P-Val Retired

[Dana666]

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.

[Rick B.]

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.

[jumpnthefire]

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 ..

[Rick B.]

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.

[jumpnthefire]

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

[Rick B.]

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...

[jumpnthefire]

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

[miff]

\"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

[Rick B.]

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.

[TGJB]

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.

[Rick B.]

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.

[TGJB]

How much has it increased since 1900?

[Rick B.]

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.

[TGJB]

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.

[Thedudeabides]

I wish airlines would charge by the pound......