Ontario Racing Commission

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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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.

Tucci Stables appealed a Stewards' ruling that denied a protest following a race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The protest concerned a horse that had thrown its jockey twice before the race.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the horse carried the full weight during the race and no unfair advantage was taken.

The appellants appealed a ruling for interference during a horse race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The Commissioner found that the jockey's actions caused interference, justifying the disqualification.

However, acknowledging some doubt as to whether the jockey could see the other horse, the Commissioner varied the standard three-day riding suspension to a two-day suspension.

The appellant appealed a Stewards' ruling regarding an incident during a horse race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed video evidence of the stretch run and found that the 7 horse interfered with the 8 horse by pushing it closer to the rail.

The panel concluded that interference occurred and denied the appeal.

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.

The appellant appealed the Director's Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse to Issue a licence to him.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to appear and present his position.

Four standardbred racehorse trainers appealed penalties imposed after their horses tested positive for Isoxsuprine, a Class IV drug.

The trainers argued entrapment, officially induced error, due diligence, and waiver.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found no evidence to support entrapment or officially induced error, and insufficient foundation for a waiver.

However, the panel found that each trainer established due diligence by consulting their veterinarians and following prescribed treatment plans for their horses' health issues.

Consequently, the panel allowed the appeals in part, reducing the penalties to a $100 fine and no suspension for each appellant, while upholding the mandatory disqualifications and purse redistributions.