Ontario Racing Commission
TB
RULING NUMBER COM TB 010/2010
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – JUNE 9, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT S.O. 2000, c.20;
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING BY
THOROUGHBRED LICENSEE JOHN CHARALAMBOUS
On May 16, 2010, the Stewards issued Thoroughbred Official Ruling TB 6422/10 wherein the horse IF AND ALMOST was disqualified from second position and placed tenth for the following reason:
IF AND ALMOST came in and interfered with CONVOY COMMANDER during the stretch run of the third race on May 12, 2010, at Woodbine Racetrack.
The decision to disqualify was for violation of Rules 11.07, 11.09.01 and 11.14 of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.
On May 15, 2010, Trainer John Charalambous (“Charalambous”) filed a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to Rule 13.17(b) of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.
On June 9, 2010, a Panel of the ORC, comprised of Commissioner John Macdonald, convened for the purpose of hearing this matter.
Steward Richard Grubb appeared on behalf of the Administration of the ORC. Charalambous attended the Hearing without representation.
After reviewing the evidence, hearing the testimony of witnesses Steward Richard Grubb, Jockeys James McAleney and Emma Wilson, and upon considering the closing submissions, the Panel denied the appeal.
A transcript of the Panel’s Reasons for Decision is attached to this Ruling.
DATED at Toronto this 10th day of June 2010.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
John L. Blakney
Executive Director
ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION
RE: THOROUGHBRED HEARING
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF JOHN CHARALAMBOUS
Held Before:
John Macdonald, Commissioner
This is an excerpt of a Hearing of the Ontario Racing Commission re: JOHN CHARALAMBOUS, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 9th day of June, 2010.
Appearances:
William McMahon, representative for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration
Hearing continued ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: It appears from what I have seen from the video that we had what one of the witnesses referred to, the number 7 horse bothering number 3; that was Mr. Emile Ramsammy was edging in a bit. On the other hand we had the 3 horse IF AND ALMOST decided to go through a hole that was there but was a decreasing hole as it appeared from the fact that we had both the 7 moving over slightly. The same thing was happening with CONVOY COMMANDER. He came a little bit off the rail so Ms. Wilson's decision to go through the hole, while it looked like it was a good one from her perspective, it turned out it wasn't. There wasn't quite enough room. There is a question as to whether she bumped with CONVOY COMMANDER or not. It appeared to me that while it wasn't something that would knock him into the rail there was enough of a contact that made it difficult for her to get through that hole and yes, she was moving with the 3 horse trained by the appellant but there just wasn't enough room and the difficult decision the stewards had, and it was their judgment, that the hole just wasn't really there as they started to move. It had been there but it was gone by the time she came close and while she was obviously from what I can see running faster than CONVOY COMMANDER there just wasn't enough room. So there was interference. While it wasn't major it is enough. The rules are there, it is interference and in my view I would have to uphold the decision of the stewards. It's a difficult placing because you will find the horse obviously running out of
speed and had it been moving; it looked like he was slightly going back but whatever opportunity he had for a better placing was cut off as a result of the interference so that the appeal is denied. Thank you.
MR. MCMAHON: Thank you.
MR. CHARALAMBOUS: Thank you, sir.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:___________________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR
Commissioner of Oath