Bernard F. Brennan

The licensee appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order to suspend his licence for 10 years and impose a $40,000 fine.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel denied the appeal, confirmed the 10-year suspension, and increased the fine to $60,000.

Reasons for decision were to follow.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a decision of the Ontario Racing Commission Judges denying his horse entries at Mohawk for failing to sign the Woodbine Entertainment Group's Application for Access Rights.

The Judges had ruled that he must comply with track rules to enter horses.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order suspending his licence for 10 years and imposing a $40,000 fine for acquiring and possessing Aranesp (EPO), a prohibited performance-enhancing drug.

The appellant admitted to obtaining the drug but claimed ignorance of the rules and reliance on his veterinarian.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the 10-year suspension, emphasizing the severe threat performance-enhancing drugs pose to the integrity of horse racing and the need for strong deterrence, but reduced the fine to $20,000.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, appealed a ruling placing his horse on the Stewards' List due to repeated veterinary scratches for lameness.

The horse was rendered ineligible to race in Ontario until it completed a required protocol for removal from the list.

The appellant sought to have the horse removed from the list without completing the protocol.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission veterinarians acted properly in the interest of safety for horses and jockeys.

The panel declined to award costs against the appellant, finding the appeal was not frivolous.

The appellant jockey appealed a one-year suspension imposed by the Stewards for an unsatisfactory ride, alleging he failed to persevere with his mount or demonstrate an effort to win.

The jockey had ridden the horse without using the whip, keeping it on the bit, which contrasted with conventional riding methods.

The Commission found that the jockey was following the trainer's specific instructions not to whip the horse, as previous aggressive whipping had caused the horse to stop running.

The Commission concluded that the jockey's ride was a genuine effort to achieve the best possible result and quashed the suspension.