|
|
07-20-2018, 06:58 PM
|
#46
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,789
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
I don't care, Andy. Seriously. This is a regulated sport. It's a privilege to be able to hold a license in it.
If he has something to offer, there are plenty of career paths open to him. Indeed, given both his fame and accomplishments and what he has been through, I am actually quite sure that he can find a way to offer it in some public way.
But we can't have drug addicted jockeys, period. And we can't have proven liars in any capacity, and he lied repeatedly.
So it doesn't matter to me how many people come on here and say what an amazing person he is, how he has changed, or anything else. He shouldn't have anything to do with the regulated sport of horse racing.
|
He can't ride if he tests positive so what are you talking about?
|
|
|
07-20-2018, 08:28 PM
|
#47
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,284
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Asaro
If you watched the video interview on KUSI you'd see the man has something to offer.
|
I did watch the interview. He came across very well. However, I think you should consider several things.
1) He's 55 and looks like he's quite a distance from making weight. He said 7lbs but it looks like more.
2) The rest of the riders are likely to not be happy about him being licensed. Not because of the competition. But for the safety aspect. He didn't look good at all riding at 53. Can he compete with the fastest horses against the worlds best riders atop what will probably be inferior stock?
3) It sends a bad message to the racing public that California would grant a license to someone who's been given so many chances to only to be betrayed and made to look foolish. It got personal with John Harris when Patrick assured him man to man to allow him back then quickly broke his promise and again went off the wagon.
I strongly believe in redemption. Patrick seems genuine in his desire to return and be a positive force. And I agree with you he has much to offer. But by a preponderance of the facts at hand. I think it would be a mistake to allow him to once again ride races.
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi
|
|
|
07-20-2018, 09:30 PM
|
#48
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 510
|
We know that the Board of Stewards had a hard on for Pat and EVERYBODY else that they called to be in front of them.
Lack of mounts and Father Time will make it difficult for Pat.
Last edited by airford1; 07-20-2018 at 09:31 PM.
|
|
|
07-20-2018, 09:54 PM
|
#49
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,284
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by airford1
We know that the Board of Stewards had a hard on for Pat and EVERYBODY else that they called to be in front of them.
Lack of mounts and Father Time will make it difficult for Pat.
|
We don't KNOW anything of the sort.
And for that matter. If they had it against EVERYBODY wouldn't that make for equal justice?
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi
|
|
|
07-20-2018, 10:23 PM
|
#50
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 510
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by v j stauffer
We don't KNOW anything of the sort.
And for that matter. If they had it against EVERYBODY wouldn't that make for equal justice?
|
P.P had things his way. That was the LAW.
|
|
|
07-20-2018, 10:40 PM
|
#51
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,789
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by v j stauffer
We don't KNOW anything of the sort.
And for that matter. If they had it against EVERYBODY wouldn't that make for equal justice?
|
The CHRB and the Stewards do not want him to ride. airford1 is absolutely right.
|
|
|
07-20-2018, 10:44 PM
|
#52
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Asaro
He can't ride if he tests positive so what are you talking about?
|
It is important to remember that the rule isn't "don't fail a drug test". It is "don't ride under the influence, and admit that you are stoned and cannot ride if it happens".
The drug test is simply how we detect the riders who are violating. If he fails a drug test, that will mean that he has once again lied and endangered horses, and could be compromised to his dealers and others in the know.
If Pat Valenzuela, or any rider, was fighting a drug problem but was completely honest- i.e., self-reported every drug violation and took off his mounts- I would actually advocate for a significant amount of leniency. But that's not Pat- he gets stoned and then lies about it, sometimes dodging the test or forcing the regulators to catch him. He has done THAT over and over again. And honestly, he should have only been given one chance on that- the second violation should have been irrevocable banishment from the sport in any capacity. Not just for the drug use, but for failing to promptly report it to the stewards.
|
|
|
07-20-2018, 11:08 PM
|
#53
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,284
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Asaro
The CHRB and the Stewards do not want him to ride. airford1 is absolutely right.
|
I agree the CHRB and Stewards don't want to license him.
I believe their reasons and concerns are legitimate.
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi
|
|
|
07-20-2018, 11:09 PM
|
#54
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,789
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by v j stauffer
I agree the CHRB and Stewards don't want to license him.
