RULING NUMBER COM SB 013/2015

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – JUNE 16, 2015

NOTICE OF DECISION

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OFJEFFREY BAMOND

Jeffrey Bamond appealed against Ruling Number SB 46072 for violation of Rule 22.09 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, during Race 10 at Mohawk Raceway on June 13, 2015.

Date of Hearing: June 16, 2015

ORC Panel: John W. Macdonald, Commissioner

Counsel for the Appellant: Frank Roth

Counsel for the Administration: Angela Holland

Decision:

The Panel denied the appeal and upheld the decision of the Judges.

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

DATED at Toronto this 18^th day of June 2015.

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 JEFFREY BAMOND:

Held Before:

John Macdonald Commissioner

These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: JEFFREY BAMOND, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 16th day of June, 2015.

Appearances:

Angela Holland,

For the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Frank Roth, agent for Bamond - - - - - - - - - -

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, both counsel. I’ve heard quite a bit about the horse making breaks from a well known trainer here. There is no serious indication as to what has caused these breaks. There is no evidence of this, although, I accept the fact that the charts indicated there had been breaks. That was the horse’s 25^th start in the last two years and Mr. Tetrick indicated that the horse broke twice when he was riding so out of presumably three times that was a little disproportionate by itself but I have to look at this on the basis of what I saw and we have got a situation where the horse who was causing the problem, that is, the appellant’s horse VENUS DELIGHT, went from, what was it, the two path to the four path and came out a little bit once, forced Mr. Gingras’ horse out a bit but then, yes, it was tight and tight is not unusual but then the horse did come out and it looked to me like it came out hard. There was no indication of contact. The video doesn’t show that and Mr. Miller indicates there was no contact and the charter indicated no contact but it was just a little too tight and not enough clearance. I am also aware of the fact that the senior judge and two other judges all thought that it was too tight and there wasn’t enough clearance for the horse and I have seen the video and I think in my view it was just unfortunately too tight in a major race where I understand they are all trying to get position so they can qualify their horse for the following race but it was too tight and I find that that’s what caused the break in this particular case so I am going to deny the appeal and leave the judges’ decision as is. Thank you.

MS. HOLLAND: Thank you, sir.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:_________________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths