Title: Ballard v. Wyoming Pari-Mutuel Com'n of State of Wyo.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Ballard v. Wyoming Pari-Mutuel Com'n of State of Wyo.1988 WY 12750 P.2d 286Case Number: 87-7Decided: 02/01/1988Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
 

  

 
 
ROY L. 
BALLARD, AND BECKY L. BALLARD, PETITIONERS,

v.

WYOMING PARI-MUTUEL COMMISSION 
OF THE STATE OF WYOMING AND ITS COMMISSIONERS, 
AGENTS AND SERVANTS, AND WYOMINGDOWNS AND ITS AGENTS AND SERVANTS, 
RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from 
the District Court, LaramieCounty, Edward L. Grant, 
J.

Franklin D. Bayless of Bayless & Blythe, Cheyenne, for 
petitioners.

Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, Deputy Atty. Gen., and 
Terry L. Armitage, Asst. Atty. Gen., for 
respondents.

Before BROWN, C.J., and THOMAS, 
CARDINE, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ.

URBIGKIT, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This hegira through 
administrative-litigative processes started with suspension of a racehorse 
trainer who, after winning a race, found that his horse tested positive for an 
unpermitted drug. Proceedings followed through two restraining orders from two 
separate courts, finally to an adverse ruling in an administrative hearing, 
which adverse ruling is now on appeal here through certification from the 
district court, pursuant to Rule 12.09, W.R.A.P. The penalty entered initially 
was a $200 fine and one-and-a-half months suspension, and was augmented through 
the course of appellate and administrative processes to the present two-year 
suspension and $1,500 fine.

[¶2.]     Out of this convoluted 
and complex proceeding we derive a conclusion that any further administrative 
suspension beyond time served should be disallowed, and that the pending 
proceeding should be dismissed as moot.

[¶3.]     On July 19, 1985, Ators 
Greeter, a racehorse owned by Becky L. Ballard and trained by her husband, Roy 
L. Ballard (Ballard), petitioners herein, won the fifth race at the Wyoming 
Downs racetrack near Evanston. A urine sample taken pursuant to 
Pari-Mutuel Commission rules revealed the presence in the horse of the steroid 
prednisolone. On July 27, 1985, the racetrack stewards informed Ballard about 
the positive test result, and formally found him in violation of Commission 
rules Ch. 1, §§ 10(p), 11(a), and 11(b),1 fined him $200, and suspended his 
trainer's license through September 12, 1985 by written 
notice:

"Violation 
of the `trainer insurer' Rule, 10P. Violation of Rule 11A, allowing the horse 
`Ators Greeter' to participate in the 5th race on 7.19.85 with the drug 
prednisolone in its body. Violation of Rule 11B, negligence in the handling and 
care of `Ators Greeter.' Purse is to be redistributed. Said trainer is denied 
any and all privileges of the grounds and the case is referred to the Racing 
Commission for further action."

[¶4.]     Four days later, 
Ballard sued in the Third Judicial District, UintaCounty, and obtained a temporary 
restraining order followed by a preliminary injunction which apparently never 
has been lifted. That preliminary injunction provided in 
part:

"On August 
2, 1985, the Stewards executed and filed herein their Waiver of Service of 
Process and Consent to Entry of Preliminary Injunction, waiving the failure of 
timely service of the Temporary Restraining Order upon them and consenting to 
the entry of a preliminary injunction against them until plaintiff obtains a 
hearing before the Commission.

"And it 
appearing to the Court after due deliberation that the action of the Stewards in 
ruling plaintiff off the Wyoming Downs race track and suspending him from 
further acting as a trainer thereat, without first affording him a hearing 
before the Commission, is in violation of Section 16-3-113(c), W.S. 1977, as 
amended, and would deprive plaintiff of his livelihood and cause him irreparable 
injury, loss and damage for which he has no adequate and speedy remedy at 
law.

