RULING NUMBER COM SB 053/2013

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – DECEMBER 10, 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 DR. IAN MOORE

Dr. Ian Moore, Licence No. 2870C7, appealed against Ruling Number SB 45383.

Date of Hearing: December 10, 2013

ORC Panel Member: Commissioner John W. Macdonald

Representative for the Appellant: Brian Tropea, OHHA (as a friend)

Agent for the Administration: Craig Walker

The Panel denied the appeal.

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

DATED at Toronto this 13^th^ day of December 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 DR. IAN MOORE:

Held Before:

John Macdonald Chairman

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

Appearances:

Craig Walker, agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Brian Tropea agent for Dr. Ian Moore

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, gentlemen. This is, as indicated in most of these proceedings, this is a trial de novo and I appreciate your help. We have a situation where we have discretion, as Mr. Tropea points out. The Judges have made their decision on the discretionary matters and they have found that there was interference and as Mr. Tropea said, it is permissible, in other words, may be placed back. The Judges decided the horse that interfered should be placed back and the next may there in Rule 22.09 also say may be disqualified and the Judges decided the horse should be disqualified and the change in placing. Once those decisions have been made then the Rule goes on to say that that horse that is set back must be placed behind the horse with which it interfered. So once the decision was made to exercise the discretion to place the horse back, to disqualify the horse then the Judges had to make the decision that the horse had to be placed behind the horse it interfered with. We can question what driver Paul MacKenzie did. As Mr. Tropea pointed out he was close to three lengths off when the interference happened in front of him. Mr. MacKenzie made a decision to go to the outside further making it more difficult for him to stay in the race and he was sort of losing contact at that stage because he had gone out so far and Mr. Tropea was speculating where the horses might have been if he had stayed where he was but that's assuming that he knew that the driver of the offending horse Tyler Moore was going to get the horse back on stride as fast as he did. He did what appears to be an admirable job of getting the horse back on stride but that's not the position here what the Judges had to look at. They looked at the break and decided that was interference, decided that Mr. MacKenzie exercised reasonable discretion in taking the horse to the outside, losing ground. We can't speculate what might have been otherwise so I'm going to deny the appeal and look at Rule 22.09. The Judges made their decision, indicated the horse was going to be placed back and disqualified and then it follows that it must be placed behind the horse with which it interfered and that was the horse driven by Mr. MacKenzie, the 1 horse in that race at Grand River. Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. WALKER: Thank you, sir.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:_______________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths