The Ontario Racing Commission at its meeting of Tuesday, January 22, 2008, approved the Penalty Guidelines for Equine Drug, TCO2 and Non-Therapeutic Drug Offences Policy as follows, effective January 31, 2008:

Guidelines

Penalties for Equine Drug, TCO2 and Non-Therapeutic Drug Offences

Application of the Guidelines will take into consideration the following:

1. The Commission and/or its representatives will consider all offences for the purposes of assessing a penalty as a second or subsequent offence under these Guidelines.
2. The suggested penalties (suspension and fines) are guidelines only.
3. The Commission and/or its representatives may take into consideration any mitigating circumstances surrounding a positive test case, and may do any of the following:
   
   1. Impose a penalty that is lower than suggested in these guidelines.
   2. Subject to due process, find other licensed individuals responsible and impose penalties upon such licensee as deemed appropriate.
4. The Commission and/or its representatives may exercise discretion in interpreting these Guidelines and assessing penalties, and may consider all prior offences, in and outside of Ontario, involving any drug, medication, bicarbonate (TC02) or any other substance prohibited by rule or law. Although all prior offences may be considered in determining the appropriate penalty, the penalties for second and subsequent offences suggested in these Guidelines are based on:
   
   1. The assumption that the previous offence(s) being considered were in the same class of drug, and
   2. The date of conviction or ruling for the previous offence(s) occurred within 3 years of the first offence.
5. For second or subsequent offences which occurred within 3 years of the first offence but in a different class of drug, the Commission and/or its representative will exercise discretion in assessing the penalty by considering the following:
   
   1. The number and class(es) of all previous offences;
   2. The time frame between offences; and
   3. Any mitigating circumstances.
6. For the purposes of these Guidelines, a TC02 offence is considered a Class Ill drug.
7. On a first offence, the Commission and/or its representatives may impose a penalty beyond or below the range in appropriate circumstances.
8. Multiple offences occurring on the same race day to different horses of the same trainer may be considered as individual offences in appropriate circumstances.
9. Suspension periods are full suspensions as described in the Rules of Racing.
10. Regardless of the penalty imposed, the horse in question will be disqualified and the purse will be redistributed.
11. Class I through V drugs are based on the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, published by the Association of Racing Commissioners International.
12. Non-Therapeutic will include any drug, substance or medication that is determined to be in the system of a horse that has no therapeutic value to the horse.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION

John L. Blakney
Executive Director

The Ontario Racing Commission at its meeting of Tuesday, January 22, 2008, approved the Trainer Transfer Guidelines Policy as follows:

The Ontario Racing Commission is committed to improved communication to the horse racing community. It has determined that the industry should have access to information regarding the criteria used and the decisions made surrounding trainer transfers.

The following factors shall be taken into consideration by the Judges and Stewards when making their determination of applications for trainer transfers:

1. The degree of closeness of any relationship, whether it be fiduciary, employee/employer and/or family in nature;
2. The past conduct of the proposed trainer; and
3. The licensing history of the proposed trainer.

Final determination of suitability is the sole discretion of the Judges and Stewards who assess situations on a case by case basis.

Judges or Stewards are required to document in the form of a ruling their decisions on applications for trainer transfers and provide in the ruling their reasons for approving or denying the transfer.

The Ontario Racing Commission at its meeting of Tuesday, January 22, 2008, approved the Licensing Terms Guidelines Policy as follows:

WHEREAS the Director has the authority to issue terms to a licence;

AND WHEREAS the Ontario Racing Commission is committed to ensuring that the integrity of the horse racing industry is maintained throughout the racing season;

TAKE NOTICE that the Director may issue terms to a licence for a two-year period for the following situations:

1. Any Licensee whose horse has tested positive for a Class I, II or III drug and the penalty issued is 60 days or more; or
2. Any Licensee whose horse has tested positive for a Class IV or V drug and the offence is a 2nd offence or more for the Licensee within three (3) years where the penalty issued is 60 days or more; or
3. Any Licensee whose horse was tested and the sample was found to contain Erythropoeitin/ Darbepoeitin-Alfa or the existence of any substance or drug with no therapeutic value to the horse; or
4. Any licensee who has been found in violation of Standardbred Rule 6.46.01 or Thoroughbred Rule 15.31.01.

