ORC Rules On Selig Appeal
On Friday, January 27 the Ontario Racing Commission (ORC) released its ruling in regard to the appeal and request for hearing by standardbred licensee Carla Selig
.
Carla Selig appealed against Standardbred Official Ruling Number SB 43060 wherein the Judges at Kawartha Downs precluded Selig “to race horse she owns (in) whole or in part against any horses that John Thomson owns or trains as in the best interest of racing”. The Ruling was issued pursuant to Rule 1.09 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing (the “Rules”).
On July 23, 2011, Selig advised of her intent to appeal Standardbred Official Ruling Number SB 43060.
On August 4, 2011, a Notice of Appeal was submitted on behalf of Selig.
On November 21, 2011, a Notice of Hearing was issued to notify the parties that the appeal will be heard on January 25, 2012 at 9 a.m.
On January 4, 2012, an Amended Notice of Hearing was issued to notify the parties that the appeal will be heard on January 25, 2012 at 8 a.m.
On January 25, 2012, a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission consisting of Chair Rod Seiling, Commissioner Pam Frostad and Commissioner Brenda Walker was convened to hear the appeal.
Larry Todd attended as counsel on behalf of Selig. Jennifer Friedman appeared as counsel for the Administration of the ORC.
Upon hearing the testimony of ORC Judge Larry Hughes, Race Secretary Jim Huck, and Selig, reviewing the exhibits filed, and upon considering the submissions of counsel, the Panel denied the appeal as follows:
It is in the public interest not to have Selig race any horse she owns, whole or in part, in the same race against a horse owned, whole or in part or trained by Mr. Thomson.
To view an official copy of the ruling, which contains reasons for the decision, click here.
(ORC)
"enforce"...."consistent"....
"enforce"...."consistent"....."fair".....Do those words have any real meaning in racing?
OMG, on a nightly basis how
OMG, on a nightly basis how often does this happen? Can't they race as entries 1,1A, you know, how it has been for awhile.
If this is the new precedant, start enforcing it at ALL tracks, let's keep it consistent, it's only fair.
Greg Parke
For that matter, how does
For that matter, how does both parties being licensed as trainers and having a separate set of books (ie Coleman/McIntosh) ensure that they would be racing in the best interest of the public? I've looked at the rule book and believe that the rule in question is more likely directed at the transfer of horses from one trainer to another when the first trainer has lost his licence, been disqualified or suspended. Too bad the ORC doesn't uphold the ruling in those situations where there has been an obvious infraction or infractions of the rules of racing. What does the ORC consider a "close relationship"? We should all be very clear on this, shouldn't we? In my opinion, the ORC has "worked" this situation to fit rules that don't actually address this scenario.
In reply to For that matter, how does by Lynne Magee
I believe Kawartha Downs
I believe Kawartha Downs made the decision to not allow the 2 people in question to race against each other. Perhaps they need to take a hard look at others who do race against each other at Kawartha on a consistent basis. Fathers/sons/brothers/sisters common law relationships. There has to be consistency when decisons like this are made.
How is this ruling fair when
How is this ruling fair when there are many family members (Trainers,Drivers) throughout Ontario that race against each other on a daily basis.
Wow "relationships" should
Wow "relationships" should not be allowed to race in the same race. It would take 50+ pages to list the ones that are doing that now!!