IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, S.O. 2000, c. 20
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
STANDARDBRED LICENSEE JEAN CLOUTIER
RULING
Standardbred owner and trainer Douglas Delaney appealed the Judges’ decision to place the horse DELCREST LAVEC from 1st to 2nd in the 6th race at Rideau Carleton Raceway on July 8, 2001, for a violation of Rule 22.05.1(b)(ii) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing. On August 21, 2001, the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal allowed the appeal and rescinded the Judges’ decision. Jean Cloutier filed an appeal on behalf of the owner of WHITESAND TITAN of the decision of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal.
On November 22, 2001, Vice Chair Herbert Bryant and Commissioners Dr. Bruce Duncan and Patricia Bullock of the Ontario Racing Commission convened to hear the appeal.
Jeffrey Streisfield appeared on behalf of Mr. Cloutier, Jean Marc MacKenzie on behalf of Mr. Delaney and Counsel Don Bourgeois appeared for the Administration.
Upon hearing the testimony of Judge Al Caughey, driver Gilles Plourde, Judge John Campbell and driver Trevor Ritchie, upon reading the exhibits filed, upon hearing submissions on behalf of the parties, the Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal by a majority.
The order of finish as declared by the Judges is restored with WHITESAND TITAN finishing first and DELCREST LAVEC finishing second.
The reasons of the majority and of the minority of the panel of the Commission are attached.
DATED at Toronto this 26th day of November, 2001.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION_________________________
Jean Major
Executive Director
MAJORITY REASONS FOR DECISION
During the running of the 6th race at Rideau Carleton Raceway on July 8, 2001 an incident occurred from the head of the stretch to the finish line involving #6 DELCREST LAVEC, trained by Douglas Delaney and driven by Trevor Ritchie, and #8 WHITESAND TITAN, owned by Jan Erik Kyrkjeboe and driven by Gilles Plourde.
DELCREST LAVEC finished 1st and was placed 2nd for a violation of Rule 22.05.1 (b)(ii) failing to allow access to the extended inside lane with specific reference to the trailing horse WHITESAND TITAN.
On August 21, 2001, following a hearing the Racing Industry Board of Appeal rescinded the Judges decision.
Jean Cloutier, farm manager of owner Kyrkjeboe of WHITESAND TITAN, appeals the decision of the Board of Appeal seeking re-instatement of the Judges decision.
Mr. Cloutier was represented by Jeffrey Streisfield, Mr. Delaney by Jean Marc McKenzie and the Administration of the Ontario Racing Commission by Donald Bourgeois.
Judge Allan Caughey and driver Gilles Plourde were called as witnesses by the Administration; Judge John Campbell and driver Trevor Ritchie were called to testify by Mr. McKenzie.
All witnesses were cross-examined by counsel for parties adverse in interest.
Rule 22.05.1 (b) provides “in the event the home stretch is expanded pursuant to subsection (a) the following shall apply on ½ mile and 5/8 mile tracks (ii) the lead horse in the home stretch shall maintain as straight a course as possible while allowing trailing horses full access to the extended inside lane.”
We have reviewed the race patrol films, heard the testimony of all the witnesses and considered the exhibits filed and the submissions of counsel and the majority of the panel has made the following findings of fact:
(1) there was an extended inside lane at Rideau Carleton Raceway as provided for in this rule
(2) the lead horse at the head of the stretch was DELCREST LAVEC driven by Trevor Ritchie
(3) trailing horses at the head of the stretch were WHITESAND TITAN driven by Gilles Plourde and M. RENE LAVEC driven by Michael Saftic
(4) shortly after the horses began the stretch run DELCREST LAVEC bore in and progressively occupied the extended inside lane to the point where the horse and related equipment were in full occupation of this lane
(5) we accept the evidence of Judges Caughey and Campbell and conclude that at all relevant times WHITESAND TITAN was in contention
(6) we further accept the evidence of these judges that occupation of the extended inside lane is not of itself a violation of the rule but only in such circumstances when such occupation denies access to trailing horses which are in contention
(7) Judge Campbell put up the inquiry sign prior to the time any objection was lodged with them by Plourde.
The majority of this panel believes that the judges exercised their discretion fairly and reasonably in the application of Rule 22.05.1 (b)(ii). Additionally we believe the Appeal Board misapplied the rule by concluding “even if the passing lane had been available the horse WHITESAND TITAN was not in a position to use it”.
Based on our view of the race film and the evidence of the witnesses,a majority of this panel has concluded that there was a violation of Rule 22.05.1 (b)(ii) by the horse DELCREST LAVEC in the 6th race at Rideau Carleton Raceway on July 8, 2001.
For these reasons, the majority allows the appeal, rescinds the decision of the Racing Industry Board of Appeal and restores the decision of the Judges SB24526 dated July 8, 2001.
Attached hereto is the dissenting opinion of Dr. Bruce Duncan.
DATED this 26th day of November, 2001.
Herbert D. Bryant
Vice Chair
MINORITY REASONS FOR DECISION
In this matter I take the opposing and minority position and agree with the Industry Appeal Board’s decision.
It is my view that the passing lane was implemented to afford horses hopelessly locked in behind the leaders an opportunity to get out and contend in the stretch drive. It was never meant to offer a driver an either/or scenario.
At the head of the stretch Plourde obviously takes WHITESAND TITAN to the outside of Ritchie and DELCREST LAVEC. He only stays there a few steps when he then moves him somewhat in behind Ritchie again, to in his words, “braven” him up for the stretch drive. During this time it is my view and that of Judge Caughey that Plourde was always somewhat outside of Ritchie. It is therefore obvious to me and again Judge Caughey that the shortest distance for Plourde to the finish wire would be to come on the outside of Ritchie. This route was always completely open to him.
Both Judges have testified that if a horse is far enough in front it probably does not matter if they do infringe on the passing lane. In this case when Plourde claims he wanted to utilize this lane he was still approximately a length behind and more to Ritchie’s outside. Ritchie claims that he at no time felt threatened and that if he had sensed Plourde coming on the inside he would have given that lane to him. There is no evidence on the tape to indicate Ritchie ever felt challenged as he just line drove his colt throughout the whole stretch drive.
It is therefore my opinion that Mr. Plourde by his actions never intended to use the passing lane, was afforded every opportunity to win the race from the outside and that the decision of the Industry Appeal Board should stand.
DATED this 26th day of November, 2001.
Bruce Duncan, DVM
Commissioner