The following terms may be added to the licence of the Licensee as follows:

1. The Licensee shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
2. The Licensee shall allow Commission investigators access to his/her stabling area at any time to conduct unannounced random searches for illegal or non-therapeutic medications or drugs;
3. The Licensee shall allow Commission investigators to seize any illegal or non-therapeutic medications or drugs found at his/her stabling area; and
4. The Licensee shall be subject to the Commission’s Out of Competition Program.
5. The Licensee may be subject to a Notice of Proposed Order in addition to any penalty imposed by the ORC Judges or Stewards for any breach of the terms of their licence.

The Ontario Racing Commission at its meeting of Wednesday, March 25, 2009, resolved that the following directive, effective April 29, 2009, replaces Policy Directive 6 – 2008 governing the Commission’s policy on cancellation fees, and supersedes all prior Commission directives pertaining to cancellation fees. A cancellation fee is defined as an amount paid to the owners of horses not scratched from races, where cancellation of the races has been approved by the Executive Director or the Judges due to weather, or other factors fully outside of the control of racetrack management. Cancellation fees will also be paid where a race has been ruled a “No Contest” under Rule 22.33 and Rule 18.09 has not been applied.

A cancellation fee is not purse, although if approved, it may be distributed from the purse account. A cancellation fee will be issued as follows:

1. In the case of a cancellation due to weather or other issues beyond the control of racetrack management, the purse account manager (usually racetrack management) is required to apply in writing to the Judges for approval to issue cancellation fees for a particular race date, providing full details of the reason for the cancellation. The application is to be accompanied by a letter of support from the local horsepeople’s association. The Judges will provide authorization in writing through the issuance of a ruling.
2. A request to authorize cancellation fees for a particular race date will not be considered if, in the opinion of the Judges, sufficient notice of cancellation of racing was provided to the participants.
3. In the case of a race declared a “No Contest”, the Judges will issue a ruling ordering the payment of the cancellation fee.
4. The cancellation fee is a set amount which is determined by the Executive Director and reviewed on a timely basis.
5. Where an agreement exists between the racetrack and the horsepeople to distribute a percentage share of the purse to the drivers, trainers and grooms, and where that agreement is on file with the ORC, the racetrack may provide similar percentage compensation out of the cancellation fee.

The Ontario Racing Commission at its meeting of Thursday, September 24, 2009, resolved that the following directive be approved, effective immediately.

PENALTY GUIDELINES RULE 9.27

Any violation of Rule 9.27.05, 9.27.06 and 9.27.07 is an offence and covered by this penalty structure.

Races with a purse of under $100,000

OFFENCE – Cutting or Welting the Horse

Application of the Guidelines will take into consideration the following:

1. This penalty structure provides guidance to Stewards as to minimum penalties for inappropriate urging of the horse, and for the cutting and welting of a horse.
2. The penalty for any subsequent offence cannot be less than the previous offence, regardless of whether the offence is for inappropriate urging of the horse or for cutting and welting of a horse.
3. Any cut or welt offence shall be counted and considered by the Stewards as the next offence for inappropriate urging on a cumulative basis.
4. For races under $100,000, the penalty structure is progressive in nature, irrespective of which of the encompassed rules are violated. For races over $100,000 the penalty is aligned with the purse value of the race
5. In determining whether a violation of the Rules has occurred or in assessing penalty, Stewards may consider mitigating factors in exceptional circumstances. An example of conduct that may be viewed as a mitigating consideration would be striking a horse to prevent inevitable harm to another rider, horse, participant or patron.
6. In assessing penalty, Stewards may also consider aggravating factors, such as the licensee’s history of violations pertaining to inappropriate urging of the horse (which offence/s occurred more than a year before the subject offence or under a different category).
7. If the offence is sufficiently egregious, the Stewards may depart from the penalty structure and impose higher penalties than those enumerated in the chart above
8. All first infractions of the encompassed rules that occur subsequent to the implementation of the new rules will be treated as a first offence for the purposes of setting penalty, except as noted above for cutting or severely welting a horse.

