thing for RACING!!
The man did it to himself,OTHER jocks are just wishing to be in his spot as a rider,SUCH a WASTE. I do feel for the man now that he is going to be denied making a living.I really dont think you should blame the man as much as the drugs.Seems he tries but cant BEAT these DEMONS.PVAL is really a nice guy,I wish guys would understand what he is going thu,I know he has had MANY chances to clean himself up.This is a SICK man guys and Im sure it will get worse before its over.He really needs help not MOCKERY

[BillW]

Originally posted by JimG
Bill W,

I'm interested in why you think the court will overrule or modify today's ruling. What argument do you think will help PVal on that one?

Regarding Corey Black, your absolutely right...and I did not miss his hindsight analysis or his never ending dribble concerning changing leads at all.

Jim

It's mostly circumstantial evidence (just a coincidence that he was required to take a folicle test a day after he has a complete body deforestation.) While, you and I see this as a one-in-a-billion coincidence, strictly speaking it is not against the law to do that, coupled with the CHRB not strictly spelling out his requirements regarding shaving. My guess is the courts will ignore his contract (missing the earlier test) and rule on the letter of the law not the overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Actually for the sake of the other jockeys (and for P Val also) I hope not.

Bill

[DJofSD]

I wonder who Pat will be voting for in November - assuming he votes!

DJofSD

[CryingForTheHorses]

This is what I dont understand!
Who's to say if he is really hiding something.IF he was to have this hair test, WHY wouldnt they inform him a few days before (doesnt the dentist call you reminding you of a tooth to be filled).ALSO in all reality HOW FAIR WOULD THE HAIR TEST BE?.IT takes at least a year for your hair to grow 4 inches.ALSO was a guy on CRIME SCENE SHOW stating drug evidence in the root of the hair folicle could stay there for YEARS.Even when you are deadI think the CHRB is in big DOO-DOO over THIS.I also dont think PVAL has ANY respect for rules or HIMSELF.I also think denying him a living in a SPECIALTY JOB is a BIG mistake. The racetrack is a LOT different from the REAL world, THEY make their OWN rules and CHANGE them at their calling.(They changed the claiming rule at Calder BECAUSE of M GILL)The stewards are GOD and the commision is NOT a court of LAW..This is like signing a DEATH warrant for this MAN.They also need to do this type of testing in ALL jocks rooms across the usa and Canada.Im sure havin a few chemists checking blood, urine, hair etc WOULD make a lot MORE people HONEST.Its very easy to say to HANG the MAN..In the UNITED STATES arent you INNOCENT until proven GUILTY?.

[howardjim]

Now...if only we could confirm Elvis is dead!

[PaceAdvantage]

McSchell, if you're lucky (like me), Dancer's Image will hound you for a while about PVal based on your comments suggesting the current course of action might not be the way to go....

But then again, DI will probably find a way to agree with what you're saying while at the same time coming down on me once again like a ton of bricks......sigh....

[CryingForTheHorses]

YES PA...I have been eagerly waiting for HIS response..:)

[kenwoodallpromos]

At least he did not bet illegally, like Pete Rose did.

[Dancer's Image]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
McSchell, if you're lucky (like me), Dancer's Image will hound you for a while about PVal based on your comments suggesting the current course of action might not be the way to go....

But then again, DI will probably find a way to agree with what you're saying while at the same time coming down on me once again like a ton of bricks......sigh....

PA,
If you go back to the original PVal thread, which was started in May, (and which I can not reopen because I am a computer idiot), you will see that the reason I started "hounding" you was because you made a post which said, something like, "PVal should be allowed to ride; the other jockeys are just jealous of PVal". The thread went downhill from there as I asked you a simple question, "Should PVal be allowed to ride?", and you managed to evade that question for several weeks. I had just mentioned to JustRalph in a similar thread, that I hadn't met any reasonable person who thought that PVal should be allowed to ride again. It was your refusal to answer my simple question and your unreasonable and illogical stance on the PVal situation that made me "hound" you. You actually agreed with me all along, but you just refused to admit it....sigh....

[JustRalph]

I was able to locate a picture of PVAL after the shave...........

[Dancer's Image]

Del Mar

Valenzuela vows to fight suspension
By STEVE ANDERSEN
DEL MAR, Calif. - Jockey Patrick Valenzuela vowed on Friday to fight his
suspension for failing to take a hair-follicle test last month, but is unlikely
to resume riding until the appeals process is played out.

