Ontario
Racing
Commission
TB
RULING NUMBER COM SB 006/2008
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – JANUARY 31, 2008
IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, S.O. 2000, c.20;
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
STANDARDBRED LICENSEE ALLEN SISCO
On January 19, 2008, Standardbred licensee, Allen Sisco, Licence Number 725B42, was suspended pending a hearing for a positive test of an official sample on January 9, 2008 at Windsor Raceway for the horse PIERRE LAVEC, pursuant to Rule 9.08.01 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.
The positive test was for DIHYDROERGOCORNINE, DIHYDROERGOCRYPTINE and DIHYDROERGOCRISTINE, a Class III drug.
The hearing before a Panel of Standardbred Judges was scheduled for February 11, 2008.
On January 21, 2008, the request by Allen Sisco for a stay of the suspension, pending a hearing, was denied by the Executive Director.
On January 31, 2008, a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission consisting of Commissioner David Gorman, was convened to hear the appeal by Allen Sisco against the denial of the Executive Director to grant a stay of the suspension pending a hearing.
Allen Sisco appeared in person. Allen Sisco was represented by Frank L. Roth as counsel. Anthony Williams appeared as counsel for the Administration.
Upon hearing the submissions of both counsel and following a reading of he exhibits filed, the Commission ordered as follows:
i. That the request for a stay of the suspension of January 19, 2008 be granted and
ii. That the hearing be expedited.
The transcript of the Panel’s Oral Decision is attached.
DATED this 14^th^ day of February 2008.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
John L. Blakney
Executive Director
1
2 ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION
STANDARDBRED HEARING
3
IN THE MATTER OF THE Racing Commission Act,
4 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 20
5
6 ‑and‑
7
8 IN THE MATTER OF STANDARDBRED LICENSEE: ALLEN SISCO
9
10 ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
11
BEFORE: David Gorman Member
12
13
14 ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑REASONS‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
15
16 Conducted in the Hearing Room of the Ontario
Racing Commission, 7th Floor, Suite 400,
17 10 Carlson Court Toronto, Ontario, on the 31st day
of January, 2008.
18
19
20 APPEARANCES:
21 Anthony Williams Counsel for the
Administration
22
Frank Roth Counsel for the Appellant
23
Bill Fines Supervisor Standardbred Racing
24
25
TORONTO COURT REPORTERS ‑ TORONTO ‑ ONTARIO
Decision ‑ Allen Sisco
1 ‑‑‑‑‑ Upon resuming
2 MEMBER GORMAN: Thank you. Please be
3 seated. Sorry, I took a little longer than I
4 thought. With any luck, I'll be able to read
5 my own handwriting here.
6 I'm going to read this into the record
7 and I'm hoping that the transcript will suffice
8 as the written Decision rather than rewriting
9 something and distributing it to you. I think
10 I'll, hopefully, have made this pretty clear.
11 So, let me start. Just before I
12 start, Mr. Sisco, I have seen your named spelled
13 two or three different ways going through the
14 material. Allen; is it A‑l‑a‑n or A‑l‑l‑e‑n?
15 MR. SISCO: A‑l‑l‑e‑n.
16 MEMBER GORMAN: A‑l‑l‑e‑n is correct?
17 Thank you.
18 All right: This Decision is in the
19 matter of Standardbred Licensee Allen Sisco who
20 has appealed the Executive Director's decision
21 to deny his request for a stay of his suspension
22 issued by the Judges at Windsor Raceway on
23 January the 19th, 2008.
24 Mr. Sisco is represented by Frank
25 Roth. The Administration was represented by
TORONTO COURT REPORTERS ‑ TORONTO ‑ ONTARIO
Decision ‑ Allen Sisco
1Anthony Williams.
2The original suspension was because
3 one of the horses trained by Mr. Sisco; a horse
4 named Pierre Lavec, tested positive following a
5 race at Windsor Raceway on January the 9th,
6 2008. His suspension is to last until a
7 Judges' Hearing currently scheduled for February
8 11, 2008 at 3 p.m. at Mohawk Raceway.
9 Mr. Roth's position is that the action
10 taken by the Executive Director was unlawful and
11 not in accord with due process.
12 With respect to the former, he
13 referenced Section 6. of the Racing Commission
14 Act 2000 wherein the ORC "shall exercise its
15 powers and perform its duties in the public
16 interest and in accordance with the principles
17 of honesty and integrity and social
18 responsibility." He submits that the
19 Administration did not do that.
20 To make his point, Mr. Roth suggests
21 that Standardbred Ruling 37827 references Rule
22 9.08.01(b)(ii) and gives no rationale for the
23 suspension.
