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

AND IN THE MATTER IN THE APPEAL OF

THOROUGHBRED JOCKEY SLADE CALLAGHAN

Thoroughbred licensee Slade Callaghan appealed a $200.00 fine imposed by the stewards at Woodbine in Ruling TB4273/2006 for violation of Rule 9.27.04(iii) of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing for excessive use of the whip on his mount VERY PROFESSIONAL in the 6^th race on June 15, 2006.

On August 22, 2006, a panel of the Ontario Racing Commission consisting of Chair Lynda Tanaka and Commissioners David Gorman and Brenda Walker convened to hear the matter.

Luisa Ritacca appeared at the hearing for the Administration and Harvey Schwartz appeared on behalf of Mr. Callaghan.

On hearing the evidence and on reading and reviewing the exhibits filed, and on hearing the submissions of counsel, the Commission allowed the appeal by Mr. Callaghan from the decision of the stewards.

The Commission’s reasons are attached to this ruling.

DATED at Toronto this 26^th day of September, 2006.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION

John L. Blakney

Executive Director

REASONS FOR DECISION

Jockey Slade Callaghan appealed a $200 fine imposed by the Stewards at Woodbine in Ruling TB 4273/2006 for violation of Rule 9.27.04(iii) of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing for excessive use of the whip on his mount Very Professional in the 6^th race on June 15, 2006 at Woodbine Racetrack.

As explained in the reasons for decision in the appeal by jockey Todd Kabel with respect to Stewards’ Ruling TB4287/2006, Mr. Callaghan’s appeal was heard by the Commission on August 22, 2006 along with the appeals by Mr. Kabel and jockey Gerald Olguin.

The three appeals all arose from rulings with respect to three different races but under the same Rules of Thoroughbred Racing. This panel’s decision with respect to Mr. Kabel’s appeal dealing with the preliminary matters, the evidence of witnesses Steward Gunner Lindberg, Raymond Sabourin, Robert Landry, Emma Wilson and Nick Coukos and the discussion concerning the general principles as to use of the whip are incorporated and should be read as part of this decision. In this decision we will deal with the evidence concerning the specific conduct of Mr. Callaghan in the race in question.

Steward Gunner Lindberg testified with respect to the Stewards’ Ruling in this specific case and the penalty imposed on Mr. Callaghan for his ride on the horse Very Professional. The finding of excessive use of the whip was based on their view of the number of times Mr. Callaghan had used the whip during the stretch run and their discretion under the Rule. Steward Lindberg testified that Mr. Callaghan made a move turning for home and was very aggressive in his ride. He observed Mr. Callaghan whipping seventeen times from the head of the lane. He said that the jockey had just gone over the edge of what was acceptable.

Mr. Callaghan is a very experienced jockey. He testified that he did not believe he used the whip excessively on this horse in this race. He had ridden the horse in six of its last 10 starts and at least 30 of his 60 lifetime starts. He said that it was a very close race. He said he did pause between blows to see if the horse was responding, and that a jockey can feel if a horse is not trying as hard as he can. He said that he tried other ways to urge the horse on earlier down the lane including “throwing the lines”, but that the horse did not respond. He said he is totally against abusing the horse but that this horse responded to the whip, i.e. he ran faster. Mr. Callaghan expressed strongly his view that if he does not ride as hard as he can, he is defrauding the public. He also confirmed that the trainer did not complain about the ride.

In our view, the appeal should be allowed. We do not see clear evidence on the videotape that the jockey used the whip too many times and excessively on this horse. We recognize that the Stewards, all experienced in using their discretion, were of a different view. In this ride, Mr. Callaghan did not use the whip in the stretch run without any pause. We note that there is enough time and strides between the times he used the whip to convince us that his evidence under oath is true. To us he appears to have allowed time to assess whether or not the horse would keep running at a 100% effort if he did not use the whip again. Those pauses in use of the whip and the movement of the horse are enough to be visible to us and to support his evidence that that was what he was doing. We also did not see the obvious movement of the jockey’s arm, head or shoulders that we saw in Mr. Kabel’s ride and again, there were no welts or bruises on the horse. Just as the trainer who hired Mr. Kabel did not complain about his treatment of the horse, the trainer who hired Mr. Callaghan did not complain either. The difference in outcome relates to our observations of the ride in the videotape of the race and the consistency in the evidence of Mr. Callaghan with what we observed.

We would caution that, as noted by Steward Lindberg, Mr. Callaghan’s conduct was just at the edge of what is acceptable and we have given the benefit to the rider in this case. Another panel of the Commission might well take a different view. We are placing significant weight on our view of the videotape, Mr. Callaghan’s evidence as to his ride, and that the horse was not injured. We therefore are relying on the veterinarian to have looked at the horse carefully after the race and the trainer or owner to have complained, based on their own view of the whipping, the lack of injuries to the horse or a comparison of the race performance with the past performance of the horse. As noted in our reasons in the Kabel case, there is a decreasing tolerance for the use of the whip or indeed any unreasonable force used on an animal. The jockeys are not the only people in the horse racing community who bear responsibility for protecting the health and welfare of the horse, and our assumption is that the trainers, owners and racing officials also fulfill their responsibilities in that regard.

The appeal by Slade Callaghan from Ruling TB 4273/2006 for violation of Rule 9.27.04(iii) of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing for excessive use of the whip on his mount Very Professional in the 6^th race on June 15, 2006 at Woodbine Racetrack is therefore allowed.

DATED this 26^th day of September 2006.

________________________________

Lynda Tanaka

Chair