Ontario
Racing
Commission
TB
RULING NUMBER COM SB 053/2010
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – OCTOBER 20, 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 BRENDA SPENCE
On September 03, 2010, the Judges issued Standardbred Official Ruling SB 158/2010 wherein the horse RUMOUR SEELSTER finished 1st and was not placed for failure to lose ground while on a break in accordance with SB Rules 18.08.02 and 22.09 in the third race at Rideau Carleton Raceway on September 3, 2010.
On September 3, 2010, Brenda Spence (“Spence”) filed a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to Rule 24.01(b) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.
On October 20, 2010, a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission (“ORC”), comprised of Chair Rod Seiling, convened for the purpose of hearing this matter.
Neil McCoag appeared on behalf of the Administration of the ORC. Spence attended the Hearing and was unrepresented.
After reviewing the evidence, hearing the testimony of Judge John Campbell and Driver Guy Gagnon, and upon considering the closing submissions, the Panel denied the appeal.
A transcript of the Panel’s oral decision is attached to this Ruling.
DATED at Toronto this 22nd day of October 2010.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
John L. Blakney
Executive Director
ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION
RE: STANDARDBRED HEARING
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF BRENDA SPENCE
Held Before:
Rod Seiling, Chairman
This is an excerpt of the hearing of the Ontario Racing Commission re: BRENDA SPENCE, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 20th day of October, 2010.
Appearances:
Neil McCoag,
agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration
Hearing continued ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: All rise. After carefully listening to the testimony and reviewing the evidence and documents - please be seated - reviewing the evidence and the documents filed the panel denies the appeal. Under 6.8 of the Racing Commission Act, 2000 the appellant could be fined for bringing forward a frivolous appeal. No fine is levied solely because the appellant clearly does not understand how the rule is applied. The Judges properly applied the breaking rule. The appellant's only issue was with the losing ground. The film clearly shows driver Gagnon pulling back his horse. The film also clearly shows the horse lost ground thereby being in compliance with the rules. Because of safety issues the driver could not move to either side nor could he slow down, even if he could have, because of the trailing horse. When comparing one ruling of the Judges to another an individual must ensure that the comparisons are the same. Otherwise the exercise is futile. The hearing is ended.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:_________________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR
Commissioner of Oaths