DESCRIPTION OF TERMS

This Policy was established to provide more description of what constitutes an offence under the Rules regarding inappropriate urging of the horse in Ontario racing:

Indiscriminate action means unrestrained or careless activity without regard for safety or care.

For the purposes of Rule 9.27.05 (a), the following are examples of indiscriminate action but do not constitute an exhaustive list:

1. Use of the riding crop during the post parade or after the wire, except when necessary to control the horse;
2. Striking the horse with the butt end of the riding crop;
3. Hitting the horse with the riding crop in an area other than the shoulders or hind quarters; or
4. Punching the horse.

Excessive action means unreasonable quantity or degree.

For the purposes of Rule 9.27.05 (b), the following are examples of excessive action with respect to inappropriate urging of the horse but does not constitute an exhaustive list:

1. Use of the riding crop when a horse is not in contention in a race;
2. Use of the riding crop more than 3 times in a row without giving the horse time to respond

Aggressive action means inhumane, severe or brutal activity

For the purposes of Rule 9.27.05 (c), the following are examples of aggressive action but do not constitute an exhaustive list:

1. Use of the riding crop on the head or in the area surrounding the head of the horse
2. Use of any object or stimulating device and/or application; or
3. Leaving any cuts, abrasions or severe welts on the horse caused by the riding crop;

Meaningful Position (9.27.06) means the horse has a reasonable opportunity to finish in an advantageous position. Examples of meaningful include, but are not limited to, maintaining times, receiving points towards future races or earning purse monies.

Giving the horse a chance to respond (9.27.05 Excessive Action) means limiting the number of strikes applied to a horse in succession, in order to give the horse a chance to respond to the application. The rule requires that riding crop use shall not be continued if the horse is unable to respond or does not respond. The skill of the jockey comes in to play in assessing the horse’s ability to continue to respond. The riding crop is one of a number of tools available to the jockey to encourage the horse forward, weight, voice and hand riding being others.

BACKGROUND

Under a process established by the Executive Director in the fall of 2008 to gather industry input on the appropriate use of the riding crop in horse racing, it was recognized that the use of the riding crop is a necessary tool in racing.

The following principles were agreed to and serve as a guide for all decision making on rule development:

1. Ensure the welfare of the horse
   The welfare of the horse is paramount and guides decision making in all matters.
2. Promote safety for racing participants (including the horse)
   Where the safety of racing participants has been compromised, appropriate action shall be taken.
3. Create simple, clear and consistent rules (and enforcement)
   To be adhered to or enforced correctly, rules must be written and communicated in a straightforward manner.
4. Address customer/public perception and education
   Shifting public sensitivity on the use of the whip in horseracing must be recognized by all industry participants, who must also do their part in educating new fans about the sport.
5. Support growth of the customer base
   Racetrack management has identified use of the whip as a barrier to increased customer growth. Participants must be involved, as our industry builds to creating a more desirable product

The outcome of the industry discussion has led to the formation of rules regarding the appropriate methods for urging a horse in racing.

The Ontario Racing Commission at its meeting of Thursday, September 24, 2009, resolved that the following directive be approved, effective immediately.

PENALTY GUIDELINES RULE 22.23

Any violation of Rule 22.23, to include subsections 22.23.01, 22.23.02, 22.23.03 and 22.23.04 is an offence and covered by this penalty structure.

OFFENCE – Inappropriate urging of the horse

OFFENCE – Cutting or Welting the horse

Application of the Guidelines will take into consideration the following:

