RULING NUMBER COM SB 006/2016
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – MARCH 16, 2016
NOTICE OF DECISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, S.O. 2000, c.20;
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING BY
KATIE GANGELL
Date of Hearing: March 16, 2016
John W. Macdonald, Commissioner
Representative for the Appellant: Brian Tropea, General Manager Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA)
Agent for the Administration: Neil McCoag
Decision: The Panel allowed the appeal with conditions.
A transcript with the Panel’s oral Reasons for Decision is attached to this Notice.
DATED at Toronto this 29th day of March 2016.
Jean Major
Executive Director
ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION
STANDARDBRED HEARING
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF KATIE GANGELL:
Held Before:
John Macdonald, Commissioner
These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: KATIE GANGELL, 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 March, 2016.
Appearances:
Neil McCoag,
Agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration
Brian Tropea, Agent for the appellant Gangell
Hearing continued ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please be seated. Thank you for your patience. First, one comment with what the judges were faced with. I do appreciate that they have a lot of due diligence to do and investigations when they are shown something, especially since it was a situation which caught them a little bit by surprise because time had gone by since this particular horse PASSION QUIZRACE had raced, gone from being a racehorse to a brood mare and back into the racing pattern. I’m sure that if the judges had, in my view, known that there was a transfer being done that involved a suspended trainer in any way they would have looked and insisted that an application be made immediately to train. It would be such that all the rules be complied with. There wouldn’t be any suggestion that there was any employer/employee relationship or family relationship. In other words if this had been a direct transfer at that stage from Sue Gangell to her daughter the answer would have been no, not at this time. Find somebody else and that would have been the case and this goes to my concern and the concern of the Administration and I’m sure, as Mr. Tropea would know with Katie, we have the public perception. That goes a little farther. It goes to the fact that we want trainers to know that they have to follow the rules and they have to be careful when they are dealing with a suspended trainer and that doesn’t just mean hidden trainers. We have had problems with that sort of thing as well and that goes to my comment during the hearing that we don’t want indirect transfers any more than we want direct transfers and in some ways you could look at this as an indirect transfer because it went from one trainer to another trainer who didn’t have the horse very long and then the ownership changed and that’s fine and then that owner was kind enough to make a deal with Katie to sell her the horse so she became the owner. We have all referred to the rule 16.13.02 dealing with a suspended trainer in this case and judges inquire and they have done that and then 26.08 by trainer suspended not owned wholly or in part with the consent of the judges. So to release to another trainer you need the judges’ consent. Now as Mr. Tropea pointed out that this and the guidelines don’t say anything about a trainer to another trainer and so on. The question is how far this could go before this would not be totally applicable but that’s where I get direct and indirect. That would be possibly indirect. Here we have an appellant that bought her own horse HIGH MAINTENANCE CHIC and then she ended up with PASSION QUIZRACE which she paid for from the kind gesture of a family friend not to overcharge her but at the same time realizing that the horse was going to make it as far as she was concerned so that she said to Katie, you try and see how you could do and that’s what she has done and quite successfully.
One of the things that I noted was and this was pointed out during the hearing that there had been no investigation or examination of the appellant since she was allowed to start to race the horse which is good in one sense. It allowed her to show what she could do with the horse and she did and we will get to that in a minute. She is now working for Mike Briley. The facility that he has, First Line Racing Stable I think it is, it is miles, approximately two I believe from where Katie’s mother is located.
MR. TROPEA: Hours.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon?
MR. TROPEA: Hours.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hours, sorry. I missed that two hours. The fact that there have been nine charted race lines since this first came up, two that the judges did not know about so there have been seven since. That’s important in my mind because it shows that there has been public awareness, if they’ve paid attention, as to what had happened and counsel for the Administration kindly said that they would leave the purse distribution payments up to the panel and in this case I think in a matter of partial award but also to cover costs and everything else that has gone on for the appellant that she should receive those purse monies.
Now next I want to assure counsel for the Administration that this is not a precedent. I feel that what has happened is such that this is a different case than most that she has had nine races with this horse since the initial transfer, seven of them following the discovery that there could be a trainer problem, that there should be a trainer transfer in this case and I want to emphasize again that this is not a precedent because this is unusual. I do understand from the evidence that Katie while the family is still a family this particular family is not involved in her training. At least there is no evidence to indicate that in any way, shape or form. I can also mention that most of the time when you have a hidden trainer there are some indications that the hidden trainer is still directing the program and administration, the entries and everything else but there is no suggestion here that Sue Gangell is involved in any way, shape or form in this and the indications were that the appellant makes all the decisions as far as entering the horse, presumably in some cases probably with the assistance of Mr. Briley who she is employed by. So I am going to order that the trainer transfer be approved but I’m going to put a condition on it and that’s the usual conditions that there should be no offenses and that she allow visitations by the ORC and investigators until such time as she receives her A licence and that’s a condition that I’m sure she will be able to fulfil. There should be some way of knowing by the Administration that the involvement of a suspended person stays out of the realm. That would be an offence as far as I’m concerned if it turned out that a suspended trainer was in any way, shape or form involved in the training of this or any other horse that is looked after by the appellant. Thank you. Any questions?
MR. TROPEA: I have no questions and thank you for your consideration of the matter.
CERTIFIED CORRECT_________________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR
Commissioner of Oaths