"IT IS 
THEREFORE ORDERED, that the above named Stewards and Commission, their agents, 
servants, employees and all persons in active concert and participation with 
them, be and they are hereby restrained and enjoined, until plaintiff receives a 
hearing before the Commission on the charges leading to his suspension by the 
Stewards, from enforcing said suspension or in any manner preventing or 
interfering with plaintiff acting as a licensed trainer at the Wyoming Downs 
race track * * *."2

[¶5.]     By memo dated August 7, 
1985, as found in the court file, the executive secretary of the Pari-Mutuel 
Commission wrote to the Attorney General's office, stating in 
part:

"I believe 
we will need some help in this matter. The Commission will be meeting in 
Evanston on 
August 16 at 1:30 p.m., following the Management Audit Committee meeting (see 
notice attached). Bob Laramore is most anxious that the Commission have an 
attorney present who is well versed in Administrative Procedure so that we don't 
violate anyone's rights and have this case thrown out. "There is one major 
discrepancy in the complaint in that Ballard was afforded a hearing before the 
stewards - he didn't realize that his discussion of the matter with them should 
be considered a hearing. Also, he implied to his attorney that the Commission 
would have a hearing on his case August 16, when in fact the matter has only 
been referred to the Commission for their consideration and they do plan to meet 
on the 16th. However, under the circumstances it would appear advisable that the 
Commission hold a hearing on that date so that this matter may be 
resolved."

[¶6.]     On August 16, as noted 
by comment in the brief, in response to the injunction and its hearing 
requirement, the Commission met in Evanston without notice to Ballard, and, 
without hearing and in his absence,3 considered the stewards' action as 
resolved by increasing the penalty to a fine of $1,500 and the license 
suspension to one year, as stated in the minutes:

"Roy Ballard 
- Ruling E-12 of July 27, positive test on `Ators Greeter' from Race 5 on July 
19, for prednisolone, trainer fined $200 and suspended through 9-12-85. Upon a 
review of the case and motion by Baker seconded by Oliver, fine was increased to 
$1,500 and trainer suspended for one year to August 16, 
1986."

In 
a letter to the Commission dated the prior day, August 15, with an indeterminate 
date of receipt since not date-stamped,4 Ballard had 
asked for a stay of suspension and stated that he would accept the action of the 
stewards. Without responding to that letter, the executive secretary of the 
Commission, following the increase in penalty, wrote Ballard by certified mail 
on August 23:

"As you 
should know, you have the opportunity to present your case and appeal this 
decision at a hearing before the Commission. Should you wish to be heard by the 
Commission, either in person, by counsel, or both, it will be necessary for you 
to notify the Commission in writing within five (5) days of receipt of this 
letter. You may direct your request for hearing to the above letterhead address. 
The Commission is scheduled to meet on September 28, Saturday, in the Carbon 
County Library in Rawlins, beginning at 9 a.m. and should you request a hearing 
you will be heard that morning."

The 
record is somewhat fuzzy as to what occurred next, but in some fashion Ballard 
requested an opportunity to be present at the September 28 meeting where, 
without counsel or evidence being presented, as he asked for a reduction of 
suspension, the following action was taken by the 
Commission:

"Appeal by 
Roy Ballard of Commission's fine and suspension set at Aug. 16 meeting ($1500 
and one year) for positive test results on 71985, 5th race, Ators Greeter: 
Ballard appeared to request reduction of suspension. After review and 
discussion, Baker moved, Oliver seconded that ruling stand as is. The motion 
passed unanimously."

Prior thereto, on September 10, 1985, another notice by order to show 
cause had been issued to Ballard by the Commission, scheduling a hearing for 
November 1, 1985.5 

[¶7.]     Again the record is 
something less than a model of clarity, but the Ballard suspension again came to 
be considered by the Commission at a meeting held in Cheyenne on November 1, 
1985, apparently in response to the order to show cause. Obviously no hearing 
was held, but exactly what occurred is not indicated, except for the action 
taken according to a portion of the minutes of that 
session:

"Ballard's 
request for `re-hearing' was discussed. Commission denied same, seeing little 
reason to rehear the same request. Ballard's course of action would have to be 
through the court system."

Apparently the American Quarter Horse Association computerized reciprocal 
suspension system finally caught up, and after further suspension in adjoining 
states, Roy Ballard and Becky Ballard, who was likewise under suspension as his 
wife, employed counsel, which resulted first in a petition for modification 
dated April 1, 1986 but denied April 5, 1986,6 to be followed 
by a June 13, 1986 notice and order to show cause filed with the Pari-Mutuel 
Commission in behalf of Ballard challenging his continued suspension. At about 
the same time, a verified petition was filed in the First Judicial District, 
LaramieCounty, against the Commission, its commissioners and 
agents, and Wyoming Downs in Evanston, in behalf of both Roy Ballard and 
Becky Ballard. Although 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referenced in the pleadings, the 
basic remedy requested was for issuance of a temporary restraining order and 
preliminary injunction enjoining and restraining defendants from the continued 
suspension of both Roy Ballard and Becky Ballard.

