The Ontario Racing Commission today released its rulings in regard to the appeals of Jack Moiseyev and
Archibald Peters.
In regard to Moiseyev's appeal, On May 1, 2010, the judges issued Standardbred Official Ruling SB 41092 wherein Moiseyev was given the penalty of a three-day driving suspension and, the horse Amarillo Sky was placed from first to sixth for violation of the Rules of Standardbred Racing at Woodbine Racetrack on April 30, 2010:
ORC Rule 22.05.01(a) – did bear in during the stretch drive and cause interference to the horse Beauty Delight. Also, ORC Rule 22.09, the placing behind the horse with which he interfered.
On May 1, 2010, Moiseyev filed a notice of appeal, pursuant to Rule 24.01(b) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.
On June 2, 2010, an ORC panel, comprised of chair Rod Seiling, convened for the purpose of hearing the matter.
Tom Miller appeared on behalf of the administration of the ORC. Jack Moiseyev attended the hearing and was represented by William O’Donnell.
After reviewing the evidence, hearing the testimony of judge Rick Rier, and driver Luc Ouellette, and upon considering the closing submissions, the panel allowed the appeal thus rescinding the fine and restoring the original order of finish as follows:
1. Amarillo Sky
2. Racino Star
3. Quality Goods
4. Jetta Baran
5. Meet Me Out West
6. Beauty Delight
7. Marla Hanover
8. Expressly Hanover
A transcript with the panel’s reasons for decision can be read here.
In regard to Peters' appeal, On April 24, 2010, the judges issued Standardbred Official Ruling SB 41115 wherein Peters was given the penalty of a $100 fine at Georgian Downs on April 24, 2010, for violation of Rule 26.02.01 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing as follows:
Did medicate in error the horse Ardor Locke causing him to be scratched.
On May 4, 2010, Peters filed a notice of appeal, pursuant to Rule 24.01 (b) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.
On June 2, 2010, an ORC panel comprised of chair Rod Seiling, convened for the purpose of hearing the matter.
Rick Rier appeared on behalf of the administration of the ORC. Archibald Peters attended the hearing and was unrepresented.
After reviewing the evidence, hearing the testimony of judge Tom Miller and upon considering the closing submissions, the panel denied the appeal, upheld the $100 fine and as well, assessed costs of $25 for a frivolous appeal to Peters.
The transcript with the panel’s reasons for decision can be read here.
(With files from the ORC)
THAT WAS A $ 15,000.00 PICK
THAT WAS A $ 15,000.00 PICK 4 WITH THAT HORSE IN FIRST PLACE WHERE DOES THAT POOL OF MONIES GO AND THE TAKE OUT MONEY AS WELL WILL SOME ONE RSPOND THEY SHOULD SETTLE THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE RACE CARD HAS COMLETED THAT DAY-OR-NIGHT. IN FOOT BALL THE END A CALL BFORE THE NEXT PLAY IF U NOW WHAT I MEAN KEN MYERS
Just a thought. Why not
Just a thought. Why not refund the money of a horse that has been disqualified? It is done when a horse doesn't get a fair start. This would ensure the judges make the right call, the bettor will get their money back to bet again. It is hard to make a difficult call and the judges do the best they can to keep it fair FOR ALL INVOLVED. Either way, it has to be fair for the horsemen also, they have a lot to lose if their horse does get disqualified and the bettor must also realize the rules of racing. A refund or if people are wise enough to hold onto their tickets, the track should honor them in some way seems to be a sound solution or the start of a debate.
Greg Parke
Once again, "WHEN AND HOW
Once again, "WHEN AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO HOLD THE ORC ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR MISTAKES AND INCONSISTANCIES?" We need to do something before they scare off or chase off all the bettors. If we don't do something soon, this industry will be nothing but dust in the wind. Alot of people complain but its time to step up TOGETHER as an industry.
Nice to see a wrong set
Nice to see a wrong set right but it doesn't do the bettor much good when his 9 to 1 winner is incorrectly disqualified. Another example where the victim ends up being the betting public.
So when do I collect for my
So when do I collect for my bets on Amarillo Sky? Note that the ORC feel they must make sure that the correct owner/trainer/driver get their money; but to hell with the bettor that was elated to get a 9/1 shot home, and then dashed to the ground when the judges took down the number, erasing a $20 win ticket and $250 exactor.
This is totally wrong, but is another good example of why harness racing is on the way out. First and foremost the bettor should be protected. Obviously this is not the case.
BTW, the transcript gives NO information about what acually was said at the hearing. It appears the reason the appeal was allowed was "hearing the testimony of Judge Rick Rier, and driver Luc Ouellette". Believe it or not, that's all it says. Unfortunately I think the perception from the bettor's standpoint is that this is standard operating procedure for harness racing.
ORC should have competent judges that get it right "at the track". I will email ORC to confirm that everyone who bet on the winner (Amarillo Sky) has no chance of ever getting their money. I think if there was a procedure, it would have been prominent in the story. This is not a good way to build up a fan base, and shakes bettor confidence even further.
In regard to Moiseyev's
In regard to Moiseyev's appeal
Again,what about the ones who bet on that horse?Can we now cash our tickets?