REVISED RULING NUMBER COM SB 025/2014

COMMISSION HEARING, TORONTO, ONTARIO – JULY 21 & 22, AUGUST 5 & SEPTEMBER 22, 2014

NOTICE OF DECISION

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEALS OF GABRIELLA SASSO AND RONALD ADAMS

Gabriella Sasso, licence #OA7129, and Ronald Adams, licence #W8487, appealed against Notices of Proposed Orders of Suspension made on May 20, 2014, by the Director.

Dates of Hearing: July 21 & 22, August 5 & September 22, 2014

ORC Panel: Elmer Buchanan, Chair

John W. Macdonald, Commissioner

Sandra Meyrick, Commissioner

Counsel for the Appellant: Donald W. Leschied

Counsel for the Administration: Luisa Ritacca and Naomi Greckol-Herlich

The Panel allowed the appeal by varying the penalty and ordering the release of the purse monies which were previously frozen.

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

DATED at Toronto this 1^st^ day of October 2014.

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 RONALD ADAMS and GABRIELLA SASSO:

Held Before:

John Macdonald Commission Panel Chair

Elmer Buchanan Commission Chair

Sandra Meyrick Commissioner

These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: RONALD ADAMS and GABRIELLA SASSO, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 22nd day of September, 2014.

Appearances:

Luisa Ritacca & Naomi Greckol-Herlich,

for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Donald W. Leschied, for the licensees Adams and Sasso

Hearing commenced ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please be seated. Thank you all for the presentation. It's been a long difficult hearing. It started with this Notice of Proposed Order against the two appellants Mr. Adams with the notice of two years and a fine of $15,000 and Ms. Sasso with one year and $10,000. I would direct counsel that for the applicable law, and you have both referenced this case in your arguments, that is Colin Johnson COM SB 20/2014 where the Vice Chair wrote the reasons explaining the various rules and the applicability thereto and going on to tell us that the Administration had the burden of proof and that in order to come up with the final result it was a question of balance of probabilities and then there was to be clear, cogent and compelling evidence. The rules at 26.16 sets out a number of the mandatory type provisions that determine what is loosely called a “hidden trainer” although that is not necessarily categorized as such and we have to look at some of the items there and we will get to that in my discussion of driving strategy as one of the things of concern and that is where we will get into it in more detail in the evidence. Then there is the basket clause that you have all referred to which is the “other relevant matters”.

If we go through the evidence briefly we have the various drivers. The first one on the stand as I recall was Mr. Davis and he had indicated that he had had contact with the suspended trainer Chris Haskell several dozen times. He had text messages and discussed driving strategy. A little disconcerting was that he pointed out that his connections were with Haskell and not from either Adams or Sasso. His phone records only had Haskell in it and he didn't have Ron Adams in there. Mr. McNair's testimony was slightly different although he had a number of communications with Mr. Haskell. He had information again of Haskell's phone and in that case he also had Gabriella Sasso's phone but not for Ron Adams. Mr. Steward was the next driver that was up and he indicated that he had been a friend of Mr. Haskell's. I didn't find his evidence quite as credible, although he did say that he had communicated with Mr. Haskell from time to time. The credibility part fell off when he said he never discussed the driving of the particular horses and that's very difficult to believe that a trainer, or even a suspended trainer, is not going to talk about horses when they call each other. Then we had the two MacDonalds who were a little bit all over the place, although Anthony said that he did receive text messages on how to drive a couple of the horses and he went on from there.

The owners were quite good. They were very supportive of both Ron and Gabriella from what they knew as trainers. David Fisher, who was obviously a very credible witness, knows a little about the horse business and the indications were that he attended the facilities at Classic Farm on a regular basis, two to three times a week. The difficulty there was for the appellants is that he did see Mr. Haskell going training miles with the horses, particularly of Mr. Adams and that was SMARTYGIRL the one that he particularly identified.

The difficulty we had here was also that there was the contract as it turned out with him had been forged. Mr. Fisher made that quite clear that it was not his signature on the contract. We also had the difficulty with invoices. There was one invoice that was shown as going to Dr. Fisher and it was marked as having been paid but then right after that there was another invoice produced that sort of made it questionable as to what was happening to those invoices.

