Holy Smokes!

[NoCarolinaTony]

Class,

Theoretically \"the Law\" and \"Rules\" are the same for everyone all of the time, not just some of the people some of the time. Class, I hear what you are saying. I think everyone does. it\'s just that 1) It doesn\'t make sense and 2) It\'s just not right to rationalize in this case. Period.

NC Tony

NCT,

I hear you.

Since no one here including me knows for certain what\'s going on his life, I really didn\'t consider it out of line or controversial to point out that from a speculative point of view regarding what IS going on with him, it would look a lot worse if he showed up that way in the morning.

Why making that observation is a problem, I don\'t know. Well actually I do know. People wanted to assume I was making excuses for him, defending him, \"rationalizing\" his behavior so they would have a new reason to trash me.

How the conversation turned into anything beyond my single point is beyond me.

I never said he should be cut some slack because it was an evening or because he\'s a kid etc...  The rules are the rules for this offense. However, IMO another set of rules are required for the kind of thing that happens with the Pat Valenzuelas of the world where they are repeat offenders and everyone on the planet knows that the problem requires more than a 1 week suspension. Those rules would also apply to the kid *IF* he has just as big a problem and *IF* he breaks them as often.    

If you are suggesting that 1 week is not enough. That\'s a different debate.

[Caradoc]

Class: I\'m sure most posters here would tell me to ignore this, but please, stop it.  No one is criticizing you for opining that \"it would look a lot worse if he showed up in the morning that way.\" Whatever the merits of that opinion, the conversation turned into something else because you wrote the following:

\"When they start showing up drunk or high for afternoon cards it\'s time for a major suspension and treatment program. When they show up drunk for one evening card, nipping it in the bud seems fine to me. A week suspension and a long talk seems appropriate to me. He\'s in his early 20s isn\'t he?\" I thought -- apparently mistakenly -- that \"they\" meant all jockeys and you seriously were proposing a different punishment depending on when a jockey had been drinking.  I thought that because it is what you wrote -- read it again for yourself.  You have to forgive me and quite a few others for thinking you actually meant what you wrote.

Now you write that you \"never implied that he should be cut some slack ... the rules are the rules.\" You\'re right, you didn\'t imply it: you said it directly.  You wrote (as quoted above) in reference to Baze that \"a week suspension and a long talk seems appropriate to me. He\'s in his early 20s isn\'t he?\"  In the same paragraph, you write that for any jockey that shows up drunk during the day \"it\'s time for a major suspension and treatment program.\" If that\'s not slack, then the word no longer has meaning.  

[P-Dub]

Thanks Caradoc.

I think its done now.

[colt]

If I remember correctly, his grandmother, who he was very close to, passed away in the summer, which he has had a difficult time dealing with.  Having lost my mother this summer, I can understand his venerability.  I wish the kid the best – he is hustler on the SOCAL circuit and seems to be a good person off the track as well.  My SOCAL connections that have dealt with him have nothing but positive words to say about him.  

caradoc,

>\"\"When they start showing up drunk or high for afternoon cards it\'s time for a major suspension and treatment program. When they show up drunk for one evening card, nipping it in the bud seems fine to me. A week suspension and a long talk seems appropriate to me. He\'s in his early 20s isn\'t he?\"<

>>I thought -- apparently mistakenly -- that \"they\" meant all jockeys and you seriously were proposing a different punishment depending on when a jockey had been drinking. I thought that because it is what you wrote -- read it again for yourself. You have to forgive me and quite a few others for thinking you
actually meant what you wrote. \"\"\"\"<<

It\'s still not clear.

I absolutely would advocate different punishments depending on several factors but that is **not the same** as cutting Baez some slack.

I am *not advocating that they cut him any slack* based on his age, maturity level, or the fact that it was an evening infraction. If the rule is 7 days, that seems fine to me. Others may disagree and think it should be stiffer. That would be fine too.  

I *would* advocate a *stiffer* penalty than 7 days for anyone that shows up drunk early in the morning because I think it implies a more serious problem. So whatever penalty everyone agrees is appropriate in the Baez case, tack on a treatment program or something like it for morning drinkers. If everyone thinks a treatment program  should be required in all cases regardless of time, that\'s fine. My point on this was that IMHO, morning drinking imples or gives greater evidence of a problem that requires more than a suspension and therefore requires a more active solution.

I *would* advocate a stiffer penalty for anyone that is a repeat offender for the same reasons as above.

I didn\'t post any of this to debate what the rules should be. I posted them to suggest that we shouldn\'t be writing the kid off yet because I don\'t see any evidence of a Valenzuela type problem based on this single event. Let\'s hope for the best.

Now can we please put this to rest so I can concentrate on how to bet my opinion that Borrego isn\'t that good and won\'t win the Classic.