IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, S.O. 2000, c.20;

AND IN THE MATTER OF

STANDARDBRED LICENSEE STRONG YANKEE STABLE

Standardbred licensee Strong Yankee Stable appealed Judges' Ruling SB 34424 dated September 19, 2005, wherein the horse STRONG YANKEE, which finished first, was placed second for violation of Rule 22.03(j)(iv) and (vi) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing in the third race at Mohawk Raceway on September 17, 2005, which was an elimination heat in the Canadian Trotting Classic.

A Panel of the Commission composed of Chair Lynda Tanaka and Commissioners David Gorman and George Kelly convened to hear the appeal on September 21, 2005. Brendan Van Niejenhuis represented the Administration, Robert Burgess represented the Appellant Strong Yankee Stable, and John MacDonald represented the owners of the second-finishing and first-placed horse, NORTHERN ENSIGN.

On hearing the evidence of Judge Pat Webb and John Newell, and on reviewing the exhibits, including the videotape of the race in question, and on hearing the submissions of counsel, the Commission dismissed the appeal and ordered as follows:'

(a) The purse is to be distributed in accordance with the order of finish declared by the Judges;

(b) The selection and draw of post positions in the Canadian Trotting Classic final shall be governed in accordance with the order of finish declared by the Judges.

The Commission’s oral reasons for its decision form part of the transcript of the hearing which will be distributed under separate cover.

DATED this 22^nd day of September, 2005.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION

John L. Blakney

Executive Director

TRANSCRIPT

ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION

STANDARDBRED HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF STANDARDBRED LICENSEE

STRONG YANKEE STABLE

REASONS FOR DECISION

Hearing conducted in the Hearing Room of the Ontario Racing Commission, 7th Floor, 20 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday the 21st day of September, 2005.

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE PANEL:

L. Tanaka Chair

G. Kelly

D. Gorman

APPEARANCES:

B. Van Niejenhuis Counsel for the Administration

Robert B. Burgess For Strong Yankee Stable

John w. MacDonald For John Fielding

Also Present: Bill Fines

--- Upon resuming at 5:50 p. m.

THE CHAIR: This appeal is with respect to Judges' Ruling SB 34424 dated September 19, 2005 with respect to the third race at Mohawk, run on September 17, 2005. The appeal is by the principals of the horse, Strong Yankee, which finished the race in first position and was placed second for violation of the Rule 22.03(j)(iv) and (v), which provides as follows: (j)(iv) provides for the imposition of a fine or suspension, or the placing of an offending horse for coming to the starting gate in the wrong position and for interference with another horse or driver during the start.

We would like to thank counsel for all the parties for their assistance in dealing with this matter. We recognize that it is difficult to put together these cases to represent clients' interests on such short notice, and we appreciate the cooperation of all the parties as well as their counsel in allowing this matter to come forward with the quality of work that we've had and the consideration of the issues that have presented themselves.

We find, based on our review of the videotapes, that Brian Sears driving Strong Yankee did not come to the starting gate in the correct position, and while he corrected his error, pulled his horse into the starting post number 1, his driving -- I'll call it a pattern, just because the driving course was that it took away from Mr. Campbell a choice he had as to whether or not to come up to the starting gate and be with the horse's nose right at the staring gate, or to lag back as he might have wished.

It's pretty clear from the tape that because of the efforts of the starter to keep Mr. Sears out of difficulty, since his horse was charging the gate, the gate was going quickly. A number of the horses were lagging pretty far back from the starting point. With respect to Mr. Campbell's horse, what was wrong with Mr. Sears' tactic, if it was that, or misplacement, rather, was that it took away from Mr. Campbell he choice to be at the starting gate and to keep up with it, or to lag behind. So it's clear to us on the videotape that there is a violation of the rules.

Counsel for the appellant, Strong Yankee Stable, argued at length that we should interfere with the judges' determination on the placement because of the procedure followed after the race and the question for us is: Are we prepared to grant the appeal because Mr. Campbell chose, in essence, to go to the paddock phone to speak to the judges, rather than speaking to the starter in the starter's car? Our answer to that is, no, we will not grant the appeal on the basis of that. It appears to us to be a simple decision to get this horse into the paddock and utilize the paddock phone rather than speak to the starter.

There was some argument that we should give weight to the fact that Mr. Sears was out warming up his horse for the next race or a subsequent race and did not respond to the paddock judges' pages, and that judges had made up their minds with respect to whether or not there was a violation. To our mind, this is really a neutral factor because it is also arguable that Mr. Sears recognized his error and decided he couldn't do anything more about it and simply decided his priority was to look after the horse that he was involved in in the next race and get it looked after properly.

We are, therefore, denying the appeal. We understand that the point at issue here is not whether these two horses will be in the final, but rather, whether one horse or the other has the right to choose the post position, and we assume also that there is a dispute over the amount of the purse that would be recoverable from the first or second place horse, which is not an inconsiderable amount of money. Therefore, the draw would take place with the number 2 horse as the first place horse.

I trust that we've been able to accommodate the needs of the racing secretary to get the box set up in the proper order for the finals this weekend.

There will be a ruling, then, issued tomorrow and I'll leave it to the Administration to prepare that, and Mr. Blakney, so that there is no confusion tomorrow within the industry, because there are other horses affected by this.

Thank you very much.

Whereupon proceedings adjourned at 5:57 p. m.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING

to be a true and accurate transcription

of a cassette tape recording

to the best of my skill and ability.

MAUREEN BYNOE, Stenomask Reporter

B. A., Commissioner of Oaths

IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, S.O. 2000, c.20;

AND IN THE MATTER OF

STANDARDBRED LICENSEE STRONG YANKEE STABLE

Standardbred licensee Strong Yankee Stable appealed Judges' Ruling SB 34424 dated September 19, 2005, wherein the horse STRONG YANKEE, which finished first, was placed second for violation of Rule 22.03(j)(iv) and (vi) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing in the third race at Mohawk Raceway on September 17, 2005, which was an elimination heat in the Canadian Trotting Classic.

A Panel of the Commission composed of Chair Lynda Tanaka and Commissioners David Gorman and George Kelly convened to hear the appeal on September 21, 2005. Brendan Van Niejenhuis represented the Administration, Robert Burgess represented the Appellant Strong Yankee Stable, and John MacDonald represented the owners of the second-finishing and first-placed horse, NORTHERN ENSIGN.

On hearing the evidence of Judge Pat Webb and John Newell, and on reviewing the exhibits, including the videotape of the race in question, and on hearing the submissions of counsel, the Commission dismissed the appeal and ordered as follows:'

(a) The purse is to be distributed in accordance with the order of finish declared by the Judges;

(b) The selection and draw of post positions in the Canadian Trotting Classic final shall be governed in accordance with the order of finish declared by the Judges.

The Commission’s oral reasons for its decision form part of the transcript of the hearing which will be distributed under separate cover.

DATED this 22^nd day of September, 2005.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION

John L. Blakney

Executive Director

TRANSCRIPT

ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION

STANDARDBRED HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF STANDARDBRED LICENSEE

STRONG YANKEE STABLE

REASONS FOR DECISION

Hearing conducted in the Hearing Room of the Ontario Racing Commission, 7th Floor, 20 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday the 21st day of September, 2005.

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE PANEL:

L. Tanaka Chair

G. Kelly

D. Gorman

APPEARANCES:

B. Van Niejenhuis Counsel for the Administration

Robert B. Burgess For Strong Yankee Stable

John w. MacDonald For John Fielding

Also Present: Bill Fines

--- Upon resuming at 5:50 p. m.

REASONS FOR DECISION

THE CHAIR: This appeal is with respect to Judges' Ruling SB 34424 dated September 19, 2005 with respect to the third race at Mohawk, run on September 17, 2005. The appeal is by the principals of the horse, Strong Yankee, which finished the race in first position and was placed second for violation of the Rule 22.03(j)(iv) and (v), which provides as follows: (j)(iv) provides for the imposition of a fine or suspension, or the placing of an offending horse for coming to the starting gate in the wrong position and for interference with another horse or driver during the start.

We would like to thank counsel for all the parties for their assistance in dealing with this matter. We recognize that it is difficult to put together these cases to represent clients' interests on such short notice, and we appreciate the cooperation of all the parties as well as their counsel in allowing this matter to come forward with the quality of work that we've had and the consideration of the issues that have presented themselves.

We find, based on our review of the videotapes, that Brian Sears driving Strong Yankee did not come to the starting gate in the correct position, and while he corrected his error, pulled his horse into the starting post number 1, his driving -- I'll call it a pattern, just because the driving course was that it took away from Mr. Campbell a choice he had as to whether or not to come up to the starting gate and be with the horse's nose right at the staring gate, or to lag back as he might have wished.

It's pretty clear from the tape that because of the efforts of the starter to keep Mr. Sears out of difficulty, since his horse was charging the gate, the gate was going quickly. A number of the horses were lagging pretty far back from the starting point. With respect to Mr. Campbell's horse, what was wrong with Mr. Sears' tactic, if it was that, or misplacement, rather, was that it took away from Mr. Campbell he choice to be at the starting gate and to keep up with it, or to lag behind. So it's clear to us on the videotape that there is a violation of the rules.

Counsel for the appellant, Strong Yankee Stable, argued at length that we should interfere with the judges' determination on the placement because of the procedure followed after the race and the question for us is: Are we prepared to grant the appeal because Mr. Campbell chose, in essence, to go to the paddock phone to speak to the judges, rather than speaking to the starter in the starter's car? Our answer to that is, no, we will not grant the appeal on the basis of that. It appears to us to be a simple decision to get this horse into the paddock and utilize the paddock phone rather than speak to the starter.

There was some argument that we should give weight to the fact that Mr. Sears was out warming up his horse for the next race or a subsequent race and did not respond to the paddock judges' pages, and that judges had made up their minds with respect to whether or not there was a violation. To our mind, this is really a neutral factor because it is also arguable that Mr. Sears recognized his error and decided he couldn't do anything more about it and simply decided his priority was to look after the horse that he was involved in in the next race and get it looked after properly.

We are, therefore, denying the appeal. We understand that the point at issue here is not whether these two horses will be in the final, but rather, whether one horse or the other has the right to choose the post position, and we assume also that there is a dispute over the amount of the purse that would be recoverable from the first or second place horse, which is not an inconsiderable amount of money. Therefore, the draw would take place with the number 2 horse as the first place horse.

I trust that we've been able to accommodate the needs of the racing secretary to get the box set up in the proper order for the finals this weekend.

There will be a ruling, then, issued tomorrow and I'll leave it to the Administration to prepare that, and Mr. Blakney, so that there is no confusion tomorrow within the industry, because there are other horses affected by this.

Thank you very much.

Whereupon proceedings adjourned at 5:57 p. m.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING

to be a true and accurate transcription

of a cassette tape recording

to the best of my skill and ability.

MAUREEN BYNOE, Stenomask Reporter

B. A., Commissioner of Oaths