RULING NUMBER COM SB 004/2013

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – JANUARY 16, 2013

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING

STANDARDBRED LICENSEE DOUGLAS MCINTOSH

On November 17, 2012, the Judges issued Official Ruling SB 43671 wherein the horse, “Dancing Coed”, trained by Douglas McIntosh (“MCINTOSH”) was placed from 4th position to 6th for causing interference, while off stride, to the horses “Raspberry Sunrise” and “The Socialite” prior to the wire of the third race at Western Fair Raceway on November 17, 2012.

On November 22, 2012, MCINTOSH filled a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to Rule 24.01(b) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

On January 16, 2012, a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission (“ORC”), comprised of Commissioner John Macdonald, convened for the purpose of hearing this matter.

Brian Newton appeared on behalf of the Administration of the ORC. MCINTOSH attended the hearing in person and was self represented.

Upon reviewing the evidence and hearing the testimony of Judge Neil McCoag and Driver Robert Sparling Jr., reviewing the exhibits filed and considering the closing submissions, the Panel denied the appeal and the placing will stand.

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

Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 17th day of January 2013.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION

Steven Lehman Executive Director

ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION STANDARDBRED HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF DOUGLAS MCINTOSH

Held Before: John Macdonald, Chairman

These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: DOUGLAS MCINTOSH, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 16th day of January, 2013.

Appearances: Brian Newton, agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Hearing commenced ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: The difficulty I have here is the placing. From what I could see the horse was running, failed to lose ground. Mr.Pezzarello, for reasons of his own whether control of whatever, he took the horse out and impeded the next horse and that was the horse driven by Mr. Sparling and while there was no direct contact I find that the failure to lose ground made the difference. If he had stayed in a clear path it would be easier to determine. He would have just been penalized for failure to lose ground. So I see what the horse was disqualified. My concern was the placing from 4th to 6th. From what I could see there would have been a good argument that the horse be placed behind Mr. Sparling's horse which would have still placed him 5th. I was not at the race. The judges' opinion was that it could have affected, in their view, and obviously did affect the outcome of the race for the other placings so I'm not going to disagree to that extent. It's a question of judgment. I had some doubts about that but I'm going to deny the appeal and leave the placing as is so that Mr. McIntosh, your horse finished 4th on a break and I have to go along with the judges and leave the placing as 6th. Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. NEWTON: Thank you.

MR. MCINTOSH: Thank you.

CERTIFIED CORRECT__________________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR Commissioner of Oaths - - - - - - - - -