view counter
view counter

Webb On ORC Judges' Decision

Published: March 3, 2009 12:16 pm ET

Last Comment: March 7, 2009 7:55 pm ET | 7 Comment(s) | Jump to Comments

This morning, Trot Insider talked to Ontario Racing Commission senior judge Pat Webb about the rationale behind last night's judging decisions pertaining to the accident-marred Ontario Boys Pacing Series final at Woodbine Racetrack.

"It was the worst accident I have seen," commented Webb. "As soon as it happened, we put on the hazards and the inquiry sign. We then called the ambulances and security to tend to the drivers and horses. Once that was done, we focused our attention on the race."

Webb cited two rules in the ORC's Rules of Standardbred Racing that help clarify why the race was not declared a no contest.

"The keys to our decision were in two factors: did the horses that completed the race cause the accident, and were they at all interfered with by anything involved with the accident."

Rule 22.33 of the ORC rulebook starts with the statement that "If, in their opinion, the Judges are unable to properly judge the running or finish of a race they may declare the race to be 'No Contest'.

"Mario's [driver Mario Baillargeon] horse Warp Speed caught a shoe, he dropped and it ended up tearing off a piece of his hoof," said Webb. "Jason [Brewer] tried to avoid the accident but he caught a wheel. Since the horses driven by Randy [Waples] and Luc [Ouellette] weren't involved with the accident and weren't interfered with by any of the fallen horses, the race was not declared a No Contest."

With only two horses finishing the race, Webb told Trot Insider that the purse monies for the third, fourth and fifth placed finishers were divided evenly between the non-offending horses - that being all horses involved with the accident with the exception of Warp Speed. This comes from Rule 18.03 of the ORC rules of racing:

If there are any premiums for which horses started but were unable to finish due to an accident or interference, all unoffending horses that did not finish shall share equally the premiums they would have been entitled to had they finished, and any remaining premiums shall be paid to the race winner.

March 7, 2009 - 7:55 pmThe ORC Judges on staff at

The ORC Judges on staff at Woodbine Racetrack have asked me to relay a message on their behalf pertaining to some of the comments on this topic.

The Judges spoke with the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency (CPMA) representative about your concerns regarding the payouts from Race 5 at Woodbine on Monday, March 2, and the CPMA rep verified that the pools pertaining to the race in question were paid in accordance with the CPMA's betting supervision regulations.

If you have any further questions please contact someone from the CPMA and they will address any further concerns you may have on this matter.

Here's the CPMA website:

Here's the contact information for the CPMA :

Ken Middleton

March 4, 2009 - 10:28 pmwell said mike i think you

larry hines SAID...

well said mike i think you are ioo percent right we have talked about this to night all think the same

March 4, 2009 - 12:01 pmpat webb may be right on the

larry hines SAID...

pat webb may be right on the call not to call the race no contest bur she is wrong in paying out on the no 2 horse pay out should be 6 with 3 with 1 4 5 7 8 9 10 number 2 dq placed 10

March 4, 2009 - 10:51 amjust another bad call on the

larry hines SAID...

just another bad call on the judges part like the one in western fair mr webb has made a wrong call in no way can you pay on a ticket with the horse in it marios horse nocked down the field yet thay payed the tri and the super with that horse in the ticked how can you pay out that ticket marios horse has to be left out i did not get full value for my tickets they were hundred of ticket payed the ticket should have read all horses except horse number 2 that horse has to be placed last not in the pay out if you remenber a nother acc acc happened like that when ron pierce knocked down the field and john campell broke his harm they placed pierce last they did not pay out the tickrt with hos horse he was out so all said just another bad one for the better mario finishes last and paid out in the ticket

March 4, 2009 - 8:45 ami think pat webb should

larry hines SAID...

i think pat webb should learn the rules before she makes these calls i think the rule states that a horse that cases the interference will be placed behind the horses he interfered with so how do you pay the ticket with marios horse in the ticket?

March 4, 2009 - 8:35 ami find this call a little

larry hines SAID...

i find this call a little bit weard not long a go i had a real big tri i won the race thinking i had a big one boom a judge call i lose my ticket the horse i have for third goes to last for interfearence i cant cash my ticket mt third horse was plased last so how can you grt payed for marios horse in the tri and super

March 3, 2009 - 3:11 pmMike Glatt writes: What is

Mike Glatt SAID...

Mike Glatt writes:

What is interesting about this and of course you knew this was going to happen, the race had triactor and superfecta wahering.

The Triactor paid off on the first two horses and all other horses finishing 3rd and the Superfecta paid off on the first two horses and all the other horses finishing 3rd or fourth.

The horse that caused the accident was disqualified from the purse distribution but was treated the same as all other non finishers in terms of wagering.

It seems odd that you would reward the offending horse bettors and treat him the same as the rest.

Has this happened before and are there rules to dictate whether or not the offending horse should have been omitted (refunded) from all triactor and superfecta bets.

view counter

© 2021 Standardbred Canada. All rights reserved. Use of this site signifies your agreement and compliance with the legal disclaimer and privacy policy.

Firefox 3 Best with IE 7 Built with Drupal