IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, [S.O. 2000, c.20](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2000-c-20/latest/so-2000-c-20.html);
# AND IN THE MATTER OF STANDARDBRED TRAINER CARL JAMIESON
Standardbred Trainer Carl Jamieson appealed the decision of the Judges to scratch the horse TAYLOR LYNNE from The She's A Great Lady Pace, the 5th Race, August 29, 2003 at Woodbine Racetrack, for failure to be placed in the retention area by 11:00 p.m. on August 28, 2003.
On August 29, 2003, Lynda Tanaka, Chair, convened as a panel to hear the appeal.
Jamie Martin appeared by telephone conference on behalf of Woodbine Entertainment Group, Jean Marc MacKenzie appeared on behalf of Carl Jamieson and Don Bourgeois appeared on behalf of the Administration.
On hearing the evidence and on hearing submissions of the parties, the Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal.
Written reasons for the decision are attached to this Ruling.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Jean Major
Executive Director
# REASONS FOR DECISION
On August 29, 2003, an appeal by trainer Carl Jamieson was heard on an emergency basis with respect to the scratching of the horse TAYLOR LYNNE from The She’s A Great Lady Pace, the 5th race scheduled for the evening of August 29 at Woodbine. A hold was placed on pari-mutuel wagering for this race by the Director of Racing until the issue could be dealt with by this panel. The hearing proceeded with Mr. Jamie Martin, Vice President of Standardbred Racing at Woodbine in attendance by telephone and Mr. Jean Marc MacKenzie and Mr. Don Bourgeois appearing for the trainer Mr. Jamieson and the ORC Administration respectively.
Because of the limited time available, the hearing proceeded on consent with counsel providing summaries of evidence witnesses would give if called. There were no factual disputes arising from the summaries.
The race in question is a stakes race. The conditions provide that the final event will be limited to ten horses. There is no dispute that the trainer was aware that TAYLOR LYNNE had to be at the retention barn by 11:00 p.m., August 28. The horse arrived 10 minutes later and was scratched. The “also eligible” horse was then drawn in and as a result that horse had been scratched from the 3rd race for August 29. If the appeal were granted, that horse would not be able to race on August 29 at all. There is no dispute that the condition sheet and the overnight sheet required that the horse be at the retention barn by 11:00 p.m.
Mr. MacKenzie argued that:
a) The judges have a discretion to scratch or not, and that given the two construction slowdowns and the delay at the interchange of Hwy 401 and Hwy 427 due to an accident, the discretion should be exercised in Mr. Jamieson’s favour.
b) Time limits are not always enforced by a decision to scratch. The examples used were allowing horses into the paddock later than the scheduled time, and the 15-minute “grace” period provided for the Lasix administration.
c) The 11:00 p.m. deadline was a Woodbine policy, not a rule and therefore the policy could not be used as the basis for scratching a horse.
I dismissed the appeal orally on conclusion of the argument of the motion and ordered the lifting of the hold on the pari-mutuel wagering. I indicated I would provide in writing my reasons for the decision.
It is clearly the trainer’s responsibility to ensure that any time limits imposed by the conditions of the race or by rules are met. The construction slowdowns and accident are foreseeable events, given the route to be followed. No reason was given that the horse could not have been transported earlier. Therefore the facts do not provide a compelling argument for any exercise of discretion. Also, no examples of an exception being granted for the time limit for the retention barn were provided by Mr. Martin or counsel, and Mr. Bourgeois’ information that horses had been scratched for similar time limit violations was confirmed by Mr. Martin.
The 15-minute “grace” period for Lasix administration is provided specifically under that program and is not a period in which “discretion” is applied. The 15-minute time limit is enforced. Similarly, whatever flexibility has been allowed in the past for paddock time limits has apparently been negated so that horses are scratched if they are not in the paddock within the time limits. This more restrictive approach came about because of inconsistencies in rulings by the officials, which left horsemen unhappy and concerned about interference in “the level playing field”.
With respect to the policy/rule issue, Woodbine’s Rule 7.13 was approved in September 2001. Mr. MacKenzie was not aware of this rule and the Woodbine Rule Book edition that Mr. Bourgeois had did not include it. Rule 7.13 seems to be a complete answer to the argument.
In the end however, Mr. Jamieson was aware of the time limit, and the practice of scratching horses that arrive late at the retention barn is well established and recognized by the horsemen. Finally, the 11:00 p.m. deadline was a condition of the race, clearly communicated, and breach of such a condition in and of itself would support the scratching of the horse.
There is nothing in the materials or submissions provided that supports an unusual exercise of discretion in Mr. Jamieson’s favour and to the detriment of another horse. It is unfortunate that Mr. MacKenzie was unaware of Rule 7.13 and that the apparent exercise of discretion in the past with respect to time limits has created any sense of unfairness. To grant the appeal would only contribute to that sense of unfairness in the broader racing community by taking away the certainty of the 11:00 p.m. retention barn requirement.
DATED this 3rd day of September 2003.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Lynda C.E. Tanaka
Chair
minicounsel