I want to deal next with the telephone calls. There were so many telephone calls, some on entry days and prior to the time of entries. The panel is not as concerned with the number of telephone calls that came in after the races. That could be reporting, not explaining why but just reporting to a friend. We are a little surprised that there weren't enough calls to the owners. Obviously they had an interest in what happened at the races but the daily calls and the numerous calls around entry times at the various tracks was a concern to us and as counsel pointed out the Brooks and Bulletproof case was certainly very determinative there of calls between the owner and the racetrack and the trainer.

I was a little surprised as a panel member that Mr. Adams who had worked for a number of years for Bob MacIntosh and considered Bob as a mentor, along with the owner of Classic Farm, that he didn't attempt to use advice from Mr. MacIntosh a little more often, although that can be explained that that might be a little more difficult for him to do. It looked a bit like from our perspective that good or bad Mr. Adams and Ms. Sasso were looking at Mr. Haskell because of the fact that he had been a trainer for awhile that they were looking at him as in part a mentor in that sense. He was in the same barn. They obviously associated with him which probably wasn't the best thing they could do. If anybody had given them advice, you know, not be involved very much with a suspended trainer until it is clear that his suspension was either going to be lifted or he is going to win an appeal and get relicensed. He is still not licensed as I understand it.

The banking information may be suspicious but suspicion is not enough. That does not in the panel's view indicate that there is anything improper or untoward in that regard. The basic decision, and I will get to that, is that we feel that on the balance of probabilities that it was clear, it was cogent and there was enough compelling evidence to say that there was involvement by Mr. Haskell.

We feel that the appellants have been somewhat taken advantage by Mr. Haskell, a combination of his seniority and his being available and close at hand and also available obviously in a number of phone calls. It would also appear to us without having any direct evidence that Mr. Haskell may have been inserting himself into the business conducted by Mr. Adams and Ms. Sasso to the point that he was affecting their ability to some extent as being the trainer and making the sole decisions. Otherwise, there shouldn't have been any discussion with drivers except by Mr. Adams and Ms. Sasso. Haskell getting involved sort of may have had some influence on the decisions of the appellants. It was in our view, while that is obiter, it was an error in judgment on their part to deal with a suspended trainer.

The substance of the decision is that on the balance of probabilities there was clear, cogent and compelling evidence that there was a trainer that should not have been involved.

Now as the next step we feel that both appellants had been taken advantage of by Haskell. It is a serious offence but we feel that they made a mistake and while the hidden trainer rules, as they are known as, are serious and it affects the integrity of the business and ultimately the public interest.

Notwithstanding that we feel that the penalties that were proposed are too severe and we are reducing the suspension time of Ms. Sasso to six months and the fine to $2,000. In the case of Mr. Adams we are reducing the suspension time to eight months and the fine to $5,000. Now we are assuming that the counsel for the Administration will have to help us calculate but they have all had time that they have been suspended and that obviously will count against the time of the suspension.

There is one other item that we feel is somewhat significant and that is that there has been a freezing of purse monies since earlier this year as I recall. We are going to order that those purse monies be released to the owners of the horses involved on the basis that they are necessary for the industry to show that the owners are respected and that since they were the unwitting partners in what turned out to be a very difficult matter for the two appellants. The caveat to that will be that the trainer portion of those funds will be applied to the fines that were just referred to. Can I assume counsel that you would know that the drivers involved received their share of the purse monies or do you know?

MR. RITACCA: Let me ask Inspector Moffatt. It is also being held.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is also being held? In which case the drivers' share of the purse monies will also be released as the owners did.

MS. RITACCA: In the same manner as you suggested the owners money get released to them?

THE CHAIRMAN: The owners we would want to see get paid.

MR. BUCHANAN: We assume that money is currently being held by the tracks, is that correct? I'm seeing a couple of heads nodding. There may be some logistics required for this order. We are aware of that but we will have to pursue that at a different level. The intent was clearly for whatever money was being frozen to be credited to the people it was intended for and figure out how much money that is of the two appellants and that be deducted from the amount of the fine. We don't know what that is obviously but we know it is a certain amount of money, a certain sum.

MS. RITACCA: So just so I am clear. Now I thought I heard it different from Commissioner Macdonald. When you say deducted what you mean is the portion of the purse monies that currently being held that would otherwise go to Ms. Sasso and Mr. Adams ‑‑

MR. CHAIRMAN: The trainers.

MS. RITACCA: ‑‑ would be applied against the fines, not deducted.

MS. MEYRICK: Correct.

MS. RITACCA: Okay, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MS. MEYRICK: And the remainder be released to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any comments from counsel?

MS. RITACCA: Thank you.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:__________________________________

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