RULING NUMBER COM TB 018/2015

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – OCTOBER 14, 2015

NOTICE OF DECISION

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEALS AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF TOMMY WONG AND CHRISTINE O’MEARA

Tommy Wong (“Wong”) and Christine O’Meara appealed against Ruling Number TB 9467/15 issued against Wong wherein he was suspended for three racing days and his horse, HEAVEN’S SAKE, finished 1st and was placed 5th in the 9th Race at Woodbine Racetrack on August 20, 2015.

Date of Hearing: October 14, 2015

ORC Panel: John Macdonald, Commissioner

Representative for the Appellants: Self-represented

Agent for the Administration: David Stewart

Decision:

The Panel denied the appeal but varied the penalty to a 1 day racing day suspension.

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

DATED at Toronto this 22nd day of October 2015.

______________________________

Jean Major

Executive Director

ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION

THOROUGHBRED HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, 2000, S.O. C.20 AND THE RULES OF THOROUGHBRED RACING:

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF TOMMY WONG and CHRISTINE O’MEARA:

Held Before:

John Macdonald Commissioner

These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: TOMMY WONG and CHRISTINE O’MEARA, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 14th day of October, 2015.

Appearances:

David Stewart,

Agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you all. I could see with the horses on the frontend fading somewhat that Mr. Wong thought that the only way that he was going to have a chance to win was to move out. The difficulty there was that there wasn’t a clear path for him. It wasn’t as if he was forcing his way out by bumping. There is no indication on the videos that there was any actual contact. It was more, as Mr. Husbands said, the pressure that was coming there not from the outside but from the inside. So when Mr. Wong took the path that he did to try and win that was what the public wants to see, doing the best you can but unfortunately that caused the interference and the stewards were unanimous that that was evidence of a foul and the result was that the 10 horse was disqualified and placed back. We obviously can’t see the clipping of heels but there was obviously something that happened because the result is the horse stumbling and some of the evidence was that, by Mr. Husbands, he could hear it. Mr. Wong heard a yelling and that’s usually because you are in tight quarters and the jockeys will from time to time yell at each other because of what is thought becomes interference. I am not sure Mr. Wong could see everything. I appreciate that he did his best to try and win but he did not have a clear path. I am going to deny the appeal but I have some question as to the three days that Mr. Wong received which is standard and what the stewards give when there is an interference. I have reduced the days before just to indicate that it didn’t look like it was a deliberate foul because his job is to win the race for his trainer and the owners so I am going to reduce the suspension down to just one day for Mr. Wong. The appeal is denied and the suspension reduced from three days down to one. Thank you.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:_______________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths