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

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF

STANDARDBRED OWNER/DRIVER/TRAINER GORDON BROWN

Standardbred Owner/Driver/Trainer Gordon Brown appealed the decision of the Industry Board of Appeal dated July 12, 2006, dismissing Mr. Brown's appeal from Judges' Ruling SB 35846 dated June 8, 2006, wherein the horse SON OF THE KING, which finished first in the fifth race on May 28, 2006 at Rideau Carleton Raceway, was placed fourth pursuant to Rule 22.09 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing for causing interference while off stride.

The ORC Panel hearing the matter consisted of Chair Lynda Tanaka and Commissioners David Gorman and Brenda Walker. The Panel convened on September 12, 2006. Aaron Dantowitz appeared for the Administration and Mr. Brown represented himself.

On hearing the evidence of Judge Mike Brown, Jacques Beaudoin and Gordon Brown, on reviewing the Exhibits filed, on viewing the videotape of the race, and on hearing the submissions of counsel for the Administration and of Mr. Brown, the Panel dismissed Mr. Brown's appeal.

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 19th day of October 2006.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION

John L. Blakney

Executive Director

ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION

STANDARDBRED HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF STANDARDBRED LICENSEE GORD BROWN

These are the oral reasons in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: GORD BROWN, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Mississauga, Ontario, on the 12th day of September, 2006.

Appearances:

Aaron Dantowitz,

for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Gord Brown,

On his own behalf.

Hearing continued ...

MR. FINES: All rise please. This hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission is now back in session.

MADAME CHAIR: Thank you. Be seated. You have the videotape so that our filing is complete here? I will just include it in there. Thank you. This is an appeal from the Ontario Racing Industry Standardbred Board of Appeal which dismissed the appeal of owner, driver, trainer Gord Brown with respect to Judges ruling number SB 35846 with respect to the order of finish in the fifth race at Rideau Carlton Raceway on May 28, 2006.

The judges ruled that SON OF THE KING driven by Gordon Brown caused interference while off stride past the three-quarter pole in the race and as a result he finished, the horse finished, first but was placed fourth. Mr. Brown has brought to our attention that the horse SON OF THE KING is a nine-year-old horse without a break on his record. The horse was wearing blinkers and a shadow role and in the course of the race at the three-quarter pole went off stride thereby causing interference to the horses following.

There is no dispute that the interference to the horses following occurred. In our view that is really the most important issue in this case because it affects the order of finish. The issue is whether or not the whip of the driver in front, Mr. Beaudoin, struck SON OF THE KING in the face and therefore caused the horse to go off stride.

We have carefully reviewed the video. The only evidence from people that we have is from Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Brown and they contradict each other directly. Judge Mike Brown was not able to see on the videos where the horse was struck in the face and apparently the judges who were watching the race did not see the horse struck in the face. We accept that both Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Gordon Brown are motivated in terms of their evidence; although, Mr. Beaudoin has no financial interest because his horse finished seventh.

We accept that Mr. Brown, Mr. Gord Brown, feels very strongly about this case and we appreciate him raising the issue of the visibility of the whip and the color of whip used by Mr. Beaudoin. We can see on the video some movement to Mr. Beaudoin’s shoulder as he uses the whip, as we can see it with other drivers. We accept that being hit by a whip in the face might cause a horse to break. We cannot discern whether the horse is breaking because of being hit with the whip or is shying at the exaggerated movement of Mr. Beaudoin’s shoulder.

Based on the evidence in the video we can't see the whip hitting the horse. It is a possibility but we have to make our decisions on the balance of probabilities. This is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is a lesser standard but it certainly must be more than a possibility. On the evidence we have, since we can't see the whip, we dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Brown, however, as I have indicated has raised an important issue. We would like to be able to see the whips used by drivers on the videos and we are sure that the judges would find their tasks easier if the whips were clearly visible and it may be that black is visible sometimes when white isn't and white is visible when black isn't and it may well be that the administration will look into this issue so that both the judges and this Commission are properly able to adjudicate on these matters. In the end though, we dismiss the appeal. Thank you.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:____________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oats