On Friday, Del Mar stewards Ingrid Fermin, George Slender, and Tom
Ward suspended Valenzuela through Dec. 31, the rest of the term of his
conditional license; denied him access to racetrack grounds; and
recommended to the California Horse Racing Board that Valenzuela "not
be considered for future licensing in any capacity."

Valenzuela, who has a history of substance abuse problems that have
interrupted his career, was notified of the decision by his lawyer, Neil
Papiano. Valenzuela said he was in Dallas attending a funeral on Friday.

Valenzuela has not ridden since July 1. He was summarily suspended on
July 2 for failure to take the hair-follicle test on July 1. At the time,
Valenzuela argued that he was unable to take the test because he had
shaved his body, including the hair on his head, armpits, and pubic area.

The hair-follicle test was a requirement of his conditional license. The July
2 suspension came one day after Valenzuela returned from a 30-day ban
for failing to submit to a mandatory drug test in January.

"I was never advised what length of hair to grow," Valenzuela said. "I
didn't do a thing wrong. I got suspended for people assuming that I did
something wrong."

Papiano described the ruling as a "death penalty." He argued that
Valenzuela should not be suspended because he passed urine tests on
July 1, has not tested positive for drugs since 2000, and was never told
how long his hair needed to be for hair-follicle testing.

In their statement of decision, the stewards said that Valenzuela found a
way to evade hair-follicle testing and was in violation of his license.

"[Valenzuela] has been a talented jockey for many years, but it is evident
that he has failed to learn that he must be accountable for the
consequences of his behavior," the statement said.

Valenzuela can request a stay from the CHRB, allowing him to ride. If the
stay is denied, he can request a temporary restraining order from
Superior Court, which would allow him to ride until an appeal is heard
before the board.

An appeal, which would be heard by an administrative law judge, might
not be scheduled for several months. But there is precedent for a faster
remedy. In April, Valenzuela was suspended for the remainder of 2004 for
failing to submit to the mandatory drug test in January. The CHRB took
the unprecedented step of meeting at Hollywood Park in May to hear
Valenzuela's appeal. In their ruling, the CHRB modified the ruling of the
Santa Anita stewards. They suspended Valenzuela for four months, but
gave him credit for three months served early in the year. The remaining
month was served in June.

Valenzuela said Friday that he expects to win an appeal. Last year, he
won riding titles at five meetings in Southern California.

So far this year, he has ridden for about two months - the first three
weeks of January and a five-week period from late April through May.

Valenzuela did not ride from the end of January until April 25 because of
his absence from the drug test in January. When Valenzuela began his
30-day suspension in June, he was the leading rider at the Hollywood
Park spring-summer meeting.

"The $2 bettor will be glad that I'll be back," he said. "Whether it's
tomorrow or the next day, the $2 bettors will be happy. And I'll be happy.
The owners who want a good rider that gives 110 percent will be happy."

[CryingForTheHorses]

PVAL needs to conform to the conditions of his conditional licence before being allowed to ride again After reading some more material that was sent to me, I have to agree with The DANCER that INDEED PVAL has been manipulating all those around him, Icluding his FAMILY , His friends and MOST of all HIMSELF for the continuing drug use and LIES
Thanks Dancer!

[Dancer's Image]

Thank you, McSchell...your opinion means a lot to me!

[PaceAdvantage]

DI, I just don't get you. I didn't evade anything. What I said from the beginning is that if he tests negative and trainers want to ride him, then he should be allowed to ride.

Now, however the CHRB or the stewards want to see to it that he test negative (be it by urine, or hair, or whatever), that's THEIR issue to resolve.

If he violates a license agreement, obviously, he won't be able to test negative, since there will be no testing, since he will likely be suspended because of any violation (like he is now)

My guess is, that you just like to debate (or argue), and that's all fine and good, since debate is what this place is all about.

But, I did not evade anything, in reality.

[Dancer's Image]

PA,
What don't you get? I asked you a simple question back in May when the PVal suspension was lifted....Should PVal be allowed to ride or not? And you're still being evasive. You keep saying, "What I said from the beginning is that if he tests negative and trainers want to ride him, then he should be allowed to ride." That's being evasive! The question requires a yes or no answer. So either answer the question, based on the facts as we know them, or evade the question as you've done for 3 months now. The facts were in May, when I initially asked you the question, that PVal had not submitted to the drug test as requested by the stewards, and therefore, no reasonable person could answer the question in the affirmative. But you didn't answer the question in the negative, you evaded the question by giving not a yes or no answer, but a conditional answer based not on the facts, but on what you wished the facts were. If PVal tested negative, I wouldn't have asked you the question. So why do you answer my question with the conditional if PVal tests negative, when he didn't take the test at all? That's being evasive, PA, and a severe pain in the neck too, by the way. You guessed right, I like to debate horseracing and other things, with reasonable people. You have not shown yourself to be a reasonable person. But you are consistent and persistent, and so am I. So as long as you evade the question, and then come here stating that you didn't evade the question, I will be here to tell you the facts. You evaded the question, PA.

[Tom]

PA's answer is crystal clear to me. He has answered you stupid question many times. Perhaps you don' t read so good?
The question doesn't require a yes or no answer. Get over it.
PA is a reasonable person - it is you are thick as a brick. Sorry to get in here PA, but this guy is just plain annoying...like an itch you cannot "scratch," ya know?

[Dancer's Image]

Oh really, ok, Tom, do you think PVal should be allowed to ride now?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
Oh really, ok, Tom, do you think PVal should be allowed to ride now?

And there's the pitch.......... Tom....... I say you take and walk out of the batters box.........

[freeneasy]

this guys got a every angle card you can play right up his sleave. and he's going to play every card and those cards will leagally bound the courts to rule in his favor.
the chrb decided on folicle testing but they forgot that pats a drug addict, and that there should have been a clause stipulating that as a part of his reinstaement, that when he is called in for testing that there must be somewhere on his body, attainable hair, growing, that meets the proper length requirements to do folicle testing. and what did pat tell the meadia?
oh, they never told me anything about how long my hair needed to be so how was i supposed to know. and you what, in every leagal degree according to the terms of his conditional agreement with the chrb he's right. not having any prior knowledge of folicle testing he should have been made aware of this aspect of folicle testing.
and the chrb better get up off thieir asses and reinstate the man and do it pronto otherwise the mans going to have some damn strong grounds to bring on one hell of a lawsuite against them because as far as the law is concerned and only as far as the law is concerned the chrb should have known these things and it failed to properly make pat val fully aware as to the complete procedures of folicle testings and to penalize a man his living based on these grounds is probably going to get them sued for a whole lot of money. hey thats what i would have done when i was a drug addict and thats what i would do if i was pat val.
see the only reason they cant catch him is cause they dont think the way he does. they aint think'n like a drug addict, they probably believe the man and take him at his word. and thats where he's got the jump on em.
see all he's got to do is stand there in front of the judge and say, gee thats news to me, how's come they never told me about that.
reinstatement, case dismissed. oh and judement for the plaintive in the amount of $some ungodly sum.
the mans a pro.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
PA,
What don't you get? I asked you a simple question back in May when the PVal suspension was lifted....

My statements to you back then, and now, provided a simple answer. Obviously, if he couldn't test negative back then, or now, because he didn't show up for the test, or couldn't comply with the test's requirements (hair follicles), then the answer is obviously no, he shouldn't be allowed to ride.

Just because I didn't formulate my response in the exact manner in which you demanded doesn't mean the answer was any less obvious to a thinking man.

[Dancer's Image]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
My statements to you back then, and now, provided a simple answer. Obviously, if he couldn't test negative back then, or now, because he didn't show up for the test, or couldn't comply with the test's requirements (hair follicles), then the answer is obviously no, he shouldn't be allowed to ride.

Just because I didn't formulate my response in the exact manner in which you demanded doesn't mean the answer was any less obvious to a thinking man.

Finally....only 3 months to answer a simple question. And yes PA, the answer was obviously "NO", no reasonable person could answer yes and defend it. And you were the one who formulated his answer based on another set of facts that didn't exist. Your answer..."What I said from the beginning is that if he tests negative and trainers want to ride him, then he should be allowed to ride."...sounds like "YES" but you really meant "NO".....that's evasive. Bill Clinton "IS" your hero!

[Tom]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
Oh really, ok, Tom, do you think PVal should be allowed to ride now?

No. Simple enough?

[Dancer's Image]

Thanks Tom. See how easy that was to answer a simple question? If PA had answered thusly 3 months ago, instead of waiting until today, we wouldn't have had all this discussion. Once again, thanks for your support!

