RULING NUMBER COM TB 025/2010
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, 2000, S.O. 2000, C.20
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR HEARING
OF THOROUGHBRED LICENSEE ANATRAM SINGH
Pursuant to Ruling (TB Admin 74/2010), dated September 10, 2010, thoroughbred licensee Anatram (Sunny) Singh, (“SINGH”), was suspended and ordered to appear before the Commission as a result of his failure to appear at a scheduled Follow-up Test on August 5, 2010, in violation of 38.07(g) of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing, and in violation of his Post Violation Agreement, dated March 19, 2010.
On September 28, 2010, a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission (“ORC”) consisting of Chair Rod Seiling convened to hear the matter.
Angela Holland appeared as counsel for the Administration, and SINGH attended the hearing and was self-represented.
Upon hearing the testimony of Investigator Pam Bray, Shire Coomaire Ghani, and SINGH, upon reviewing the exhibits filed and upon hearing the submissions of counsel for the Administration and of SINGH, the Panel lifted the suspension. The Post Violation Agreement, dated March 19, 2010, remains in effect with no change.
The transcript with the Panel’s Oral Decision is attached to this Ruling.
Dated at Toronto this 4th day of October, 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 ANATRAM SINGH;
Held Before:
Rod Seiling, Chairman
This is an excerpt of a Hearing of the Ontario Racing Commission re: ANATRAM SINGH, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 28th day of September, 2010.
Appearances:
Angela Holland,
counsel for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration
Hearing continued ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's have an open discussion. So right now Mr. Singh is under suspension because of the ...
MS. HOLLAND: The violation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The violation which obviously there is a mix up.
MS. HOLLAND: Agreed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So it seems to me in fairness we need to get the suspension lifted. So if we lift the suspension help me along, and Mr. Singh, if I'm wrong please don't be afraid to speak up. Once the suspension is lifted you would then be able to go back and comply with the previous ruling on the exercise rider?
MR. SINGH: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: With that suspension you are not able to exercise horses in the morning either, are you?
MR. SINGH: Yes, I am.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are? Okay because I wanted to - well, okay, then I think all we have to do then is an order lifting the suspension based on the fact that it was a genuine mix up, that Mr. Singh is remorseful, it was not intentional and he therefore will be allowed back on the track to fulfil the commitment of ruling ... I think it is ...
MS. HOLLAND: 61.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 61.
MS. HOLLAND: Exhibit 4.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Slash 2010. I think that's all we need to do.
MS. HOLLAND: And with respect to the post violation agreement?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think it does anything because it is still in effect.
MS. HOLLAND: It continues.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes and I don't think it would be fair to extend it because ...
MS. HOLLAND: It was a misunderstanding.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It was a misunderstanding. So your existing post violation agreement will stay in effect as it was with no change and I want to wish you good luck, sir.
MR. SINGH: Thanks.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:_________________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR
Commissioner of Oaths