Originally Posted by dilanesp
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.
|
