Ontario Racing Commission
TB
RULING NUMBER COM SB 006/2010
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – FEBRUARY 17, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT S.O. 2000, c.20;
AND IN THE MATTER IN THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF STANDARDBRED LICENSEE JODY JAMIESON
On November 8, 2009, the Judges at Rideau Carleton Raceway issued Standardbred Official Ruling SB40971 wherein Jody Jamieson (Jamieson) was given the penalty of a $200 fine and a three-day driving suspension for the following reason:
Did violate ORC Rule 22.23.03(c), fail to keep his whip within the confines of the wheels while driving the horse, My Gift To You, in the 10th race at Rideau Carleton Raceway, in the stretch on November 1, 2009.
On February 4, 2010, Jamieson filed a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to Rule 24.01(b) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.
On February 17, 2010, a Panel of the ORC, comprised of Commissioner John Macdonald, convened for the purpose of hearing this matter.
Rick Rier appeared on behalf of the Administration of the ORC. Jody Jamieson attended the Hearing and was represented by Larry Todd.
After reviewing the evidence, hearing the testimony of Judge Pat Webb and Jody Jamieson, and upon viewing the race video, and upon considering the closing submissions, the Panel denies the appeal but varies the penalty as follows:
i. The appeal of the fine of $200 is denied;
ii. The three-day suspension shall be stayed for one year from the date hereof to be permanently stayed if the appellant has no violations against him under Rule 22.23.03 during such year for which he has been suspended, after any appeal with respect thereto. If there is any such violation the stay shall be null and void and the three-day suspension shall be added to any other penalty imposed as a result of such future violation.
DATED at Toronto this 25th day of February 2010.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
John L. Blakney Executive Director
REASONS FOR DECISION
Overview
1Standardbred licensee Jody Jamieson, License Number R77736, has appealed Judges’ Ruling Number SB 40971, issued against him on November 8, 2009, wherein he was fined $200.00 and suspended from driving for 3 days (November 10-12, 2009, inclusive), for violation of Rule 22.23.03 (c) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing while driving the horse MY GIFT TO YOU during the 10th race at Rideau Carleton Raceway on November 1, 2009.
2The applicable rule is contained in Rule 22.23.03 which is as follows:
At any time while on the grounds of an association, it is an offence for a driver, or the person in control of the horse, to use a whip to hit or make contact with the horse as follows:
(a) To raise their hand(s) above their head;
(b) To cause the whip to move back beyond a 90-degree angle relative to the track;
(c) To cause any portion of the whip to be outside the confines of the wheels of the race bike;
(d) To strike the shaft of the race bike, or the horse below the level of the shaft of the race bike;
(e) To cut or severely welt a horse.
Issue
3Was the Judge’s Ruling Number SB 40971 on November 8, 2009, correct resulting in or a violation of Rule 22.23.03 (c) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing? This sub-section is hereinafter referred to the “Rule 03 (c)”.
Background
4On February 17, 2010, a de novo hearing convened to hear the appeal. Rick Rier represented the Administration of the ORC as counsel and Larry Todd represented the appellant, Jody Jamieson.
5Mr. Jamieson was driving the horse MY GIFT TO YOU in the tenth race at Rideau Carleton Raceway on November 8, 2010. The horse finished third in this race which was a Grassroots Final in the Ontario Sires Stakes. The Judges determined that Mr. Jamieson failed to keep his whip within the confines of the wheels during such race contrary to Rule 03 (c) and he was fined $200 and suspended from driving for three days.
Decision
6After listening to the testimony of Judge Pat Webb, reviewing the disclosure book (Exhibit 1), examining the video of that race and listening to the testimony of Mr. Jamieson and hearing the arguments of Counsel representing the Administration and Mr. Jamieson and reviewing the evidence, the Panel denies the appeal.
Reasons for Decision
7The Panel noted that Mr. Jamieson moved the whip from his right hand to his left hand and there was a whipping motion by him outside the confines of the wheels of his race bike. There was a question as to the number of whipping actions varying from three to six occasions. The Panel finds the number of times as not significant since the actions did occur and while the video was not of good quality the actions were noticeable in the area of the track where the lighting was better and the horse had no other horses surrounding him when he was pacing in third place.
8Mr. Jamieson advised that the horse was racing with a Murphy blind which had a hole in it on the left side presumably because the hole allowed the horse to see the whip. He felt the horse was becoming tired and hoped to keep him off the pylons. There was also evidence about the length of the whip at 48 inches with a 12 inch snap taking the whip naturally out of the confines of the wheels. There was also some evidence that other drivers may have been in violation of Rule 03 (c) during the race. Notwithstanding this evidence it is not material to the allegation that Rule 03 (c) was breached with the first part of Rule 22.23.03 being that it is an offence to “use the whip to hit or make contact with the horse”….
9It was agreed by all parties that Rule 22.23.05 is discretionary when dealing with the enumerated penalties. The Judges exercised their discretion which the Panel basically upholds subject to the variance set out below.
Argument
10Mr. Todd argued that Rule 22.23.03 is not clear and could be considered conjunctive and not disjunctive. The Panel rejects that argument as the five possible offences for a driver are enumerated separately with all relating to the use of a whip to hit or make contact with a horse. The Commission issued Policy Directive Number 5-2009 giving penalty guidelines including a description of the “Confines of the wheels”. That Policy also went on to set out principles to serve as a guide for all decisions for inappropriate urging of a horse in a race.
Ruling Variance
11The Panel is not aware of any prior appeal with respect to Rule 22.23.03 (c) and the interpretation of Rule 22.23.03. The appellant and all others should hereafter be aware that there are five possible offences under Rule 22.23.03 with the severity of some being such that the discretion in Rule 22.23.05 may be exercised to a greater degree than in this appeal.
12The appeal of the fine of $200 is denied and the three-day suspension shall be stayed for one year from the date hereof to be permanently stayed if the appellant has no violations against him under Rule 22.23.03 during such year for which he has been suspended, after any appeal with respect thereto. If there is any such violation the stay shall be null and void and the three-day suspension shall be added to any other penalty imposed as a result of such future violation.
DATED this 25th day of February 2010.
John W. Macdonald, Q.C. Commissioner