ORC 2015

The appellant appealed a ruling that placed his horse back a notch due to interference during a race.

The interference occurred when the appellant's whip got caught in another driver's sulky, pushing the other horse out.

The Commission denied the appeal, finding that the driver is responsible for controlling the whip and that interference was shown, justifying the loss of placing.

The appellant, a standardbred trainer, appealed rulings regarding a positive test for Salmeterol in a horse he trained.

The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Recommendation as to Penalty.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission, imposing a four-month suspension, a $2,200 fine, and a two-year probation period with conditions including unannounced searches and out-of-competition testing.

The appellant, a harness racing driver, appealed a 1-day driving suspension for failing to have his horse on the starting gate.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the appellant made no noticeable effort to urge the horse to the gate, which disadvantaged the betting public.

The panel upheld the suspension, noting the appellant admitted the horse was off the gate.

The appellant, a jockey, appealed a 3-day suspension imposed by the stewards for failing to maintain a straight path during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission reviewed the video evidence and testimony, finding that the appellant's horse moved out from the four path to the six path, interfering with another horse.

The Commission found that the appellant made no serious attempt to correct the horse's path and continued to hit left-handed.

The appeal was denied, and the 3-day suspension was upheld, to be served at the start of the 2016 racing season.

The appellant trainer appealed a nine-month suspension and $5,000 fine imposed after his horse tested positive for Oxycodone.

The official sample consisted of three blood vials.

While one vial tested positive for trace amounts of the drug, the other two vials tested negative.

The panel accepted expert evidence that it is physiologically impossible for a continuous blood draw to distribute a drug into only one vial, concluding the single positive vial must have been contaminated.

The appeal was allowed and the penalties were set aside.

The appellant, a horse trainer, sought a stay of a 90-day suspension imposed on a horse following a positive test for minoxidil, a Class 3 drug.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted a 60-day stay, noting that minoxidil was a novel drug in this context, its effects and elimination time were unknown, and the trainer had a clean record.

The stay was granted to allow time for the ongoing investigation to be completed.

The appellant, a quarter horse jockey and exercise person, appealed a ruling that suspended his licence following a third positive test for marijuana.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to a pilot restorative justice approach.

The Ontario Racing Commission ordered the appellant to enter the restorative justice program, pay a $1,000 fine within 30 days, and conditionally reinstated his licence subject to his continued compliance with the program.

The appellant, a licensed owner and trainer, appealed the immediate suspension of his licence following a positive test for marijuana.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted a proposed restorative justice agreement between the Administration and the appellant.

Under the agreement, the appellant must participate in a restorative justice process, meet with a substance abuse professional, and pay a $1,000 fine for breaching a previous post-violation agreement before his licence can be reinstated.

The appellants, Mike Doyle and David Moran, appealed a ruling that suspended Moran for 3 racing days and disqualified their horse from 3rd to 9th place due to interference.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the disqualification, finding on a balance of probabilities that interference occurred.

However, the Commission allowed Moran's appeal and overturned his 3-day suspension.

Additionally, a jockey who failed to appear as a witness despite being summoned was fined $500.

The appellant, a standardbred driver, appealed a ruling that changed his horse's placing to 7th for going inside three pylons during a race.

The appellant argued he was intimidated and lost his place on the track, and noted there were broken pylons.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the video evidence clearly showed the appellant violated the rules by going inside three pylons, which required the change in placing, although no fine was levied due to the broken pylons.

The appellants appealed a ruling that suspended jockey Patrick Husbands for three days and placed his horse, FLASHAWAY, from 1st to 8th position due to alleged interference in a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Administration failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that Husbands caused the bottleneck or violated the rules.

The race footage and witness testimony raised considerable doubt regarding culpability.

The suspension was set aside, and the horse was restored to 1st position.

The appellant appealed a stewards' ruling that declared a dead heat for first position between two horses following a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, upholding the stewards' decision made pursuant to Rule 13.03.01 of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

The appellant appealed a ruling that placed his horse, COZSHECAN, from 1st to 4th place due to interference in a race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the horse came in from the outside towards the rail, causing interference to another horse.

The appeal was denied and the penalty was upheld.

The appellants appealed a ruling that suspended the jockey for three racing days and placed their horse 5th instead of 1st due to interference.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that while the jockey did not commit a deliberate foul, he did not have a clear path and caused interference that resulted in another horse clipping heels.

The appeal was denied, but the suspension was reduced from three days to one day.

The appellants appealed a ruling that suspended a jockey for three racing days and placed her horse third for interference during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the jockey's horse drifted toward the rail, cutting off the direct path of another horse and changing its momentum.

The appeals were denied.

The appellant appealed a judges' ruling that declined to place the horse HEAVENLY HILL behind the appellant's horse, LADY MARINA, after HEAVENLY HILL went inside a pylon and failed to completely clear the pylons when using the open stretch.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that while HEAVENLY HILL did violate the pylon and passing lane rules, the judges properly exercised their discretion under the rules in deciding not to alter the order of finish, as the offending horse did not gain an unfair advantage or improve its position.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed the Deputy Director's denial of a stay of a 90-day suspension rule after a horse she trained tested positive for an antihistamine.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel denied the appeal, finding no serious mitigating factors and noting the lack of veterinary evidence regarding the injection guidelines and the effect of the drug.

The panel concluded that the appellant failed to meet the heavy onus required to grant a stay.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a decision denying his request for a stay of a suspension following a positive drug test for levamisole and pemoline in one of his horses.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted a 120-day stay with conditions, finding sufficient mitigating factors, including the appellant's reliance on a veterinarian and the lack of evidence that the substances were performance-enhancing.

The panel concluded that the balance of convenience and public interest favoured granting the stay pending a full hearing on the merits.

The appellants appealed two rulings issued by the judges at Georgian Downs.

The driver was found to have violated Rule 22.05.01(a) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing by changing course in the stretch and causing interference to a trailing horse.

As a result, the winning horse was placed second and the driver received a three-day suspension.

The Ontario Racing Commission held a hearing de novo and reviewed video evidence and witness testimony.

The Commission found on a balance of probabilities that the driver did change course and impede the trailing horse.

The appeals were denied and the rulings were upheld.

The appellant appealed a stewards' ruling that disqualified his horse for interference at the start of a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed the race footage and found that the horse took a path that was not clear, causing interference with another horse.

The panel affirmed that a disqualification can occur at any point in a race, including the start.

The appeal was denied and the disqualification was upheld.