David Gorman

The appellant jockey appealed a three-day suspension and horse disqualification issued by the Stewards for causing interference during a thoroughbred race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel heard testimony from the Stewards and other jockeys, and concluded that the appellant was not clear when he moved his horse, thereby causing the interference.

The appeal was denied and the suspension upheld.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed the 90-day suspension of his horses following positive tests for Darbepoetin-Alpha (EPO).

He did not appeal his own 10-year suspension and $40,000 fine, but sought to have the horses' suspension period truncated to allow for their immediate sale.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that while it had the authority to waive or abridge the suspension under Rule 1.09, doing so would be prejudicial to the best interests of racing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a licensed driver, appealed a 60-day driving suspension and the placing of his horse from second to sixth for a driving violation during a harness race.

The judges found he committed interference by putting a wheel under another horse for a sustained period.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal regarding the violation and the placing of the horse, finding overwhelming evidence of deliberate and dangerous careless driving.

However, the Commission reduced the driving suspension from 60 days to 30 days because the original penalty was based on a duplicated entry in the appellant's driving record.

The appellant, a licensed exercise person, appealed a 49-day suspension and $150 fine for a third offence of smoking in a non-designated area at Fort Erie Racetrack.

The appellant failed to attend the de novo hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission despite being properly served and failing to submit a written request for an adjournment.

The Commission proceeded in his absence, dismissed the appeal, increased the suspension to 60 days due to his wanton disregard for safety rules, and imposed an additional $1,500 fine for a frivolous appeal.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a Judges' Ruling that suspended him for ten days and fined him $500 for using offensive language and engaging in improper conduct towards racing officials.

During a meeting, the appellant became angry, tore up a Notice of Hearing, threw the pieces at a judge, and physically shoved another judge.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding the appellant's admissions and the officials' testimony clearly established the violations of the rules of racing.

The appellants appealed rulings fining them $1,200 each for racing a claimed horse out of province within 60 days of claiming, contrary to Rule 15.09(a) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants willfully violated the rule by racing the horse in the Gold Cup and Saucer Final after being informed of the rule and potential fines.

The Commission confirmed the fines, noting that the initial fine for the elimination race was appropriately reduced due to misleading information, but the premeditated breach for the final race warranted the full penalty.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed penalties imposed for his driving actions.

At the hearing, his counsel sought an adjournment due to alleged incomplete disclosure and the appellant being out of the country.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted the adjournment to allow the appellant to attend, but ruled that the Administration had satisfied its disclosure obligations.

The Commission directed that the hearing be rescheduled for January and ordered that the stay of penalty would terminate if the matter did not proceed on that date.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a Judges' Ruling that fined him $1,500 and suspended him for ten days after his horse tested positive for the Class V drug Procaine.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding the penalty appropriate and consistent with the penalty guidelines for equine drug offenses.

The fine and suspension were upheld.

The appellant, a thoroughbred trainer, appealed the decision of the Ontario Racing Commission Industry Appeal Board disallowing a claim of foul.

The claim alleged interference between two horses during a race.

Based on new, unchallenged testimony showing contact occurred before the finish line, the Panel allowed the appeal in part and ordered the Stewards to conduct a new hearing to determine if the contact had a material impact on the race's outcome.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order by the Director refusing him a licence and prohibiting re-application for two years.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the appellant had an unaddressed substance abuse problem and had not provided evidence of seeking professional help.

The Commission refused the licence but allowed the appellant to re-apply in March 2010, subject to strict conditions including proof of successful completion of a substance abuse program and good behaviour.

Standardbred driver Michael Vanderkemp appealed a judges' decision that another horse did not interfere with his horse during a race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no clear and convincing evidence of a foul and upholding the judges' original decision to leave the order of finish intact.

The applicant, whose owner/trainer licence had expired, applied for a new licence as a hot walker.

The Acting Director issued a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse the licence based on past conduct.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a stay of the Notice of Proposed Order.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that under the Racing Commission Act, it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Director's decision to issue a Notice of Proposed Order until a full hearing on the merits has been held.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling that found a violation of racing rules based on a positive analysis for Aminorex in a horse.

At the hearing de novo, the Administration called no evidence and consented to the appeal.

The Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the finding of responsibility, and ordered that the portion of the ruling relating to Rules 9.13 and 18.08.01 remain in effect.

The appellant, a Standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling finding a violation of racing rules due to a positive analysis for AMINOREX in a horse.

At the hearing de novo, the Administration called no evidence.

On consent of all parties, the panel allowed the appeal, set aside the finding of responsibility, and maintained the portion of the ruling relating to Rules 9.13 and 18.08.01.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling finding a violation of racing rules arising from a positive test for Aminorex in a horse.

At the hearing de novo, the Administration called no evidence.

On consent of all parties, the Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the finding of responsibility, and maintained the purse redistribution.

Standardbred trainer Anette Lorentzon appealed a ruling finding a violation of the rules due to a positive test for Aminorex in a horse.

At the hearing de novo, the Administration called no evidence.

On consent of all parties, the appeal was allowed, no finding of responsibility was made, and the previous ruling was set aside, except for the portion relating to Rules 9.13 and 18.08.01.

Standardbred licensee Garry Merner appealed a ruling finding a violation of racing rules arising from a positive test for the Class I substance AMINOREX in a horse.

At the hearing de novo, the Administration called no evidence and consented to the appeal.

The Commission allowed the appeal, made no finding of responsibility, and set aside the original ruling, subject to certain rules remaining in effect.

Standardbred licensee Karen Cooper appealed a ruling finding a violation of rules arising from a positive test for Aminorex in a horse.

At the hearing de novo, the Administration called no evidence and the parties consented to an order.

The Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the finding of responsibility, and maintained the portion of the ruling relating to purse redistribution.

The appellant appealed a Judges' Ruling that placed four of her horses on the Judges' List due to her association with a suspended licensee.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant sold all four horses.

The Ontario Racing Commission determined that the appeal was moot because the appellant no longer owned the horses.

The Commission also clarified that the appellant, having not been found in breach of any rules, may continue to participate in the horse racing industry provided she complies with the rules of racing.

The standardbred licensee appealed a Director's Order immediately suspending his licenses and proposing a 10-year suspension and $100,000 fine after a horse he trained tested positive for the performance-enhancing drug DPO.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the trainer responsibility rule is a strict liability offence and the licensee failed to demonstrate due diligence in protecting the horse from tampering.

The Commission varied the penalty, imposing a 10-year suspension and reducing the fine to $10,000.