I believe their reasons and concerns are legitimate.
|
I know you like to promote racing and that's good BUT everyone in positions of authority are not above reproach.
|
|
|
07-20-2018, 11:13 PM
|
#55
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,284
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
It is important to remember that the rule isn't "don't fail a drug test". It is "don't ride under the influence, and admit that you are stoned and cannot ride if it happens".
The drug test is simply how we detect the riders who are violating. If he fails a drug test, that will mean that he has once again lied and endangered horses, and could be compromised to his dealers and others in the know.
If Pat Valenzuela, or any rider, was fighting a drug problem but was completely honest- i.e., self-reported every drug violation and took off his mounts- I would actually advocate for a significant amount of leniency. But that's not Pat- he gets stoned and then lies about it, sometimes dodging the test or forcing the regulators to catch him. He has done THAT over and over again. And honestly, he should have only been given one chance on that- the second violation should have been irrevocable banishment from the sport in any capacity. Not just for the drug use, but for failing to promptly report it to the stewards.
|
Stark, Harsh, Compelling, Accurate.
Patrick's saga is certainly a sad one.
Had the ability to be remembered as one of the all time greats.
His disease stole that from him and us as racing fans.
I wish him nothing but the best for the rest of his life.
However, I DO NOT think he should be licensed as a jockey.
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi
|
|
|
07-20-2018, 11:17 PM
|
#56
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,284
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Asaro
I know you like to promote racing and that's good BUT everyone in positions of authority are not above reproach.
|
This thread is about Patrick not the CHRB or Stewards.
I certainly agree they are not above reproach.
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi
|
|
|
07-21-2018, 03:15 AM
|
#57
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 15,110
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by v j stauffer
I did watch the interview. He came across very well. However, I think you should consider several things.
1) He's 55 and looks like he's quite a distance from making weight. He said 7lbs but it looks like more.
The camera adds ten pounds
2) The rest of the riders are likely to not be happy about him being licensed. Not because of the competition. But for the safety aspect. He didn't look good at all riding at 53. Can he compete with the fastest horses against the worlds best riders atop what will probably be inferior stock?
NO
3) It sends a bad message to the racing public that California would grant a license to someone who's been given so many chances to only to be betrayed and made to look foolish. It got personal with John Harris when Patrick assured him man to man to allow him back then quickly broke his promise and again went off the wagon.
Since when has horse racing ever been concerned about a bad public image?
I strongly believe in redemption. Patrick seems genuine in his desire to return and be a positive force. And I agree with you he has much to offer. But by a preponderance of the facts at hand. I think it would be a mistake to allow him to once again ride races.
|
Yep, got that one right.
|
|
|
07-21-2018, 07:57 AM
|
#58
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 686
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Asaro
The CHRB and the Stewards do not want him to ride. airford1 is absolutely right.
|
If it's objectively legal for someone to work then let them, a right to gainful employment is fundamental in society. Would any of you like a non objective star chamber deciding if you can work for the remainder of your days based on how subjectively meritorious they think you are? This is a license to work for those whom wish him too and an agreement to follow the rules as required upon being licensed. If people don't like the fact that he can be legally rehired, lobby for new rules for everyone and leave it at that.
|
|
|
07-21-2018, 08:48 AM
|
#59
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,789
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by v j stauffer
This thread is about Patrick not the CHRB or Stewards.
I certainly agree they are not above reproach.
|
Of course it's about the CHRB and the Stewards. They are an integral part of the story.
|
|
|
07-21-2018, 10:43 AM
|
#60
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY
If it's objectively legal for someone to work then let them, a right to gainful employment is fundamental in society. Would any of you like a non objective star chamber deciding if you can work for the remainder of your days based on how subjectively meritorious they think you are? This is a license to work for those whom wish him too and an agreement to follow the rules as required upon being licensed. If people don't like the fact that he can be legally rehired, lobby for new rules for everyone and leave it at that.
|
I certainly don't believe I have a right to gainful employment as a lawyer if I violate the rules of the State Bar.
Regulated positions are different than being a grocer or a Starbucks barista. You don't have any "right" to work in them. And regulators are not a star chamber. Every single time Pat has been suspended, he had the right to a hearing, briefing, counsel, etc., and a right to both administrative and court appeals.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|