[TOOZ]

Trainers Against Druggie Jocks. Why look for an argument when the answer will be no, always. You can't let a potential druggie
ride a machine going 40. Just think of the lawsuit if they ever let this clown ride and he caused a disaster because he did a little toot between races. The guy's postal, waiting to happen.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
Thanks Tom. See how easy that was to answer a simple question? If PA had answered thusly 3 months ago, instead of waiting until today, we wouldn't have had all this discussion. Once again, thanks for your support!

YOU wouldn't have had this discussion. I understood PA from
day1. Don't confuse support with sarcasim. The No needed no qualifiers. The yes with qualifiers was actually the only way you could answer. A simple Yes would have lacked insight.
But hey, I don' t play his track anyway, so he can ride naked if he wants to.;)

[freeneasy]

with his boots on and a feather in his arss

[Dancer's Image]

Originally posted by Tom
YOU wouldn't have had this discussion. I understood PA from
day1. Don't confuse support with sarcasim. The No needed no qualifiers. The yes with qualifiers was actually the only way you could answer. A simple Yes would have lacked insight.
But hey, I don' t play his track anyway, so he can ride naked if he wants to.;)

Ok, O wise one...since you understood PA from day 1, what did he answer, yes or no? Here's PA's standard answer..."What I said from the beginning is that if he tests negative and trainers want to ride him, then he should be allowed to ride."...
That is not a NO answer! That is a YES answer, with as you say, qualifiers, which I say is an answer to another question, based on another set of facts, another reality, which was not the set of facts or the reality wherein I asked the question. In other words it was an evasive answer; an answer to a question that I never asked.


And I submit to you for your careful consideration, that I am not the one having difficulty recognizing sarcasm.

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe I have a future in politics with me "evasive answers"


:D

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Maybe I have a future in politics with me "evasive answers"


:D

Well, if you do, you are in trouble seeing how I understand you!:D

DI...you just asked the wrong question, that's all.:D

Here's one for you.....should you cross the street?
Yes or no. Anything else is evasive.:D

[Dancer's Image]

Yeah, silly me, I was asking the question based on the facts of the agreement between PVal and the CHRB regarding the conditions of his license, and PA was answering the question based on what he believed the conditions should have been.
Yes, PA, I said that Bill Clinton must be your hero. Now can you cheat on your wife, and flip-flop on the issues? If so, you will go far in donkey politics!

[Dancer's Image]

Del Mar _
Valenzuela denied stay of ban
By STEVE ANDERSEN
DEL MAR, Calif. - The California Horse Racing Board on Tuesday denied jockey Patrick's Valenzuela's request for a stay of his suspension for failing to take a hair-follicle test in early July.
The board's decision will force Valenzuela to seek a temporary restraining order in Superior Court in an effort to return to riding. Valenzuela's attorney, Neil Papiano, is likely to seek relief in the courts in coming days. Valenzuela and Papiano were not available for comment.
Valenzuela, 41, was suspended by Del Mar stewards Ingrid Fermin, George Slender, and Tom Ward on Aug. 6 for failing to take the hair-follicle test on July 1. The hair-follicle test was a requirement of Valenzuela's conditional license.
Valenzuela, who has a history of substance abuse problems, said at the time that he could not take the test because he had shaved his body, including his balding head, armpits, and pubic area.
A hearing on Valenzuela's suspension for not taking the hair-follicle test was held over three days in late July and early August in the stewards' office at Del Mar. In their Aug. 6 ruling, the Del Mar stewards also recommended that Valenzuela "not be considered for future licensing by the California Horse Racing Board in any capacity."
Papiano argued last week that Valenzuela should not have been suspended because the jockey passed urine tests on July 1, has not tested positive for drugs since 2000, and was never told how long his hair needed to be for hair-follicle testing.
Valenzuela led the standings at five meetings in Southern California last year, but has ridden for only two months this year. He did not ride from late January to late April after failing to submit to a mandatory drug test in January.
In April, Santa Anita stewards Pete Pedersen, Fermin, and Ward terminated Valenzuela's conditional license for the remainder of 2004 for missing that drug test. The penalty was reduced to four months, with three months' credit for time served, by the state racing board in May. The remaining month was served in June. Valenzuela returned to riding on July 1 but was summarily suspended on July 2 for failing to submit to the hair-follicle test.