P Val

[thaskalos]

We have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; we haven't the right to permanent employment at a job for which we have become unqualified due to "personal demons".

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by airford1

You have no personnel knowledge about Pats back ground and the environment he was raised in, that being said I think you need to slow your hateful roll and stop kicking a man when he's down. Hope you don't ever need a helping hand.

If I had a substance abuse problem, the State Bar would be quite supportive of me. They have excellent programs, such as The Other Bar, to help lawyers kick drugs and alcohol.

But nonetheless, if substance abuse problems caused me to screw up several cases and harm clients, I might still get suspended or even disqualified from practicing law.

You are personalizing this. It isn't a matter of how nice a guy Pat is or what his circumstances are. He happened to choose to work in a profession where animals and betting are involved and there is supposed to be zero tolerance of substance abuse. It is not the only such profession. Would you be making these arguments about an airline pilot with a drug problem?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

P Val has had one positive in his life. How many has Desormeaux had? And he's ridden while having alcohol in his system. Furthermore hair follicle tests now go back something like 9 months. If every jockeys was subjected to a hair follicle test how many would pass? 50%?

How many times did P Val flaunt the rules?
That matters.

Drunkormeaux should be vanned for life for drinking and not persevering.
I don't have an ounce respect fi this jerk.

I'm all for neither of them getting on the track ever again.

Cheers!

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I bet on the races. I am entitled to a sport with integrity.

but let's face it, it's not likely that one individual is going to impact the integrity of the sport.

I don't believe in using people to scapegoat for the sport not having integrity, there are too many bigger problems.

I guess I don't have a problem with saying people with *certain* addictions should not be in a sport or job where the lives of others may be endangered.

However, I'm not so much into "bashing" people with substance abuse problems, and some of the holier than thou very personalized bashing in this topic is a bit over the top (to me).


I've known plenty of people in my life who could not quit gambling, or smoking cigarettes, or even over-shopping. Impulse control is a brain chemistry thing and often not as easy to get hold of for some. There are people in AA who really are "taking it one day at a time" and that's every day, forever.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by clicknow

but let's face it, it's not likely that one individual is going to impact the integrity of the sport.

I don't believe in using people to scapegoat for the sport not having integrity, there are too many bigger problems.

I guess I don't have a problem with saying people with *certain* addictions should not be in a sport or job where the lives of others may be endangered.

However, I'm not so much into "bashing" people with substance abuse problems, and some of the holier than thou very personalized bashing in this topic is a bit over the top (to me).


I've known plenty of people in my life who could not quit gambling, or smoking cigarettes, or even over-shopping. Impulse control is a brain chemistry thing and often not as easy to get hold of for some. There are people in AA who really are "taking it one day at a time" and that's every day, forever.

You've managed to type over 150 words...without really saying anything. Quite an achievement...IMO.

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Would you be making these arguments about an airline pilot with a drug problem?

Would you support the employment of all airline pilots and jockeys if they screened them each and every day? What if for example someone volunteered a test every single day, because of past transgressions, would that satisfy the safety concern? If the concern is safety, then why aren't all airline pilots and jockeys screened every day. Trust but verify?

[airford1]

OK I'm a fool to think we can help our fellow Man. Hang the bastard and take away his work. Send him to skid row. Pray we never need help.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by airford1

OK I'm a fool to think we can help our fellow Man. Hang the bastard and take away his work. Send him to skid row. Pray we never need help.

Most everybody, trainers, owners and other jockeys like Patrick. Some have given him multiple chances because he can be so engaging.

That doesn't mean a 55 year old guy that has shown he can't be trusted should be allowed to put himself, the horses and most importantly his fellow jockeys at this kind of risk.

There are lot's of ways to help our fellow man without putting yourself in harms way.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Most everybody, trainers, owners and other jockeys like Patrick. Some have given him multiple chances because he can be so engaging.

That doesn't mean a 55 year old guy that has shown he can't be trusted should be allowed to put himself, the horses and most importantly his fellow jockeys at this kind of risk.

There are lot's of ways to help our fellow man without putting yourself in harms way.

If he's testing negative then he's not putting anyone at risk? Why wasn't Desormeaux given the same treatment by the CHRB? Who knows how many times he rode drunk. And he's been caught several times.

[Parkview_Pirate]

PVal is one of the prime examples of humilitainment in racing. Maria Borell would be another. There's a fascination with someone who achieves great things in any profession, and then falls to the depths of despair. It's human nature to look at them and, among other emotions, feel grateful we're not in their shoes.

It became clear many years ago that PVal would require a different path in life if he were to become a productive citizen again. Unlike a burned out rock star who can croak his way through a show and only piss off the fans who paid too much for their tickets, PVal can no longer perform safely, for himself, fellow riders, and for the horses. Sad of course, as in his prime he was magical.
Perhaps he can parlay his notoriety into some other place in racing, but it's best he's not a jockey.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

PVal is one of the prime examples of humilitainment in racing. Maria Borell would be another. There's a fascination with someone who achieves great things in any profession, and then falls to the depths of despair. It's human nature to look at them and, among other emotions, feel grateful we're not in their shoes.

