Lynda Tanaka

The licensee, a standardbred horse racing participant, appealed a suspension issued after a positive test for cocaine.

This was his third positive test within 24 months.

The licensee failed to attend the hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission.

The panel found the licensee in violation of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, imposing an 18-month suspension, a $2,500 fine for his failure to appear and abide by undertakings, and strict conditions for any future reinstatement, including a negative drug test and a probationary period.

Standardbred licensee Adam Kaminski appealed a decision by Hanover Raceway finding his horse ineligible to race in the Balanced Image Race because it had not paid its Ontario Sires Stakes (OSS) fees.

Kaminski argued that 'OSS eligible' meant the horse was sired by an Ontario stallion, regardless of whether nomination and sustaining payments were made.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, with a dissenting opinion, holding that in the context of the race conditions and industry practice, 'OSS eligible' meant eligible to race with all appropriate OSS payments having been made.

Standardbred licensee Terry Fritz appealed a judges' ruling that declared a race a 'No Contest' after a driver was unseated and a horse got loose on the first turn.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the judges correctly called the race a 'No Contest' because all horses were interfered with and a loose horse presents a safety concern that precludes a proper contest.

Standardbred licensee Sandy Jones appealed a suspension imposed after testing positive for THC Carboxylic Acid.

The positive test constituted a breach of the terms of his probation from a previous ruling.

The Ontario Racing Commission rejected the licensee's reliance on a private hair test to contradict the official urine analysis.

The Commission ordered a full suspension of his licence until August 22, 2007.

The appellant, a standardbred owner and trainer, appealed a Judges' Ruling that fined him $5,000 and suspended him for 6 months for a violation of Rule 22.38(b) due to an excess level of TCO2 in his horse.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty, noting the appellant's history of rule compliance issues, including a previous TCO2 positive test within the last year, medication errors, and financial responsibility violations.

The appellant, a standardbred driver, trainer, and owner, appealed a Director's Ruling that imposed a $1,000 fine and a one-year probation for possessing and using unauthorized medications on racehorses.

The appellant admitted to purchasing substances from an unlicensed supplier to save money, bypassing veterinary prescriptions.

The Ontario Racing Commission confirmed the penalty, emphasizing the need to protect the health and safety of racehorses and maintain public confidence in the integrity of the sport.

The Commission also held that the Executive Director was not required to hold a hearing prior to issuing the ruling, as the appeal process provided a hearing de novo.

Standardbred licensee Jeff Barkley appeared before the Ontario Racing Commission following a positive test for cocaine.

At the outset of the hearing, Barkley requested an adjournment to tender evidence contrary to the positive test result and to call witnesses.

The Panel granted the adjournment on the condition that Barkley summons all intended witnesses, comply with disclosure rules, and proceed peremptorily on the rescheduled date.

Standardbred licensee Jeff Barkley appealed to the Ontario Racing Commission following a positive test for cocaine.

The licensee did not contest the positive test and presented a joint submission on penalty with the Administration.

The Commission accepted the joint submission, ordering a five-month suspension of his licence and requiring continued attendance for counseling and treatment.

The appellant, a thoroughbred owner and trainer, appealed a Stewards' ruling fining him $1,000 for disregarding the directions of an association official on the training track.

The appellant argued he refused the official's order to remove his horses because he believed the directed route was unsafe.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that a trainer cannot debate safety instructions with the official controlling track traffic during training hours.

The $1,000 fine was upheld to deter disrespect toward association officials.

The appellant, a standardbred driver/trainer, appealed a penalty following a positive drug test for cocaine.

The Ontario Racing Commission suspended his licence for nine months and imposed a one-year probation period, requiring him to complete a drug rehabilitation program, attend Narcotics Anonymous, and submit to random drug testing.

The Commission emphasized the need to protect other drivers, horses, and the betting public, while acknowledging the appellant's efforts to seek treatment.

