IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, S.O. 2000 C. 20;
AND IN THE MATTER IN THE APPEAL OF
THOROUGHBRED LICENSEE GEORGE NEWLAND
Thoroughbred Licensee George Newland appeals to the Commission from Ruling Number 4299/2006 wherein the stewards fined him $1,500 for violation of Rule 16.10 for failing to run his horse with the correct equipment, specifically with blinkers.
On September 18th the ORC Panel hearing the matter consisted of Chair Lynda Tanaka and Commissioners David Gorman and Bernard Brennan, DVM. Luisa Ritacca appeared at the hearing for the Administration and Conrad Cohen appeared on behalf of Mr. Newland.
Upon hearing the evidence of the parties, reviewing the documentary evidence and upon hearing submissions from counsel, the Commission dismissed Mr. Newland’s appeal.
In addition, the Commission determined that Mr. Newland’s appeal was a frivolous appeal pursuant to section 11(8) of the Racing Commission Act and as such imposed an additional fine of $250.00 on Mr. Newland.
The Commission's oral reasons for decision form part of the transcript of the hearing and are attached to this ruling.
DATED at Toronto this 2nd day of October 2006.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ____________________________________
John L. Blakney
Executive Director
ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION
THOROUGHBRED HEARING
IN THE MATTER OF THOROUGHBRED LICENSEE
GEORGE NEWLAND
These are the oral reasons in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: GEORGE NEWLAND, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Mississauga, Ontario, on the 18th day of September, 2006.
Appearances:
Ms. Luisa Ritaka,
for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration
Conrad Cohen,
for George Newland.
Hearing continued ...
MR. HALL: All rise please. This hearing before the Commission is now back in session. Please be seated.
MADAME CHAIR: We have reached a decision. This is an appeal by George Newland who is a thoroughbred trainer. He appeals the ruling of the stewards, ruling Thoroughbred 4299/2006 wherein the stewards fined him $1500 for violation of Rule 16.10 for failing to run his horse FLY MISSIONS in the sixth race on June 22, 2006 with the correct equipment, specifically with blinkers.
The horse had been claimed in its previous race at Woodbine where it has traditionally raced, according to its race lines, and it had come first in that race and had been wearing blinders. In accordance with the rules and the usual practice of the stewards a trainer who wishes to change equipment must notify the race office on or before the time of entry and it is up to the stewards as to whether or not the change of equipment will be allowed.
In this case Mr. Newland has testified before us that he is a trainer of 15 years standing and prior to that had 15 years as a hot walker or groom. He is therefore a very experienced trainer. This horse came into his stable in mid May, May 17th, when it was claimed by his owners who advised him that they thought it was a good horse. He could not remember the specific name of the person from the stable who provided him with instructions. He trains eight horses for this individual. He has testified before us that he was unaware of the difficulties with respect to putting blinkers on this horse and that the blinkers had to be put on the horse before she raced, in her stall rather than waiting until the paddock.
On the specific day in question Mr. Newland and his groom were prepared to put blinkers on the horse but the horse went, in Mr. Newland’s words, berserk when he tried to put blinkers on. The horse hurt him and was a danger and when he sent the horse out with the groom for a walk around to try and get the horse calmed down the paddock judge called the riders up.
Before the stewards Mr. Newland’s evidence was that he wasn't aware that the blinkers were not on until he was standing beside the groom when the horses were at the post and the groom was holding the blinkers in his hand. Mr. Newland said that he was aware the blinkers were not up when the horse left the paddock and he went upstairs to the Turf Lounge to find a phone to alert the stewards to alert them to the fact that the blinkers were not on the horse. In any event, the horse raced without the blinkers, came first and of course went away with a substantial portion of the purse. The horse has since raced without blinkers and it seems to do well without them.
The stewards imposed a fine of $1500. The appeal, in essence, was that based on the fact that there was no intention by Mr. Newland to race the horse without blinkers. The cross examination of the paddock judge and the steward was directed to blaming the paddock judge for having been called to a telephone call which was really for the horse identifier and not the paddock judge and to blame the other race officials for the fact that the horse raced without blinkers.
In our view, there were lots of opportunities for Mr. Newland to contact the stewards or some racing official to alert them to the fact that the horse was without blinkers and there were blinkers at the starting gate which could have been put on or someone could have tried to put on the horse and if the horse was truly, to use Mr. Newland’s words, berserk, to assess whether or not the horse should in fact have raced that day.
In any event, it is admitted before us as it was before the stewards that the horse did race without proper equipment and that the horse’s performance appears to be good with blinkers and to be better without blinkers. That is, it has won at least two races in a row without blinkers.
We find that this appeal is without merit, without any merit and we do not interfere with the finding or the rulings of the stewards or the fine they have imposed. Indeed, we find; and this is an extraordinary circumstance, that this appeal should not have been brought at all. It is a frivolous appeal within the words of the Section 11.8 statute. Under the regulations we are empowered to impose a fine of up to $1500. It has been a long time since the Commission has imposed a fine for an appeal that is without merit but the arguments that have been made to us to essentially blame others for a failure to abide by the rule, when in the face of accepting the responsibility for the failure before the stewards and given the time that was available to alert the stewards to a problem, the horse was not racing and not racing fairly, the lost opportunity to protect the wagering public and the intent, the preference, to protect the owner and trainer's share of the purse of the winner and protection of the owner who in essence won by not abiding by the rules, provides us with the basis that this appeal is without merit.
There is a real bone to be righted and in our view Mr. Newland should contribute $250 as a fine imposed for bringing this appeal. The appeals are expensive to launch. We retain counsel to ensure the rights of every licensee who come before us are protected. We engage the services of three commissioners to sit on these appeals. They are costly. Frivolous appeals waste money of the Commission and raise the cost of regulation which affect all other licensees. In those circumstances, our ruling is to dismiss the appeal, confirm the penalty of $1500 by way of fine and another $250 for a fine for a frivolous appeal. Thank you.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:____________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR
Commissioner of Oaths