I understand this feeling very well. I was an early defender of Borell. She appeared to have an amazing story, she had gotten good publicity for the sport, and she seemed to have managed Runhappy well. And it looked like Runhappy's owner was using highly technical legal arguments (which I have experience with in other areas) to avoid fairly compensating her for her good work with Runhappy.

But, of course, it is clear from what came out that not only was I wrong to offer any defense of her but that she turned out to be far worse than anyone ever knew.

To judge these situations properly, sometimes you have to separate yourself from your feelings. In P. Val's case, the issue of riders who have serious substance abuse problems that they don't promptly report to the stewards and the owners, so they end up getting up on horses under the influence and possibly compromising the sport's integrity, is simply a separate, public policy issue, from any compassion we may feel for P. Val as a human being.

Even with Borell, I still have some compassion-- she is obviously something of a wreck who wasted real talent both with horses and with the PR associated with their management, and terribly screwed up. I would want nothing more than to see her turn her life around. But she obviously can't have a trainer's license....

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

If he's testing negative then he's not putting anyone at risk? Why wasn't Desormeaux given the same treatment by the CHRB? Who knows how many times he rode drunk. And he's been caught several times.

I don't agree with that. A 55 year old that hasn't ridden in over two years who will probably have to aggressively reduce IMO presents a danger that's not worth taking.

What if he was 60 or 65 or 70?

At some point a line has to been drawn. A steward has a responsibility to see that the track is a safe environment for all contestants.

I've seen the room band together and all refuse to ride if a person that was clearly dangerous was being considered.

I think there's a chance something similar could happen here.

Kent has zero to do with this discussion. Each case is unique unto itself.

Father time is the only one who's undefeated.

If Patrick were much younger I think he'd be more likely to receive consideration. But remember that happened several times in the past and it always ended badly.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I don't agree with that. A 55 year old that hasn't ridden in over two years who will probably have to aggressively reduce IMO presents a danger that's not worth taking.

What if he was 60 or 65 or 70?

At some point a line has to been drawn. A steward has a responsibility to see that the track is a safe environment for all contestants.

I've seen the room band together and all refuse to ride if a person that was clearly dangerous was being considered.

I think there's a chance something similar could happen here.

Kent has zero to do with this discussion. Each case is unique unto itself.

Father time is the only one who's undefeated.

If Patrick were much younger I think he'd be more likely to receive consideration. But remember that happened several times in the past and it always ended badly.

So you're argument now is age discrimination. Something could happen?

Look, we all know whether you want to admit it or not that rules do not apply to everyone and politics play a integral part of that. Look at Dutrow. He got 10 years because of his personality. Baffert, who had 7 horses die in 18 months didn't get a day.

Please stop with the bullshit. Have you been a perfect person? Could you have been blacklisted because of something you did? Your'e a talented guy but someone gave you extra chances. I don't want to get into what I know because I think the Vic Stauffer today is doing outstanding. We should all and I mean all remember where we came from including me.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You've managed to type over 150 words...without really saying anything. Quite an achievement...IMO.

Because it's way more of an *achievement* casting about internet forums posting snarky, snide, condescending stuff to say about other people's posts, and somehow convince yourself it's inherently clever or insightful?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Look, we all know whether you want to admit it or not that rules do not apply to everyone and politics play a integral part of that. Look at Dutrow. He got 10 years because of his personality. Baffert, who had 7 horses die in 18 months didn't get a day.

Please stop with the [censored]. Have you been a perfect person? Could you have been blacklisted because of something you did? Your'e a talented guy but someone gave you extra chances. I don't want to get into what I know because I think the Vic Stauffer today is doing outstanding. We should all and I mean all remember where we came from including me.

Andy, selective enforcement isn't the most wonderful thing in the world, but the answer to selective enforcement isn't to let all the repeat violators get off scott free. Police are often alleged to let their friends, good looking people of the opposite sex, and celebrities off with warnings instead of tickets. Nonetheless, try using that as a defense in court if you are ticketed for speeding or charged with DUI.

If Kent Desormeaux or Bob Baffert are deserving of suspensions, fine, it would be an outrage if they weren't suspended. I don't know enough about the cases, but it could be you are right. But no, that doesn't mean we should allow even more drugs into the sport in the name of preventing selective prosecution. Dutrow got what he deserved, and with P. Val, it might be less about what he deserved, but he certainly can't be allowed back into the sport given his repeated acts of dishonesty and his substance abuse.

And your statement about "blacklisting" is, frankly, way way over the top. The term "blacklisting" comes from practices whereby private companies and executives colluded to agree to refuse to hire people who had no due process, no opportunity to contest the action, and who were largely innocent (and when they were guilty, were not guilty of serious offenses). That's what happened to alleged Communists in Hollywood in the 1950's and 1960's.

To get barred from a sport by stewards, who take such actions after giving someone an opportunity to be heard and to hire counsel, for serious violations having to do with the endangerment of animals and other jockeys and the possible corruption of a sport with legal wagering, is simply not "blacklisting".

Patrick Valenzuela has been given many, many extra chances. The sport has been far more patient with him than it needed to be or frankly should have been. But this happened-- and he blew every one of them. This "everybody gets a second chance" narrative doesn't apply to him, at all.