IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, S.O. 2000, c.20;
AND IN THE MATTER OF
STANDARDBRED DRIVER/TRAINER/OWNER ROBERT LEACH
Standardbred Driver/Trainer/Owner Robert Leach appealed Judges' Rulings Numbers SB31134, SB31135, SB31136 issued against him on May 28, 2004, wherein he was suspended from driving for a total of 100 days and had his "B" licence amended to a "C" licence, Ruling Number SB31137, for violation of Rules 22.05(h), 22.5(j) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, for careless race driving, interference and the striking of another race bike during various races in May 2004.
The ORC Panel hearing the matter consisted of Vice-Chair Todd and Commissioners Walker and Garthson. The Panel convened on February 23 and 24, 2005. Tim Snell appeared for the Administration and Mr. Leach appeared in person with the assistance of Mrs. Cowell.
On hearing the evidence of Orl Coville, Robby Robinson, Gary Macdonald, Jason Gilchrest, Judge Patricia Webb and Robert Leach, and on reviewing the Exhibits, and on hearing the submissions of counsel and of Mr. Leach, the Panel found that Mr. Leach had created situations of danger to himself, his horse and other nearby race participants, and that his driving abilities were materially lacking in skill and competence and required improvement. The Panel varied the penalty imposed by the judges and imposed the following penalty:
(a) the Panel ordered that the remaining 20 days of Mr. Leach’s suspension contained in Judges' Rulings SB31134, SB31135 and SB31136 be stayed for 12 months, provided if there are any violations of the Rules of Standardbred Racing relating to Rule 22.05.01(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (h) or (j) in this period that the remaining 20 days of a driving suspension shall be immediately in effect and served, and
(b) the Panel ordered that Mr. Leach’s drivers license be immediately probationary for a period of 24 months pursuant to Rule 25.01(e) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing. If in this 24 month period there are any two or more violations of Rule 22.05.01(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (h) or (j) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, then Mr. Leach’s driving license shall be forthwith revoked for the balance of this two-year period.
The Panel ordered that Judges' Ruling SB31137 be quashed and set aside.
DATED this 9^th^ day of August, 2005.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
John L. Blakney
Executive Director
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND
This matter was heard by a Panel consisting of Commissioner Walker, Commissioner Garthson and the Vice Chair on February 23 and 24, 2005. The matter stood over thereafter for the delivery of written Reasons to this date.
This is an appeal by standardbred owner/driver/trainer, Robert Leach, relating to Standardbred Rulings SB31134, SB31135, SB31136 and SB31137 found at Exhibit 1, Tab 2 in the proceedings before us.
The above rulings cumulatively reflect a significant suspension for careless race driving, interference and the striking of another race bike during various races in May 2004 at Rideau Carleton Raceway.
Mr. Leach was assessed the following penalties:
SB31134 10 days
SB31135 30 days
SB31136 60 days
Mr. Leach was effectively suspended from May 31, 2004 to September 7, 2004 for these alleged offences.
Additionally, Standardbred Ruling 31137 amended Mr. Leach’s “B” license to a “C” license so that after serving the suspensions, the appellant would be required to drive a number of qualifying races to the satisfaction of the presiding judges before being able to again drive in overnight events.
Mr. Snell appeared for the Administration at this hearing, while Mr. Leach appeared for himself with the assistance of Mrs. Cowell.
The Administration called driver Orl Coville, driver Robby Robinson, driver Gary Macdonald, driver Jason Gilchrest and Judge Patricia Webb as its witnesses.
In support of the appellant’s case, Mr. Leach presented his own evidence. Additionally, this Panel had the benefit of various video views of the of the subject races referred to in Standardbred Rulings 31134 through 31136.
The acting Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission, by Order dated May 28, 2004, stayed the last 20 days of Mr. Leach’s 100 day cumulative suspension “without prejudice” until this appeal was heard.
EVIDENCE
The basis of Mr. Leach’s appeal is set out in a Notice of Appeal at Exhibit 1, Tab 4 and a Supplementary Notice of Appeal delivered by counsel at Exhibit 1, Tab 9.
The grounds for appeal centred on unsafe track conditions, an unruly horse, an unfair initial hearing before the Judges at Rideau Carleton and improper “influencing” of the Judges by Mr. Leach’s “opponents”.
The Panel had also had before it Exhibits 2 and 3, being the Standardbred Canada history of past fines and suspensions of the appellant from August 2000 to May 2004, as well as Mr. Leach’s driving history, race-by-race, from December 11, 1999 to May 27, 2004.
Mr. Leach presented his appeal ably and focussed on his performance as a driver being at all times “safe, clean, and honest”.
Mr. Coville is a licensed Class “A” driver with 32 years of experience. He was a participant in all three races referenced in Standardbred Rulings 31134 to 31136. In all three races, Mr. Coville pointed out during a screening of the videotapes driving tactics and movements by Mr. Leach that he viewed as “a bad move” and a driver’s “worst nightmare”.
Mr. Coville acknowledged that Mr. Leach is a “good trainer” but that he generally “doesn’t know where he is on the racetrack” during the course of standardbred race. Mr. Coville bears no acrimony towards the appellant and shows a sincere concern for his own safety and the safety of all other drivers and horses during the conduct of a race.
Robby Robinson is a licensed driver with 21 years experience. His evidence described the situation on May 24, 2004 at Rideau Carleton Racetrack where Mr. Leach had his race bike wheel “underneath” the legs of Mr. Robinson’s horse in an apparent encroachment of the established lane and course of travel of Mr. Robinson’s horse.
Gary Macdonald is a driver of 21 years experience and was a participant in the eleventh race on May 27, 2004. Mr. Macdonald relates the situation where the appellant let his horse come up behind Mr. Macdonald’s race bike and strike his wheel twice before the front foot of the appellant’s horse was driven in and jammed between the fork and axle of Mr. Macdonald’s race bike. This contact broke the wheel and tire of Mr. Macdonald’s race bike and, as a consequence, he was “taken out of the race”.
Mr. Macdonald felt that “only luck and God” saved the situation from turning into a wreck in mid-race. The videotape screenings of this May 27, 2004 race provide absolute corroboration of these observations of Mr. Macdonald. Unfortunately, after the race Mr. Leach had to ask of Mr. Macdonald and others “What happened?”.
Jason Gilchrist is a young driver with five years of extensive racing experience at Rideau Carleton and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario. Mr. Gilchrist was a participant in the May 20^th^ race that is the subject of Standardbred Ruling 31134. Mr. Gilchrist describes in detail the situation whereby Mr. Leach’s horse comes down into Mr. Gilchrist’s lane, makes wheel contact, and engages the outside wheel of Mr. Gilchrist’s race bike. Again, the various videotaped views of this incident appear to fully corroborate that the driving conduct of Mr. Leach is as described by Mr. Gilchrist above.
Judge Patricia Webb was the Senior Judge at Rideau Carleton Racetrack for all three of the specific alleged violations referenced in the Rulings above. Her evidence of the appellant’s driving on these three dates can be summarized as follows:
(a) May 20, 2004 - “Mr. Leach did not take a hold of his horse and should have.”
(b) May 24, 2004 - “Mr. Leach has had left wheel ‘right under the belly of Robby Robinson’s horse’ in a ‘very dangerous situation’.”
(c). May 27, 2004 – “Mr. Leach ‘was very lucky’ that his horse didn’t go down in front of a number of other leaving horses.”
It was further stressed by several of the above witnesses that Mr. Leach appeared to not react when either creating or being in a situation of danger where a skilled driver would have been expected to act in his own interest and in the interest of others in the race.
Before the events in issue in May 2004, Exhibit 2 discloses inter alia five interference and one careless driving rulings against the appellant in the preceding twelve months. Judge Webb additionally stressed the need to protect the owners, trainers and drivers of other horses racing against Mr. Leach.
Judge Webb further emphasized the concern that Mr. Leach appeared to accept little or no responsibility for all three of the subject events and his overall driving performance. This observation was an underlying theme in the evidence of several of the drivers giving evidence before Judge Webb’s observation.
Mr. Leach, while expansive in his cross-examination of the Administration’s witnesses, offered little evidence by way of defence. We heard from Mr. Leach in his examination-in-chief that, “It has already been told.” Mr. Leach did tell us that 90% or more of the horses he races are his own. He acknowledges sixteen violations for interference and/or careless driving in just under four years as a licensed driver.
ANALYSIS
It needs to be emphasized that virtually all the Administration’s driving witnesses bore no demonstrable ill will toward the appellant. At least two of the drivers gave uncontradicted evidence of trying to help Mr. Leach with constructive criticism and suggestions regarding his driving skills and race tactics.
It was acknowledged by Judge Webb that the penalties assessed in Standardbred Ruling 31134 to 31136 were significant and higher than generally assessed for violations of this nature. We agree with this observation, but find that these penalties were entirely appropriate and warranted for the following reasons:
(a) there were three infractions of a serious nature within one week in May 2004;
(b) there appears to have been little or no acceptance of responsibility by the appellant for the creation of a situation of danger to himself, his horse and other nearby race participants;
(c) the appellant, once in a situation of imminent danger and concern, appears to show little appropriate reactive response; and
(d) the appellant has a lengthy history of interference and/or careless driving violations in the past year and the prior four years.
Despite some confusion in the evidence, the Administration in argument acknowledged that Mr. Leach had, in fact, served 80 days of his 100-day cumulative penalty in regard to driving. In this respect, much of the appeal relating to Standardbred Ruling 31134, 31135 and 31136 is moot. Mr. Leach has already served 80% or slightly more of those suspensions.
Mr. Leach in argument stressed that he follows the Rules of Standardbred Racing at all times “to the best of his ability”. He did acknowledge that safety was his first priority with the Rules of Standardbred Racing occupying a secondary status.
We would have hoped that Mr. Leach could come to appreciate that an adherence to the Rules of Standardbred Racing would de facto create and preserve a safe, competitive environment for all during the conduct of a race. We find as a fact that Mr. Leach on occasion has difficulty with this linkage.
It is not an answer to the creation of dangerous racing situations for one’s self and other competitors and their horses that “all went home safe and no one was hurt”.
The public interest and the interest of all associated with horse racing require a significant degree of skill and competence by the drivers directing the racing animals. We find at present that Mr. Leach has demonstrated driving abilities in this respect that are materially lacking and require improvement.
The Judges at Rideau Carleton in SB31137 saw fit “in consideration of protecting the safety of drivers and horses and to protect the integrity of harness racing….” to downgrade the appellant’s driving license from category “B” to category “C”. Given the various interests referenced in the immediately preceding paragraph, we have concluded that this re-qualification process alone is not broad enough to protect the requisite interests of other horses, drivers, owners and trainers competing against Mr. Leach.
It would be more than possible for Mr. Leach to participate in sufficient qualifying races and earn the requisite amount of points to again drive in overnight events in a relatively short order. It is our view that a somewhat broader degree of supervision is required in all the circumstances.
DISPOSITION
In all the above circumstances, it is the unanimous view of this Panel that the appeal be allowed in part and the following Order substituted:
(a) the remaining 20 days of Mr. Leach’s suspension contained in Standardbred Rulings 31134, 31135 and 31136 are to be stayed for 12 months from the date of these Reasons, provided if there are any violations of the Rules of Standardbred Racing relating to Rule 22.05.01(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (h) or (j) in this period that the remaining 20 days of a driving suspension shall be immediately in effect and served,
(b) Mr. Leach’s driving license shall be immediately probationary for a period of 24 months from the date of these Reasons pursuant to Rule 25.01(e) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing. If in this 24 month period there are any two or more violations of Rule 22.05.01(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (h) or (j) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, then Mr. Leach’s driving license shall be forthwith revoked for the balance of this two year period, and
(c) Standardbred Ruling 31137 is quashed and set aside.
We sincerely hope that Mr. Leach would appreciate the absolute need for standardbred drivers to conduct themselves on the racetrack in a safe, professional and workmanlike fashion as the Rules of Standardbred Racing require. The evidence clearly demonstrates that Mr. Leach is a caring and efficient trainer of the horses under his care and/or ownership. We would urge that the same skills and efficiency be brought to any driving efforts that Mr. Leach sees fit to undertake pursuant to the conditions and terms of this decision.
DATED at Toronto, this 9^th^ day of August, 2005.
Larry Todd
Vice Chair