1. This penalty structure provides guidance to Judges as to minimum penalties for inappropriate urging of the horse, and for the cutting and welting of a horse.
2. The penalty for any subsequent offence cannot be less than the previous offence, regardless of whether the offence is for inappropriate urging of the horse or for cutting and welting of a horse.
3. Any cut or welt offence shall be counted and considered by the Judges as the next offence for inappropriate urging on a cumulative basis.
4. The penalty structure is progressive in nature, irrespective of which of the encompassed rules are violated.
5. In determining whether a violation of the Rules has occurred or in assessing penalty, Judges may consider mitigating factors in exceptional circumstances. An example of conduct that may be viewed as a mitigating consideration would be striking a horse to prevent inevitable harm to another driver, horse, participant or patron.
6. In assessing penalty, Judges may also consider aggravating factors, such as the licensee’s history of violations pertaining to inappropriate urging of the horse (which offence/s occurred more than a year before the subject offence).
7. If the offence is sufficiently egregious, the Judges may depart from the penalty structure and impose higher penalties than those enumerated in the chart above.
8. All first infractions of the encompassed rules that occur subsequent to the implementation of the new rules will be treated as a first offence for the purposes of setting penalty, except as noted above for cutting or severely welting a horse.

DESCRIPTION OF TERMS

This Policy was established to provide more description of what constitutes an offence under the Rules regarding inappropriate urging of the horse in Ontario racing:

Indiscriminate action means unrestrained or careless activity without regard for safety or care.

For the purposes of Rule 22.23.01 (a), the following are examples of indiscriminate action but do not constitute an exhaustive list:

1. Use of the whip in any manner between the hind legs of the horse
2. Loose lining or driving the horse so as to not have control of the horse
3. Kicking the horse
4. Striking the horse with the butt end of the whip; or
5. Punching the horse.

Excessive action means unreasonable quantity or degree.

For the purposes of Rule 22.23.01 (b), the following are examples of excessive action with respect to inappropriate urging of the horse but does not constitute an exhaustive list:

1. Use of the whip when a horse is not in contention in a race;
2. Use of the whip without giving the horse time to respond to a previous application of the use of the whip
3. Use of the whip on the horse anywhere below the level of the shaft of the race bike.

Aggressive action means inhumane, severe or brutal activity.

For the purposes of Rule 22.23.01 (c), the following are examples of aggressive action but do not constitute an exhaustive list:

1. Use of the whip on the head or in the area surrounding the head of the horse.
2. Use of any object or stimulating device and/or application; or
3. Leaving any cuts, abrasions or severe welts on the horse caused by the whip;

Loose lining means the indiscriminate action of carelessly lengthening the lines while driving so as to allow the loopy shaking of the lines (i.e. butterfly action) or to permit the arm to swing past a 90-degree angle to affect a wide arch when using the whip or shaking the lines.

Meaningful Position (22.23.02) means the horse has a reasonable opportunity to finish in an advantageous position. Examples of meaningful include, but are not limited to, maintaining qualifying times, receiving points towards future races or earning purse monies.

Confines of the wheels (22.23.03c) means that any part of the whip cannot move outside of a line which runs parallel to the horse from a point prescribed by the outside of the race bike wheel.

BACKGROUND

Under a process established by the Executive Director in the fall of 2008 to gather industry input on the appropriate use of the whip in horse racing, it was recognized that the use of the whip is a necessary tool in racing.

The following principles were agreed to and serve as a guide for all decision making on rule development:

1. Ensure the welfare of the horse
   The welfare of the horse is paramount and guides decision making in all matters
2. Promote safety for racing participants (including the horse)
   Where the safety of racing participants has been compromised, appropriate action shall be taken
3. Create simple, clear and consistent rules (and enforcement)
   To be adhered to or enforced correctly, rules must be written and communicated in a straightforward manner.
4. Address customer/public perception and education
   Shifting public sensitivity on the use of the whip in horseracing must be recognized by all industry participants, who must also do their part in educating new fans about the sport.
5. Support growth of the customer base
   Racetrack management has identified use of the whip as a barrier to increased customer growth. Participants must be involved, as our industry builds to creating a more desirable product

The outcome of the industry discussion has led to the formation of rules regarding the appropriate methods for urging a horse in racing and changes to driving styles to require a hand in each line for the entire race.

Loose lining: It was stressed by the participants that this change to driving style should not lead to the practice of “loose lining”, which means the indiscriminate action of carelessly lengthening the lines while driving so as to allow the loopy shaking of the lines (butterfly action) or permit the arm to swing past the 90 degree to effect a wide arch when using the whip. It was agreed that these would be the type of actions counter to the intent of the rule changes and would present an undesirable product to the wagering public.