The appellant appealed a ruling that placed his horse 9th instead of 1st due to alleged interference while off stride.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed the video tape and heard witness testimony.

The panel found that while trailing horses had to change direction for safety, there was no sudden change, grabbing hold, or loss of ground.

The panel concluded no interference occurred and restored the original order of finish.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, requested a hearing regarding a Director's Order of Immediate Suspension.

On consent of the parties, the Ontario Racing Commission stayed the immediate suspension and granted the appellant his license subject to strict conditions, including no contact with Commission Stewards or certain witnesses, and restricted access to Woodbine Racetrack premises, pending a final hearing.

Dr. Levman, a veterinarian, appealed a ruling by the Executive Director that prohibited any horse he treated from racing in Ontario.

The ruling was based on Dr. Levman purchasing unapproved and improperly labelled drugs from an unauthorized source and using them on racehorses.

The Commission upheld the ruling, finding that Dr. Levman prioritized his convenience and clients' demands over regulatory compliance and horse safety.

However, the Commission amended the penalty from a lifetime ban to a four-year suspension, ending September 24, 2009, noting his cooperation and lesser involvement compared to other veterinarians in similar cases.

Thoroughbred jockey Dino Luciani and trainer Justin Nixon appealed a Stewards' ruling that imposed a three-day riding suspension and disqualified their horse from first to fourth place for interference during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the jockey deliberately bumped another horse to create a path, violating racing rules.

The appeals were dismissed, and the suspension and disqualification were upheld.

The licensee, a standardbred veterinarian, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order by the Executive Director to revoke his licenses and impose a lifetime suspension for purchasing controlled substances from an unlicensed supplier.

The Commission found the licensee's explanations regarding his accounting records and drug inventory lacked credibility and upheld the finding that he would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, or the public interest.

The Commission set aside the lifetime suspension, instead imposing a 7-year suspension and a $25,000 fine.

The Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission ordered the immediate suspension and proposed the revocation and lifetime suspension of Dr. John Flanigan's licenses as a Standardbred driver, owner, trainer, and veterinarian.

The allegations centered on Dr. Flanigan's business relationship with an unlicensed individual, Fred Rogers, through whom he purchased unlabelled and controlled substances for use on racehorses, and permitted Rogers to use his veterinary credentials to acquire restricted drugs.

The Commission upheld the finding that Dr. Flanigan failed to act with integrity and in the public interest, but varied the penalty, ordering his licenses revoked and suspended for five years, along with a $25,000 fine.

The appellants, a thoroughbred jockey and an owner/trainer, appealed a Stewards' ruling that disqualified their horse from first to last place and suspended the jockey for three days for causing interference during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeals, finding that the jockey failed to check behind him before moving inside on a turn, thereby impeding other horses.

The Commission upheld the violations of Rules 11.07 and 11.09.01, the suspension, and the disqualification.

A thoroughbred trainer appealed a Stewards' ruling that found him in violation of racing rules after his horse tested positive for Flunixin, a Class IV drug.

The trainer argued that a veterinary technician mistakenly administered Flunixin instead of the requested calcium gluconate.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on liability, finding that the trainer failed to establish a due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities, particularly given the lack of evidence regarding other injections and inadequate record-keeping.

However, the Commission varied the penalty, eliminating the $1,000 fine and reducing the suspension to 10 racing days.

The appellant, a standardbred owner and trainer, appealed to the Ontario Racing Commission regarding a violation of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The parties presented a joint submission on penalty.

The Commission accepted the joint submission, imposing a four-month full suspension of the appellant's licences, followed by a one-year probation period requiring attendance at AA meetings and submission to random drug testing.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee and trainer, appealed the decision of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal upholding the Stewards' disqualification of his horse from second to fifth place due to interference during a race.

The appellant argued that another horse caused the interference by taking away running room.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's horse shied, causing the immediate interference, and that the other horse maintained a permissible path.

The Stewards' decision was upheld.