RULING NUMBER COM SB 049/2011

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – SEPTEMBER 22, 2011

IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT S.O. 2000, c.20;

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF

STANDARDBRED LICENSEE KAREN HUDON

Karen Hudon (“Hudon”) appealed against Standardbred Official Ruling SB 43735 wherein she was suspended for three days and her horse, Northern Senorita, was placed 6^th^ on account of causing interference, contrary to Rule 22.05.01(a) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

On September 20, 2011, a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission consisting of Commissioner David Gorman was convened to hear this matter.

Hudon appeared on her own behalf. Jennifer Friedman appeared as counsel for the Administration.

Upon hearing the testimony of ORC Senior Judge Mike Brown, Driver Kevin Wagler, and Hudon, reviewing the exhibits filed, and upon hearing the closing submissions, the Panel denied Hudon’s appeal.

The transcript with the Panel’s Oral Decision is attached to this Ruling.

DATED at Toronto this 23^rd^ day of September 2011.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION

Rob McKinney

(Acting) Executive Director

ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION

STANDARDBRED HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF KAREN HUDON

Held Before:

David Gorman, Commissioner

These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: KAREN HUDON, 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 September, 2011.

Appearances:

Jennifer Friedman,

for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: All rise. Thank you. Please be seated. I will give you an oral decision. I understand that there is some time constraints. These cases are so difficult for those of us on various panels in here. It becomes a case of he said/she said and it is very difficult to sort that out because both of you appear to me to be very sincere in what you believe happened and in Ms. Hudon's case in particular you are very passionate about what you think happened. It is impossible for me to sort that out in here in the absence of a soundtrack. I didn't hear any contact. There is no sound that goes with these tapes so I don't know who is correct. One person is one hundred percent sure there was contact. The other person is one hundred percent sure there wasn't contact. I can't sort that out. So what I am left with is the Judges' view of the incident and they felt that the cause of the break occurred a few strides before you actually crossed over, Ms. Hudon, and when there was contact with the wheel in their judgment. Now those people collectively have judged several thousand races in their careers and they were unanimous in their ruling. What happens in a lot of these cases, they are judgment calls. We see that in every sport. We see that in baseball and hockey. Sometimes the replays will show us that the called strike was in fact a ball. That influences perhaps the outcome of the game. We often see in hockey that perhaps the play was offside when it wasn't called and a goal was scored and that influencing the outcome of the game and so on. So it is strictly a judgment call. There is one other group of people who we never hear from in here and I don't know how to do it. We should be able to hear from them and that's the fans who do not have a right of appeal, even though on Judges' rulings several thousand dollars of their money changes hands as a result of the ruling, whether it is win, place, show money or trifecta money or exactor money or whatever. A lot of money is at stake every time the Judges make a ruling. I don't doubt the sincerity or honesty of either one of you. I think you both have a view of the incident that you actually and honestly believe and I have no problem with the credibility of either of you but I'm afraid I am going to have to deny the appeal and uphold the Judges' ruling because that's really all I have to go with in terms of expertise and trying to sort through the he said/she said. So the appeal is denied and the Judges' ruling is upheld and I thank you both for your time.

MS. HUDON: Thank you.

MS. FRIEDMAN: Thank you.

CERTIFIED CORRECT _________________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths