RULING NUMBER COM SB 043/2013

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – OCTOBER 17, 2013

NOTICE OF DECISION

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF ROBERT SPARLING, JR.

Robert Sparling appealed against Ruling Number SB 43689.

Date of Hearing: October 17, 2013

ORC Panel Member: Commissioner John W. Macdonald

Representative for Appellant: Self represented

Agent for the Administration: Neil McCoag

The Panel denied the appeal.

A transcript with the Panel’s oral Reasons for Decision is attached to this Notice

DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 23^rd day of October 2013.

Steven Lehman

Executive Director

ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION

STANDARDBRED HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, 2000, S.O. C.20 AND THE RULES OF STANDARDBRED RACING:

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF ROBERT SPARLING:

Held Before:

John Macdonald Commissioner

These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: ROBERT SPARLING, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 17th day of October, 2013.

Appearances:

Neil McCoag,

agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: As an aside, we may have all seen the altercation that happened at the Little Brown Jug many years ago and that was right on the track. None of these things should happen. Mr. Rankin paid his penalty. He was considered the aggressor and obviously Mr. Sparling, your attempt to mollify the situation by an apology was followed after you had both been, as was the description, had been mouthing off. I have listened to the testimony. It is difficult to interview witnesses as Inspector Beirnes did and get a hundred percent clarify because you are not directly involved and whether something had happened on the track or right at the end of the race involving the wheel it seems to me there was something there. So there was responsibility on both of you. It is difficult to act as what we would consider what a gentleman would do under the circumstances. Both of you do a disservice when things do happen you are not under control. I appreciate Mr. Sparling, that it was difficult for you to drive away when you have been hit. At the same time you were involved in this. I'm not going to change the decision of the Judges. I think $100.00 is light. I agree with that comment but at the same time it may be that Mr. Rankin got off a little light on that because he seemed to be clearly the aggressor after the fact but we weren't involved in what happened before. I am also of a mind here to say that this is close to being a frivolous appeal, especially because of the amount involved and the fact that there was an altercation. Even though it wasn't on the track, it was close enough that it doesn't look good for the sport that we are trying to maintain and hopefully it will continue. Obviously I can't say very much about what may or may not have happened at Dresden where this incident took place but it doesn't look good from the perspective of the customers. That's the only good thing about this is that Inspector Beirnes didn't have to interview any customers that saw this. It was kept within the industry but it is still not good for the people in the industry to see an altercation going on at any time, whether it on the backstretch or in the barn. We don't like threats either. Anyhow, I am going to deny the appeal and thank you, gentlemen, for your attention.

MR. MCCOAG: Thank you, sir.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:_________________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths