RULING NUMBER COM SB 050/2013

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – NOVEMBER 21, 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 DANNY GIRARD

Danny Girard appealed against Ruling Number SB 46008.

Date of Hearing: November 21, 2013

ORC Panel Member: Commissioner John W. Macdonald

Representative for the Appellant: James MacDonald

Agent for the Administration: Tom Miller

The Panel denied the appeal but varied the fine.

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

DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 25^th day of November 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 DANNY GIRARD:

Held Before:

John Macdonald Commissioner

These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: DANNY GIRARD, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 21st day of November, 2013.

Appearances: Tom Miller,

agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I fully understand the reason for the rule. The fact that there has been some changes at Mohawk and Woodbine and we are going to continue to see things that will affect all the horses, other things that I don't want to get into but you come to rely on something like the security guard factor. That was sort of like a fall back. I'd liked to have heard from other horsemen as to what they get used to and their general practice routine and there is some culpability on the driver who happens to also be an owner to pay attention to what is going on here. So Mr. MacDonald should have been aware of it and as you indicated, Mr. Miller, Mr. MacDonald's own testimony is that the groom had asked are we going to the test barn and since he hadn't heard he said no, it's not necessary. Then we have Mr. Miller you have got a good point as far as the integrity of the test and one of the reasons why, I would assume without knowing for sure why, you go straight to the test barn other than the opportunity to jog the horse to cool the horse out which is understandable. I don't know how many trainers still do that but that certainly was a common thing at one stage and you had indicated that the fine is $200.00 and is standard. I'm a little surprised that it's the same standard at all the tracks. I have a little discretion here and I'm going to exercise some of it. The point has been made that you go to the test barn and it is your obligation to hear. I'm also somewhat persuaded that the fall back position is or one of the other factors on which we have no control, like the security guard and I notice that the time wasn't exorbitant. It wasn't a delay in time, although, it did come in after the first place horse by about five minutes. So I'm going to exercise my discretion and it doesn't sound like much. The point has been made that you go to the test barn but I'm going to reduce the fine, deny the appeal but reduce the fine by varying it to make it a straight $100.00. Thank you, gentlemen.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:________________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths