ORC 2008

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, failed to report for a required alcohol test at the Fort Erie Racetrack.

His license was suspended and he was referred to the Commission.

After serving a 36-day suspension and providing a negative test result, the Commission reinstated his license subject to a 12-month probation period requiring unannounced breath testing.

Fourteen standardbred licensees appealed rulings finding them in violation of the Rules of Standardbred Racing for using the services of suspended veterinarians to draw blood for Coggins tests.

The appellants argued they were unaware of the suspensions.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeals, holding that ignorance of the rules and directives is not an acceptable defence, as the Commission had adequately communicated the suspensions to the industry.

However, finding no intent to gain an unfair advantage, the Commission ruled the appellants violated Rule 1.09 but not Rule 6.20(b), and reduced their fines from $1,000 to $100 each.

A thoroughbred jockey appealed a Stewards' ruling that suspended him for three days and disqualified his horse from first place due to alleged interference.

The Industry Appeal Board reversed the suspension but left the disqualification undisturbed.

On a de novo hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission, the Panel found that the jockey did not breach any racing rules and that the interference was caused by another jockey's dangerous attempt to pass on the inside going into a turn.

The Panel allowed the appeal and ordered the original order of finish restored.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling that found a violation of racing rules based on a positive analysis for Aminorex in a horse.

At the hearing de novo, the Administration called no evidence and consented to the appeal.

The Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the finding of responsibility, and ordered that the portion of the ruling relating to Rules 9.13 and 18.08.01 remain in effect.

The appellant appealed a Judges' Ruling that placed four of her horses on the Judges' List due to her association with a suspended licensee.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant sold all four horses.

The Ontario Racing Commission determined that the appeal was moot because the appellant no longer owned the horses.

The Commission also clarified that the appellant, having not been found in breach of any rules, may continue to participate in the horse racing industry provided she complies with the rules of racing.

The appellant, a standardbred driver, appealed a six-month suspension and $5,000 fine for cutting a horse with his whip during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant used his whip in a brutal and inhumane manner, causing a fresh, painful cut to the horse's testicles.

Given the appellant's extensive history of whipping violations, the Commission upheld the finding of misconduct but stayed four months of the suspension, resulting in a two-month active suspension, a $5,000 fine, a two-year probationary period, and a requirement to drive with both hands in the hand holders for six months.

The licensee, a standardbred trainer, appealed a suspension for failing to provide a urine sample under the human drug testing program.

He admitted to leaving the racetrack without permission and without providing the required sample.

The Ontario Racing Commission found a violation of Rule 6.38.06.

Noting that the licensee had already served a 28-day suspension, the Commission imposed no further suspension but placed him on probation for 12 months with conditions including mandatory breath and urine testing.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed the severity of a penalty imposed by the Standardbred Judges after his horse tested positive for Class III drugs.

The penalty included a $1,500 fine and a 60-day suspension.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty.

However, noting the appellant's cooperation and admission of administering the drug, the Commission allowed him to enter his horses four days before the expiration of his suspension.

The appellant, a thoroughbred trainer, appealed a Stewards' Ruling suspending him for 15 days and imposing a $1,000 fine after his horse tested positive for Methocarbamol (Robaxin).

The appellant argued that the positive test resulted from a mistake by veterinary technicians who administered the wrong medication.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish due diligence under the strict liability trainer responsibility rule, as he was not present during the administration of medications and did not ensure his instructions were followed.

The suspension was reduced to eight days in recognition of his excellent past record, with the remaining seven days stayed.

Standardbred licensee Karen Cooper appealed a ruling finding a violation of rules arising from a positive test for Aminorex in a horse.

At the hearing de novo, the Administration called no evidence and the parties consented to an order.

The Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the finding of responsibility, and maintained the portion of the ruling relating to purse redistribution.

The appellant, a standardbred owner, appealed a 30-day suspension imposed on his horse after it tested positive for the Class IV drug Ambroxol.

The appellant argued for leniency as a new owner and claimed the drug did not affect the race outcome.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, emphasizing that owners have a responsibility to conduct due diligence on their trainers and that the penalty was necessary as a deterrent to protect the integrity of horse racing.

The applicant, whose owner/trainer licence had expired, applied for a new licence as a hot walker.

The Acting Director issued a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse the licence based on past conduct.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a stay of the Notice of Proposed Order.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that under the Racing Commission Act, it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Director's decision to issue a Notice of Proposed Order until a full hearing on the merits has been held.

The appellant, a thoroughbred trainer, appealed the decision of the Ontario Racing Commission Industry Appeal Board disallowing a claim of foul.

The claim alleged interference between two horses during a race.

Based on new, unchallenged testimony showing contact occurred before the finish line, the Panel allowed the appeal in part and ordered the Stewards to conduct a new hearing to determine if the contact had a material impact on the race's outcome.

Standardbred driver Michael Vanderkemp appealed a judges' decision that another horse did not interfere with his horse during a race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no clear and convincing evidence of a foul and upholding the judges' original decision to leave the order of finish intact.

The appellants, standardbred licensees, sought a stay of their one-year suspensions and fines pending their appeals.

The Executive Director had previously denied the stay.

The Commission granted the stay, noting concerns about procedural fairness and full disclosure raised by the appellants' counsel, which the Administration acknowledged.

The Commission ordered an expedited hearing de novo.

The licensee, a standardbred trainer, appeared before the Ontario Racing Commission after testing positive for cannabis, violating the Rules of Standardbred Racing and a prior probation order.

The licensee admitted to the allegations and acknowledged a substance abuse problem.

The Commission ordered the licensee to complete a 90-day substance abuse treatment program, participate in a 12-month aftercare program, provide a clean urine sample prior to license renewal, and extended his probation to April 2009.

The appellant, a thoroughbred trainer, appealed a Stewards' decision suspending him for one year and fining him $5,000 after his horse tested positive for codeine and morphine, both Class I drugs.

The appellant argued the positive test resulted from environmental contamination, specifically poppy seeds or human source contamination.

The Commission rejected this defense, finding it could not account for the presence of codeine and that the appellant failed to meet the strict liability standard of taking all reasonable care to protect the horse.

The appeal was denied, but the Commission stayed the last two months of the 12-month suspension in recognition of the appellant's previous good record.

The appellants, a standardbred driver/trainer and an owner/trainer, appealed a decision suspending them for one year and imposing fines for tubing horses prior to races.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard evidence from eyewitnesses and an expert veterinarian who testified that tubing by non-veterinarians is dangerous and used to administer performance-enhancing alkalizing agents.

The Commission found clear and convincing evidence that the appellants tubed horses on race days, concluding that such actions are prejudicial to the integrity of racing and a threat to the health of the horses.

The appeals were dismissed and the penalties upheld.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a 15-day suspension and $2,000 fine imposed after a horse he trained tested positive for the Class V drug procaine.

The appellant argued he administered the drug within prescribed guidelines and that a delayed retest showed levels within the legal limit.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the initial test result was accurate and above the allowable threshold, while the retest was likely affected by the deterioration of the sample over time.

As this was the appellant's second positive test within one year, the Commission varied the penalty to a 30-day suspension and a $1,500 fine in accordance with penalty guidelines.

The standardbred licensee appealed to the Ontario Racing Commission after failing to provide a urine sample pursuant to the human drug testing program.

The Commission found that the licensee violated Rule 6.38.06 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing by leaving the racetrack without permission and without providing the required sample.

Noting that ignorance of the rules is not a valid defence, the Commission ordered the licensee to serve a 12-month probation period with conditions, including providing breath and urine samples upon request.