24 Similarly, at tab 8 of Exhibit 1,
25 being Standardbred Directive Number 5 ‑ 2007, no
TORONTO COURT REPORTERS ‑ TORONTO ‑ ONTARIO
Decision ‑ Allen Sisco
1 reasons are given by the Judges for imposing the
2 most draconian of the measures available to
3 them.
4 Mr. Roth also cited the rather curious
5 paperwork in this case and in particular the
6 dates on certain documents. For example, the
7 Executive Director denied the request for a stay
8 on a paper dated January 19th; the same day on
9 which the suspension was issued, but the request
10 for the stay was not made until January 21st,
11 2008.
12 There was also the question of when
13 the original Ruling was received in the ORC
14 offices. A Ruling date‑stamped "RECEIVED JAN
15 29th, 2008" is at Exhibit 1, tab 2 and it is not
16 clear whether a faxed copy was received earlier
17 than that.
18 Mr. Roth referred to Rule 6.12 of the
19 Rules of Standardbred Racing 2005 which states
20 that: "Notice shall be forwarded immediately to
21 the Commission". In this case, there is no
22 evidence that this in fact happened. The
23 Commission, therefore, may be in breach of its
24 own rules.
25 In summary, Mr. Roth stated that no
TORONTO COURT REPORTERS ‑ TORONTO ‑ ONTARIO
Decision ‑ Allen Sisco
1 rationale had been given for the suspension,
2 that in his view there was a knee jerk
3 helter‑skelter reaction by the Administration.
4 Mr. Williams, for his part, was
5 substantially in agreement with Mr. Roth in many
6 areas. He agreed that the Applicant has
7 already suffered a serious penalty by virtue of
8 having been suspended for 13 days at this
9 point.
10 He agreed that the original Ruling
11 SB 37827 "does not overwhelm the reader with
12 detail" and that it would have been preferable
13 if it had gone into some detail with respect to
14 the basis for calling a positive test. He
15 said, however, that by implication the Ruling
16 was based on a Cantest result of a positive
17 test.
18 He agreed that the new Directive dated
19 December 21st, 2007 had the potential to give
20 the Judges an unfair use of power although, in
21 this case, there did not appear to be any abuse
22 since the Hearing is scheduled for February the
23 11th, 2008.
24 He agreed that Mr. Roth had a valid
25 concern that no further foundation for this
TORONTO COURT REPORTERS ‑ TORONTO ‑ ONTARIO
Decision ‑ Allen Sisco
1 Ruling had been provided by the Executive
2 Director. But Mr. Williams argued that both
3 the Judges and the Executive Director were
4 acting within their jurisdiction. I agree with
5 Mr. Williams here. In my view, both the Judges
6 and the Executive Director acted within their
7 mandate. But I am concerned at "the lack of
8 disclosure", and that's my term, that occurred
9 here.
10 Mr. Roth referenced Section 22.(1) of
11 the Racing Commission Act wherein it states that
12 "the Director shall serve notice of a proposed
13 order, together with written reasons, on the
14 applicant". That did not happen here and it is
15 a legal requirement that it does happen. The
16 Commission, just as the participants, must abide
17 by The Act and the Rules.
18 Notwithstanding that, I agree with Mr.
19 Williams that the Judges and the Executive
20 Director acted within their mandate.
21 It is clear to me at that there was a
22 lot of room for improvement in terms of the
23 process (see the dating issues referred to
24 earlier) and in terms of the communication with
25 the Appellant.
TORONTO COURT REPORTERS ‑ TORONTO ‑ ONTARIO
Decision ‑ Allen Sisco
1 Stays are not granted lightly. It is
2 imperative that licensees charged with serious
3 breaches of rules, and a positive test is just
4 that, be dealt with expeditiously. The betting
5 public and their fellow competitors demand it.
6 But there is a requirement to follow
7 the rules so that a person charged is given due
8 process. For this reason, I am granting the
9 Appeal. But I note that the Judges' Hearing is
10 scheduled for February the 11th, 2008 and I urge
11 all the parties to adhere to that date so that
12 the ultimate disposition of this case is
13 expedited.
14 I thank you all for your helpful input
15 here today and that concludes this hearing.
16 MR. ROTH: Thank you,
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir.
18
19 ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
20
21
22
23
24
25
TORONTO COURT REPORTERS ‑ TORONTO ‑ ONTARIO
Decision ‑ Allen Sisco
1
2
3
4
5 I hereby certify the foregoing to be
6 a true and accurate transcript as taken
7 by me to the best of my skill and
8 ability.
9
10
11 _____________________________
12 Christine Gilmour, B.A.,C.S.R.
13 Toronto Court Reporters
14 1410 ‑ 65 Queen Street West, Box 69
15 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2M5
16 (416) 364‑2065
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TORONTO COURT REPORTERS ‑ TORONTO ‑ ONTARIO