RULING NUMBER COM TB 036/2010
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – DECEMBER 2, 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 PATRICK HUSBANDS
Thoroughbred Jockey Patrick Husbands, (“HUSBANDS”) (ORC Licence #119669) appealed Ruling TB 6763/2010, dated September 5, 2010, wherein he was fined the sum of $500 and suspended for three racing days, September 9, 10 and 11, 2010, for excessive urging (more than three strikes in succession) while riding “Cook’s Look” during the 8th race, on September 4, 2010, at Woodbine Racetrack, in violation of Rule 9.27.05(b) of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.
On December 2, 2010, a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission (“ORC”) consisting of Commissioner John Macdonald as Chair, was convened to hear the appeal.
Angela Holland appeared as counsel for the Administration. Dan McMahon appeared as counsel for HUSBANDS. HUSBANDS attended the hearing in person.
Upon hearing the testimony of Senior Steward William McMahon, Robert King and HUSBANDS, upon reviewing the exhibits filed and upon hearing the submissions of counsel for the Administration, and of counsel for HUSBANDS, the Panel dismissed the appeal.
A transcript of the Panel’s Oral Decision is attached to this Ruling.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 7th day of March 2011.
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 PATRICK HUSBANDS
Held Before:
John Macdonald, Commissioner
This is an excerpt of a Hearing of the Ontario Racing Commission re: PATRICK HUSBANDS, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 2nd day of December, 2010.
Appearances:
Angela Holland,
counsel for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration
Dan McMahon, agent for Patrick Husbands
Hearing continued ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: All rise please. Thank you. Please be seated. I have had the opportunity to see the video, listen to witnesses McMahon, King and Husbands and to review the applicable rules for which it was the offence, driving by Mr. Husbands, for which he is fined $500.00 and the three day suspension. The guidelines that the stewards looked at in order to help them decide under rule 9.27.05(b) for excessive action characterized by unreasonable quantity or degree and they are looking at quantity in the guidelines, and this is on page 3 of that policy directive 4/2009 use of the riding crop more than three times in a row without giving the horse a chance to respond. Obviously it is a learning curve for the jockeys and the Administration and the panel as to what is appropriate. It appears in this case from what I can see from the video there are five hits. Although, counsel has said it is not totally clear that was not denied by Mr. Husbands and his testimony was quite straight forward and appreciated and showed a certain degree of frustration which is understandable for someone who has ridden so many horses and with his experience and the rules were changed. As counsel pointed out there is a noticeable improvement from the appellant and obviously his colleagues. Counsel pointed out I believe that there was actually no advantage obtained in the race by the number of hits but that's not the point. I'm a little concerned as to the cocked versus uncocked piece. It appeared to me in that case that there must be a force difference. The difficulty we have here is that others may have to work on this as far as clarifying the rules because the rules don't distinguish between, as far as I can see between, the crop being cocked or uncocked and that could be something considered but not what we can do from this panel, as far as I can tell. I have nowhere, unless counsel is going to direct me, where I can make that distinction and I don't think I can. The arguments were also about the quarter horse difference and I really don't think that's necessarily relevant. Here again that is something else for the rules committee to deal with. Now counsel has pointed out and correctly that the background indication of policy dealt with creating clear and consistent rules and it be done in a straight forward manner. I think the stewards have tried to do that. The background also indicated it must insure the welfare of the horse. I don't think from what I can tell in this case that there is any concern about the welfare of the horse. The other one in the background that counsel had mentioned is the public perception and that's the sensitivity of the use of the riding crop and without knowing what the deliberations were of the committee it would appear that the decision was that using more than three successive hits on the horse creates a different image and that is why I think the guidelines threw in "without giving the horse time to respond". This race was quite close. This is all done in the stretch. It appears to me that the horse was not given time to respond. While the question of excessive action is a little up in the air the guidelines told the stewards that more than three times and without giving the horse time to respond would be an offence and the stewards were unanimous in their decision. I see nothing to indicate or there is no evidence to indicate that there was any question that it was more than three times. It was actually five times from what we can see and therefore I am going to deny the appeal. Any questions from counsel?
MS. HOLLAND: Perhaps we could just decide on the dates now?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The dates, that becomes a difficult thing for the Adminstration. It is a three day suspension and the meet is almost over and Mr. Husbands may be already down to ride on some mounts there and that would be a little unfair to the trainers and the other people who are not here that are involved so can we decide on that?
MS. HOLLAND: I can just confirm for the record, Mr. Chair, that we have discussed this a little bit beforehand and we have agreed that Mr. Husband can serve his days after the opening weekend in April so that he doesn't miss opening week and I believe he is also in a stakes race on Sunday but it has to be the first week after opening week.
MR. MCMAHON: That would be agreeable if you saw fit.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, counsel. That makes sense.
MR. MCMAHON: Thank you.
CERTIFIED CORRECT__________________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR
Commissioner of Oaths