http://www.drf.com/news/hollywood-park-valenzuela-fined-1000-stewards
P-Val is done. How much abuse can a body take; well, I guess he\'s had enough! At least he can eat now!
Would make a great steward, no?
http://www.drf.com/news/hollywood-park-valenzuela-fined-1000-stewards
Stewards:
\"Hey Pat, you think retiring is going to keep us off your back? Think again.\"
The guy never showed up to race drunk or stoned. He was never a threat to anyone. Best gate rider to ever get on the back of a horse - bar none.
The stewards are being vindictive, it\'s overkill and as they go home and drink their legal drugs, it\'s hypocritical.
I\'m kinda curious as to how you know he never rode under the influence.
The Over/Under on PVAL pulling a Brett Favre and Unretiring is 6 months,
1 vote for the Under.
Hi TGJB,
Just going on the fact that I\'ve known many jocks and jock agents over the years - I even dated a jock for a while, and this is just something that has never come up - that PVal was riding drunk or stoned and because of that he \"almost dropped my rider\" or \"he almost dropped me\". At the same time, I would often hear of \"so and so\" , a hall of famer was stoned on weed every day.
If I recall correctly, his 1st suspension was shortly after he won the Derby on SS. He failed to show up for mounts the next day or something like that. And that gave the stewards an opportunity to demand a drug test, which he failed because he didn\'t get 3 or 4 days notice to get the coke out of his sytem. The next time the stewards demanded a drug test, and each time subsequent, well, PVal now knows how to \"play the game\". Don\'t show up for 3 or 4 days, THEN take a test, piss clean and deal with the repercussions of not showing up rather than failing a test. After a while, a soap opera is created. Now the stewards demand a hair follicle test which is harder to beat. So he shaves all his hair off. His longer absences and failure to take a drug test might easily be pointed to marijuana use which can take up to 45 days to clear one\'s system. Or maybe the guy just has a lot of personal problems that cause severe depression and thus an unwillingness to work. Only PVal and his therapist really knows. Maybe he\'ll write a book?
Looking back, I think PVal\'s ability to ride at such a high level (whether he was stoned or not); his ability to come back from such long suspensions and ride again at such a high level; his ever present cockiness and his defiance of authority just rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. I\'ve met PVal several times and he\'s always been a gentleman to me.
I wonder what drug test he passed (piss test or hair follicle) while out of town? If he only passed a piss test while he was out of town, they may have wanted him to pass a hair follicle test when he came home. Most drugs are out of your system with in 48-72 hours with a piss test. Hair follicle tests can detect drugs up to 6 months or so.... Just putting it out there....
You never know...
There are several things on the market you can drink that will clear your system out in 1 hour, regardless if you smoked or sniffed 3 hours ago, its foolproof. You can pass any test, anytime
Absolutely NOT TRUE.
The products are out there, but they do not work.
Its true, I am living proof multiple times
Back in the day for Jobs and insurance, this was between 7-15 years ago, believe me
For a hair follicle test??
I think it\'s mostly moms and dads working the hair follicle tests, Paul. Jobs and insurance are mostly urine tests, I believe.
I passed one 11 years ago. The form said it was the \"four drug test\" and I always wondered which four they were testing for.
And does anyone besides me note the irony of where this string has headed? Perhaps there are some supertrainers lurking who could advise as to how to pass as a hay, oats, scotch and water guy?
Rich... Your wrong.... You cannot beat the Hair follicle test with a drink or whatever you say.Hair follicle tests are the hardest test to beat... that\'s why family courts across this country use them for druggie parents.
.....and it also explains why PVal shaved: no hair - no test until it grows back where they can get like a 1/8th inch long sample with like 110 strands of hair, something like that. And if they have the budget, they can go back 10 years on a hair follicle test (ask any casino poker dealer), which makes you ask the question \"Who gives a crap what drug someone did one night 10 years ago?\"
Oh, I never did a hair follicle test, only blood and urine, but I did hear its beatable, no need for me to worry about that crap now, it was always very nerveracking waiting to see if I passed.
A little better article than the DRF one.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horses/story/2011-12-10/Patrick-Valenzuela-retires/51774824/1
Interesting how most all of the posts were about his drug problems and none about his many amazing career!
If his career means anything, it should be a call to raise the weights for US jockeys. It\'s absurd that these guys have to torture their bodies all these years just to do what they do.
Most (not all of course) do these drugs, mostly stimulants, b/c when you starve and purge you drain your kidney chi (Chinese medicine terms, sorry, all I know). When you do this you have to use stimulants or you can\'t function, period--you barely have the energy to breathe. There are so many sad stories of jocks who ruined their bodies from these years of abuse. So what\'s the big deal? Just raise the weights like they do in other countries.
Just my two cents. Believe me you guys would be SEVERELY depressed if you had to torture yourself like that day after day--most often self-medicating is all they\'re doing.
I hope he enjoys his retirement, and more importantly I hope he put some of his percentage of that 163,000,000 in purses away for his old age! I\'m thinking he probably didn\'t, but you never know.
Dana666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If his career means anything, it should be a call
> to raise the weights for US jockeys. It\'s absurd
> that these guys have to torture their bodies all
> these years just to do what they do.
NO. Absolutely not.
If you can\'t make the current scale of weights, you can\'t be a jock.
I was an incredible basketball player when I was younger, but the damn NBA wouldn\'t lower the rim for me.
that is the most absurd comment i ever heard . so these jockeys torture themselves often with drugs to make weights so they can ride but u compare it to lowering the rim ..
jumpnthefire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that is the most absurd comment i ever heard . so
> these jockeys torture themselves often with drugs
> to make weights so they can ride but u compare it
> to lowering the rim ..
Absurd? Here, try it again, stated differently:
If you are too heavy, you can\'t be a jockey.
No one shoved drugs down P. Val\'s throat...and no one held him upside down until he retched.
If you raise the scale of weights to accomodate all of the 140 lb. guys, then all of the 150 lb. guys will whine about what a great jock they would be \"if they would just raise the weights a little\".
Nonsense. Every professional sport has its hurdles to overcome, its barriers: the bases are 90 feet apart, a football field is 100 yards long, the rim is 10 ft. high...and if you can\'t tack 117, goodbye.
there\'s a precedent set already in Europe i believe so its not far fetched as going to 150 as u state heres an interesting article jockeys (http://www.imn.ie/features/3751-hungry-for-success)
jumpnthefire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there\'s a precedent set already in Europe i
> believe so its not far fetched as going to 150 as
> u state heres an interesting article jockeys
Thanks, already knew about this.
So, make it 150.
Then all the 165 lb. guys will bitch. Where does it end?
Hell, maybe they will lower the rim for me one day...
lets be real nobody is saying 150 so stop using that as an analogy.do you really think 110-120 pounds is healthy? fine you can justify it all you want it isn\'t.... all i\'m saying raise it not alot just raise it nobody is going to suffer
\"So, make it 150.
Then all the 165 lb. guys will bitch. Where does it end?\"
Rick,
Good point but \"ends\" at someplace called common sense. The scale of weights is a dinosaur and needs adjustment, like they did to fences at some major league baseball stadiums, goal posts in pro football.
An increase of a few pounds will do little if anything to the animals and give some needed relief to many jocks who struggle with weight and eventually health issues.
The way these NBA guys sky today, they may raise the hoop, sorry!
Mike
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The way these NBA guys sky today, they may raise
> the hoop, sorry!
Mike,
It\'s OK. My current 4 inch vertical leap won\'t even cut it in the \"Nerf Office Doorback League\", so it\'s a moot point.
On the other stuff, yeah, \"common sense\"...but just a soon as you move the scale of weights a few pounds, there will be a follow-on request for an increase of yet a few more pounds. Just watch.
I\'m not sold on the need. For those that are torturing their bodies to make weight, stop it and do something else for a living: where is there any guarantee that you get to be a jockey just because your weight is *close* to acceptable?
There doesn\'t seem to be any shortage of small, light people signing up to be jockeys, and they are not all puking their guts out to make weight every day. When we can no longer find enough riders that can make weight, *then* change the scale. I think, in general, we as a people screw with things too much to assuage those that fall just short of the mark. I\'m not heartless...but I am in favor of a clear, consistent \"line in the sand\": you either \"is\" or you \"ain\'t\". That should mean the same thing tomorrow as it does today.
The scale of weights is something like 100 years old. During that time people (and probably horses) have gotten bigger. Raising it based on the average increase in size seems perfectly reasonable, and in fact some tracks did raise it slightly a few years ago.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The scale of weights is something like 100 years
> old. During that time people (and probably horses)
> have gotten bigger. Raising it based on the
> average increase in size seems perfectly
> reasonable
The weight of the average American male increased 25 lbs. since 1960.
For fun, Jerry, float this weight increase past the trainers with which you consult, and let us know how many of them immediately grab their chest and fall over.
The scale can be increased by a few pounds with trivial effect (and I mean that both ways)...but they will just keep coming back, asking for more. That\'s all I\'m saying.
How much has it increased since 1900?
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How much has it increased since 1900?
Much harder to get definitive number on this, but it looks the average difference between 1960 and 1900 is ~ 5 lbs more in 1960. (Interesting -- *only* 5 more lbs. in those 60 years.)
Add that to the 25 lbs. we\'ve picked up since 1960, and we are at +30 lbs. over year 1900 average.
It occurs to me that the *rate* of increase is significant here: a 161 pound man from 1900 might weigh 191 today...but have jockey-sized guys increased 30 lbs? I doubt it...but I am hesitant to simply prorate it. Voodoo mathematics.
If you start out by saying they can\'t weigh more than 115, they can\'t have gotten much bigger by definition.
Let\'s say the average gain has been 20% over the general population. If you allow for even half of that you are allowing for 10 more pounds for jockeys, and making lives easier and careers longer.
Sat next to Migliore on a plane to Keeneland once. He told me that when he first got to the jocks room as a kid, they took him on a tour, and showed him the place to throw up.
I wish airlines would charge by the pound......
The reason for the difference between 1900-1960 and 1960-now is that people are living much longer now. And getting much fatter.
The average college-age male was 133 pounds in 1900. In 2000, he was 166 pounds.
For all adult males, the gain was 25 pounds between 1960 and today. Obviously the change in lifestyle (more sedentary, easier for a 50-year-old to gain weight than a college-age male) explains some of that, but yes, jockeys have not been allowed the same percentage of gain that improved nutrition and health care brought to the rest of the population.
Edgorman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason for the difference between 1900-1960
> and 1960-now is that people are living much longer
> now. And getting much fatter.
Lots more fast food in the past 50 years, lot more people working at computers than at manual labor.
I\'ve known quite a few and they all purged after eating.
Nutrition.
Penicillin.
But those are not the people who are jockeys, for the most part.
You couldn\'t take a bunch of average, 2011 10-year-old boys and girls and expect any of them to be able to make current jock weight at age 16-30. Cajuns, South Americans, Cubans, Europeans ... people with three generations of restricted or poorer nutrition (hence smaller height and weights genetically) make jockeys nowadays. Americans tend to be too huge, too tall, too big-boned, even if they kept their weight normal rather than overweight as most are nowadays.
Absolutely I\'d give jocks in America 5 more pounds. It\'s absurd, to ask men to hold 1200-lb horses at 126 pounds of muscle.
And frankly, having a little more weight on a horse will help it develop stronger bone at it grows. Trainers would have to go back to giving horses some time off to grow up, etc. Too bad we don\'t have the biggest money available for 4-year-olds and up in handicap divisions. The stud barn siren call has ruined the breed, and plenty of racing quality over the years, too.
Happy Holidays.
man it sounds like the tradition of purging and drugging and such will suffer if we change the scale and \"gasp\' we might actually improve the bread in the process ..but you know what it will never happen as long as the mentality as change is bad attitude.
jumpnthefire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> man it sounds like the tradition of purging and
> drugging and such will suffer if we change the
> scale and \"gasp\' we might actually improve the
> bread in the process ..but you know what it will
> never happen as long as the mentality as change
> is bad attitude.
Even if they add 10 pounds to the scale of weights, don\'t kid yourself -- there will still be purging and other bad stuff going on, just at higher weights.
As an example, Laffit Pincay is naturally a 140 lb. man, so even under an \"improved\" weight scale, he would have had to reduce substantially -- to the tune of being over 10% underweight. So much for better bread.
Good thing you\'re not P-Dub.
He would have been told to stop already.
The Boss asks me \"what is it, a reflex??\" on the Rapid Redux thread.
Hey JB, want to count the posts in this thread??
How many posts is this guy gonna make restating the same thing ad nauseum?? Or do you like is type of \"reflex\"??
We get it Rick, move along already.
Merry Christmas.
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good thing you\'re not P-Dub.
>
> He would have been told to stop already.
>
> The Boss asks me \"what is it, a reflex??\" on the
> Rapid Redux thread.
> Hey JB, want to count the posts in this thread??
>
> How many posts is this guy gonna make restating
> the same thing ad nauseum?? Or do you like is
> type of \"reflex\"??
>
> We get it Rick, move along already.
>
> Merry Christmas.
I don\'t think I like the new \"P-Dub as Victim\"...\"P-Dub the Curmudgeon\" was at least honest, even if somewhat annoying at times.
I\'ve been admonished by TGJB in the past to tone it down, \"move along\", etc...and I do so, without question nor complaint, since he is the Forum Grand Poobah. (He is the *only* Poobah here that I know of, if you get my drift.)
Anyway, Paul, Merry Christmas...from one curmudgeon to another. ;)
RB
P-Dub the victim. I like that, good one Rick.
I do appreciate your conviction, and I mean that with all sincerity. I think the scales can be moved, but its been debated enough.
Happy Holidays to you and your loved ones.