Horse Racing Appeal Panel
10 Carlson Court Suite 400 Toronto, ON M9W 6A2
Comité d’appel des courses de chevaux
10, Carlson Court Bureau 400 Toronto, ON M9W 6A2
HORSE RACING APPEAL PANEL
TORONTO, ONTARIO – JANUARY 30, 2026
TB HRAP 06005 2026
NOTICE OF DECISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE HORSE RACING LICENCE ACT, S.O. 2015 C. 38 Sched. 9;
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY ALEXANDER MCPHERSON OF THOROUGHBRED RULING NUMBER 3346778
Date of Issue:
January 30, 2026
Horse Racing Appeal Panel (Panel):
Nicolle Pace, Member
Appellant:
Alexander McPherson
Representative for the Appellant:
Lloyd McPherson
Representative for the Registrar:
Kelly Counsell
Decision:
The Panel dismisses the appeal as set out below.
WHEREAS Alexander McPherson (“MCPHERSON”) is licensed with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“Commission”) as a Trainer, Licence Number 7293;
WHEREAS MCPHERSON was the Trainer of the horse, MEW N ME on September 6, 2025;
AND WHEREAS Thoroughbred Ruling Number 3346778 was issued upon reviewing the video and speaking to the riders involved, and the Stewards determined that the horse MEW N ME interfered with the horse Boss Lady J at the start in Race 8 at Woodbine Racetrack on September 6, 2025. The horse MEW N ME finished first and was placed sixth for causing interference to the horse Boss Lady J in accordance with Rules 11.12 and 11.14 of the Thoroughbred Rules of Racing;
AND WHEREAS on September 10, 2025, MCPHERSON filed a Notice of Appeal;
AND WHEREAS on December 17, 2025, the Panel convened in person to hear the appeal, reserving its decision;
TAKE NOTICE that the Panel dismisses the appeal for the reasons set out below.
The Panel’s Reasons for Decision are attached to this Notice.
DATED on this 30th day of January, 2026.
Nicolle Pace, Member
Horse Racing Appeal Panel
DECISION – ALEXANDER MCPHERSON
The Horse Racing Appeal Panel convened on December 17, 2025, in-person, to hear the Appeal of Trainer Alexander McPherson who was appealing Thoroughbred Official Ruling 3346778 which states:
“Take notice that after reviewing the video and speaking to the riders involved, the Stewards determined that the horse MEW N ME (981020049670784) interfered with the horse BOSS LADY J at the start in race eight at Woodbine Racetrack on September 6, 2025. The horse MEW N ME finished first and was placed sixth for causing interference to the horse BOSS LADY J. AGCO Rules 11.12 and 11.14.”
The Registrar was represented by Ms. Kelly Counsell, and Mr. Lloyd McPherson, Assistant Trainer, represented Mr. Alexander McPherson (the “Appellant”). Three witnesses testified: Mr. Al Stiff, Senior Race Official; Mr. Justin Stein, Race Official and Mr. Lloyd McPherson. In total there were four exhibits entered:
- Exhibit 1 – The Book of Documents
- Exhibit 2 – Will Say Statement of Leo Salles, dated December 14, 2025
- Exhibit 3 – Will Say Statement of Fraser Aebly, dated December 11, 2025
- Exhibit 4 – Race Video
After carefully considering the totality of the evidence, including the race video (EXHIBIT 4), the testimony of the Race Officials, and the submissions and counter-arguments advanced by the Appellant, I find that interference occurred at the start of the race 8, at Woodbine Racetrack on September 6, 2025 (the “Race”). The evidence of Senior Race Official Al Stiff was that interference arises when a horse impedes another by causing it to check, steady, or alter course. This is precisely what occurred at the start of Race. The Race video, particularly the head-on view, clearly shows the #4 horse, MEW N ME broke erratically from the gate, rising up and moving sharply outward into the direct path of the #5 horse, BOSS LADY J. This evidence was described consistently and independently by both Race Officials. Mr. Lloyd McPherson, who testified on behalf of the Appellant agreed that the jockey riding BOSS LADY J had to check the horse; however, his evidence was that the “check was mild in the grand scheme of things.”
As a direct result of this abrupt lateral movement, Leo Salles, the jockey riding BOSS LADY J, was forced to check immediately, and the horse was knocked off stride at the very outset of the Race. The rider’s reaction in taking hold of the horse was credibly explained as a safety-driven response to assess whether the horse had been injured, and the evidence, including the race video demonstrates that the horse did not resume effective running until it was actively urged forward. While there was evidence that BOSS LADY J broke a step slowly and continued to lose ground thereafter, those factors do not negate the initial interference. The rules do not require that interference be the sole cause of a compromised performance, only that the interference materially impedes the horse’s opportunity to fairly compete in the race.
The Appellant argued that the check was mild, that BOSS LADY J was not competitive at any stage of the race, and that the absence of a foul claim by the jockey or trainer demonstrates that no meaningful interference occurred. I have considered these submissions carefully but am not persuaded by them. I agree that checking exists on a spectrum and that not every check warrants a placing; however, the interference in the Race was caused by another horse’s sudden lateral movement that occurred at the start of the Race. The absence of a foul claim is not determinative, as the Race Officials have independent authority to initiate an inquiry and participants may not have access to all relevant views, including the head-on shot, at the time such decisions are made.
I have also considered the conflicting statements attributed to the jockey who rode BOSS LADY J. The evidence established that immediately following the race, the Mr. Salles was spoken to by the Race Officals and stated that he had been interfered with and that the incident cost him a better position in the Race. This statement was made contemporaneously with the event and in circumstances where Mr. Salles had no apparent incentive to tailor his account. The Registrar subsequently summoned Mr. Salles to attend the hearing, and I was advised by Ms. Counsell that he agreed to attend. Despite that summons, Mr. Salles did not attend. Instead, the Appellant produced a written statement from Mr. Salles dated December 14, 2025 (Exhibit 2), which was dated only three days before this Hearing, asserting that Mr. Salles did not believe that BOSS LADY J was interfered with. I place significantly greater weight on Mr. Salles’ contemporaneous statement to the Race Officials rather than on the late-produced written statement. The timing of the latter, its inconsistency with the earlier account, and the fact that it could not be tested through cross-examination materially undermines its reliability. Where a witness fails to attend despite being summoned, a decision-maker is entitled to give little weight to that witness’s untested written statement, and in appropriate circumstances to draw an adverse inference as to its probative value. Accordingly, the written statement does not displace the earlier evidence or the objective Race video.
I also considered Exhibit 3, the Will Say statement of jockey Fraser Aebly, who indicated that, “MEW N ME loaded and stood well, but at the start, hopped when she broke from the gate. When she hopped, she broke to the outside.” Although this statement corroborates the evidence of the Race Officials regarding the outward movement of the horse at the start of the Race and was consistent with his statement to the Race Officials at the time of the inquiry, I afforded it limited weight overall, as the author did not attend the hearing and the evidence could not be tested through cross-examination.
The Appellant advanced two theories which I will address in order. Firstly, he advanced a “self-interference” theory, suggesting that BOSS LADY J caused its own interference by making contact with the starting gate. Secondly, the Appellant advanced a theory that the reason for the horse not doing well in the race was not a result of the interference, but because the horse was “green and inexperienced.”
While I have considered these submissions, I am unable to place significant weight on them. Neither of these theories were put to the Race Officials during their testimony. In accordance with the principle in Brown v. Dunn, fairness requires that a party intending to advance an alternative theory, inconsistent with a witness’s evidence, must put that theory to the witness so that it may be addressed. In any event, the race video and the consistent testimony of the Race Officials identify the outward movement of MEW N ME as the initiating and operative cause of the interference.
Finally, while it was noted that there is no audio recording of the conversation between the Race Officials and the jockeys during the inquiry, this does not undermine the finding of interference. The evidence establishes that three race officials were present, contemporaneous notes were taken, and the decision was unanimous.
For all of these reasons, I am satisfied that the #4 horse MEW N ME interfered with the #5 horse BOSS LADY J at the start of the Race by impeding its path, causing BOSS LADY J to check, lose stride and momentum, and be materially compromised in its running of the Race.
I therefore uphold Thoroughbred Official Ruling 3346778. I would like to thank the Secretariat for their assistance during this hearing and thank the parties for presenting their cases in a succinct and professional manner.