AMENDED RULING NUMBER COM TB 027/2010

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – NOVEMBER 10,

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 JAMIE T. ATTARD

On August 2, 2010, the Stewards issued Thoroughbred Official Ruling TB 6660/10 wherein the tenth race on July 31, 2010 at Woodbine was found to have no violation in the running and declared official in accordance with Rule 11.12. A protest was filed by Assistant Trainer/Owner Jamie T. Attard (“Attard”) that his horse FEDERAL COURT was interfered with during the stretch run which warranted a disqualification of the winner COFFEE BAR.

On August 3, 2010, Attard filed a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rules 13.17.02, 13.17.03, 13.17.05, 13.17.07 and 13.17.09 of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

On September 29, 2010, a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission (“ORC”), comprised of Commissioner John Macdonald, convened for the purpose of hearing this matter. Due to time constraints, all parties agreed to an adjournment and rescheduled for November 10, 2010.

On November 10, 2010, a Panel of the ORC comprised of Commissioner John MacDonald, convened for the purpose of hearing this matter.

Official Brian Newton appeared on behalf of the Administration of the ORC. Harvey Swartz appeared on behalf of Owner W. S. Farish and Dan McMahon appeared on behalf of Owners Jamie Attard and Goldmart Farms.

After reviewing the evidence, hearing the testimony of Senior Steward William McMahon, Corey Fraser, Omar Moreno, Mark Casse, Jamie Attard, Larry Attard and Peter Goodale and upon considering the closing submissions, the Panel allowed the appeal.

Therefore the changed order of finish is as follows:

1. Federal Court

2. Coffee Bar

3. Talknow

4. Stand Strong

5. Little Red Chris

6. Forever Awesome

7. Holy Poppi

8. Scopin’ U Out

9. Kings Parade

10. Royal Captive

11. Mancini’s Silver

12. Kinnaird

13. Yeungz Boy

14. Flagrante Delicto

All monies held pending the appeal will be released upon receiving official notice.

A transcript of the Panel’s Oral Reasons for Decision is attached to this Ruling.

Dated at Toronto this 10th day of November 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 JAMIE ATTARD

Held Before:

John Macdonald, Chairman

This is an excerpt of a Hearing of the Ontario Racing Commission re: JAMIE ATTARD, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 10th day of November, 2010.

Appearances:

Brian Newton,

agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Dan McMahon, for the licensee Jamie Attard

Harvey A. Swartz, for the licensee Will Farish

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please be seated. I think I would like to first deal with the comment of counsel about the protest objection process in chapter 13. In my view if you look a little close at that and you look at it while you would expect something to be done immediately after the race which is ideal and before the official sign goes up we know that just doesn't happen. The public, as has been pointed out, see only the race from the side. They don't have the advantage of seeing head on shots but the rules also say that there are exceptions, running the race - and they are posted and so on, running the race in contravention of the rules. That's paragraph (d) of 13.04.01 and then it goes on or not otherwise provided in the rules so either one of those categories takes you to the situation where you have to make that protest claim in 48 hours after the finish of the race and I, with respect to the process, we know that's not going to happen too often but it could so I don't see any problem there and Mr. Swartz made the point that that would allow everybody and his brother to complain about every race that was close. We do still have discretion and we do have - to your factum, Mr. Swartz - frivolous appeals. It is not something but since I've already done those and I'm not very popular with some jockeys, some frivolous appeals and we want to discourage that and that's what we would end up doing. If we have to amend the rules to increase the fine there then we certainly could be expected to do so because we wouldn't want that whole series of cases. So I have no problem with the fact that the protest was done within 48 hours.

Of more concern is the fact that we had evidence that the horses didn't seem to miss a beat and that is what it looks like to the uninitiated except that even my looking at the view from the head on camera there was definitely bumping. Now I can see it, to me at least, at least twice and then when the jockey driving COFFEE BAR, Corey Fraser, had to switch from the right hand to his left hand that was further pushing the horse FEDERAL COURT driven by Moreno farther out. Now there are arguments, you know, one gentlemen arguing whether it is two lanes, three lanes, four. I don't think it's material. It is quite clear he was being pushed out to the farther lane and while the suggestion was that there was no lack of momentum I'm not sure that that is even correct. I'm a little concerned with Mr. Casse's comment it may be an injustice to the owner because they have lost an opportunity to stay in that same class to year end but unfortunately we are not here to worry about the monetary affects. That's a concern but that is part of our problem within the Administration and the fact that this hearing had to be adjourned by something unplanned and something that was beyond our control that particular day. There was a case that particular day, and so you understand, Mr. Swartz, it's not a requirement that a factum be done on an appeal. That should not have been a B hearing because of the money involved and I'm not even sure this should be a B hearing but the fact there is money involved it affects the horseman's rights to make a living. In any event notwithstanding that they were riding all out I felt that the bumping and the drifting and the fact that the hitting forced the second place horse to be pushed out and losing; notwithstanding that there was argument that maybe there wasn't any momentum change I am of the view that there seemed to be a momentum change even though it was slight. There was enough that could affect the finish of the horse. We had the horses moving sideways and that's while there was forward motion and the fact that there is a sideways push it made it very difficult for me in looking at that but in my view the appeal should be allowed, the placing be changed so that the order of finish would be FEDERAL COURT placed first and COFFEE BAR placed second. Thank you. Any questions?

MR. MCMAHON: No. Thank you, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We are adjourned.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:_________________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths