Ruling Number COM TB 004/2008
Commission Hearing Toronto, Ontario – March 12, 2008
In the Matter of the Racing Commission Act S.O. 2000, c.20;
And in the Matter of the Appeal of Thoroughbred Licensee Ming Fong
Introduction
This is an appeal from the decision of the Industry Appeal Board, dated October 3, 2007, wherein the appeals of trainer Peter Berringer and jockey Anthony Stephen from the Stewards’ Ruling Number TB 4961/2007 were dismissed. (Reflected in ORC Ruling Number TB 5168/07)
The Stewards’ ruling relates to events that took place during the eighth race on August 3, 2007 at Woodbine Racetrack in Rexdale, Ontario. (Reflected in ORC Ruling Number TB 4961/07, dated August 5th)
The Stewards found that during the stretch run of the race, jockey Anthony Stephen came in with his mount, “Valeisha” and interfered with “Stolen Humor”. Mr. Stephen was suspended for 3 racing days and his mount “Valeisha” was disqualified from second to last place.
On March 12, 2008, Rod Seiling, Chair, and Commissioners Brenda Walker and Jane Garthson of the Ontario Racing Commission convened to hear the appeal. Mr. Fong appeared on his own behalf and Luisa Ritacca appeared for the Administration.
Order
Upon hearing from the Administration and from Ming Fong, upon reading the exhibits filed and upon hearing submissions on behalf of the parties, the Ontario Racing Commission orders that the appeal be denied and upholds the decisions, both the Stewards’ decision of August 5, 2007, Ruling Number TB 4961/07 and the Industry Appeal Board’s decision, Ruling Number TB 5168/07 dated October 18, 2007.
The Commission gave oral reasons for its decision which form part of the transcript attached to this Ruling.
DATED at Toronto this 25th day of March 2008.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
John L. Blakney Executive Director
Ontario Racing Commission Thoroughbred Hearing
In the Matter of Thoroughbred Licensee Ming Fong:
Held Before: Rod Seiling, Chairman Brenda Walker, Commissioner Jane Garthson, Commissioner
These are the oral reasons and ruling in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: MING FONG, 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 March, 2008.
Appearances: Ms. Louisa Ritacca for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration Ming Fong for the licensee Ming Fong
Hearing continued ...
MR. GRUBB: All rise.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please be seated. After carefully considering the testimony and reviewing the exhibits the panel denies the appeal of Mr. Fong and upholds the decision, both the stewards decision of August 5, 2007 ruling number TB4961/07 and the Industry Appeal Board decision of ruling number TB5168/07 dated October 18th, 2007.
Reasons for decision: Mr. Stephen, the rider of VALEISHA did violate Rule 11.07 and 11.09 of the Thoroughbred Rules of Racing. Mr. Stephen's horse in coming off the turn drifted out to the three path as the video replay indicates and was confirmed by Steward McMahon. He then moved back into the rail thereby interfering with Mr. Stein's horse STOLEN HUMOR which had moved up along the rail. This movement back into the rail caused the horse to clip heels ultimately causing Mr. Stein to become thrown off his horse.
Mr. Stephen testified that he was not aware of what was happening behind him having last checked at the 3/8th pole. His focus, as per his testimony, was to the horse on his right and the finish line. Therefore, it is reasonable that he was unaware that he had lost the three length lead he had when he looked and the horses had closed.
We note that there is a difference between the interference in the SEALEY HILL case and this one. In this instance there was contact that resulted in a rider being unseated and the hole closed so quickly that in this case Mr. Stein did not have a chance to check his horse versus the SEALEY HILL case where the jockey could be seen checking his horse.
With respect to jockey Stein not claiming foul this issue is not material. The stewards had the right to post the inquiry sign and it was reasonable to expect that Mr. Stein was not in a position to make his claim of foul given that he never made it to the finish line. Regarding Mr. Stein's memory of events post race the panel accepts his testimony in some instances contradicts that of Steward McMahon and believes it reasonable to expect that as he was thrown from his horse that it is not one hundred percent accurate. Thank you.
MR. FONG: Thank you.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:____________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR Commissioner of Oaths