[¶8.]     The temporary 
restraining order was granted on April 15, 1986, and following hearing and 
extensive briefing, including comment by plaintiffs that the Commission had not 
complied with the prior UintaCounty restraining order and injunction, a 
new preliminary injunction was issued April 30, 1986, 
finding:

"2. That 
Plaintiff, Roy L. Ballard, has not been granted a hearing as required by the 
Administrative Procedures Act and in accordance with the Preliminary Injunction 
issued by the State of Wyoming, County of Uinta, in Ballard v. Wyoming Pari-Mutuel 
Commission, Civil No. 85-264, Third Judicial 
District.

"3. That 
pending the outcome of said hearing, Plaintiffs should not be deprived of their 
license privileges as horse trainers and owners in the State of Wyoming and that the 
Pari-Mutuel suspension order should be removed from the State records pending 
final hearing.

"4. That the 
counsel for Plaintiffs and the Defendants, in representing their parties, have 
agreed that the suspension of Roy L. Ballard and threatened suspension of Becky 
L. Ballard be restrained and enjoined pending final hearing and that licenses of 
Plaintiffs will be renewed pending outcome of the 
hearing,"

and 
determining:

"That the 
Wyoming Pari-Mutuel Commission shall, within sixty days or at such other times 
as the parties may mutually agree, grant to Roy L. Ballard a hearing in 
accordance with Sec. 11-25-101 et seq. (W.S. 1978) and pursuant to the Wyoming 
Administrative Procedures Act, Sec. 16-3-101 et seq. and Sec. 16-3-113(a) 
providing for the grant, denial, suspension, or renewal of a license and Chapter 
III of the Pari-Mutuel Commission Rules and Regulations; that said hearing shall 
be conducted by a Hearing Examiner designated by the State of Wyoming in 
accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act; that discovery times pursuant 
to the applicable rules shall be accelerated to not extend beyond fifteen days; 
that this restraining order shall continue in effect as provided in Sec. 
16-3-113(b) until the licensing suspension order has been finally determined by 
the agency and if the suspension is sustained until the last day for seeking 
review of the agency order unless otherwise ordered by the reviewing 
Court.

"4. That the 
Wyoming Pari-Mutuel Commission be and they are hereby restrained and enjoined 
from suspending Becky L. Ballard based upon the suspension of Roy L. Ballard or 
in any manner suspending her license as an owner or trainer or in refusing to 
re-license Becky L. Ballard based upon the suspension of the Plaintiff, Roy L. 
Ballard, and that both said Roy L. Ballard and Becky L. Ballard shall be 
re-licensed pending final disposition of the above-entitled matter in accordance 
with the Administrative Procedures Act."

[¶9.]     The administrative 
hearing required by the injunctive order was held on June 20, 1986. On voir 
dire, the members of the Commission attested to their willingness to be fair, 
and then by decision further increased the suspension to two years. Of immediate 
interest in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, entered August 
7, 1986, from which order appeal was retaken to the district court and by the 
district court certified directly without decision to this court, are the 
following paragraphs:

"4. The 
Commission is authorized by W.S. 11-25-104(e) to delegate the enforcement of its 
rules and regulations to three stewards of a pari-mutuel 
event.

"5. * * * As 
of March 20, 1986, authority to refer for consideration of further penalty is 
granted at W.S. 11-25-104(e)(v).

"6. The 
Commission, at W.S. 11-25-104(g) may affirm, increase, reverse, or decrease the 
stewards penalties. The maximum fine the Commission may impose is $10,000 and 
suspensions may be imposed for whatever period of time the Commission determines 
a violation may deserve.

"7. Fines 
and suspensions imposed by the stewards may be appealed in writing to the 
Commission as authorized at W.S. 11-25-104(g). An appeal to the Commission must 
be filed within five days of the date of notice of said penalty, signed by the 
person making the appeal, and setting forth his reason for believing he is 
entitled to a hearing; he may be heard in person, by counsel or in writing 
(Rules, Chapter I, Sec. 4(a)(i-iii)." (Emphasis indicates statutory provisions 
enacted in 1986.)

[¶10.]  The statute in effect when the race was 
run in 1985, provided:

"The 
commission shall authorize by permits and supervise the conduct of all events 
provided for and regulated by this act, and shall make reasonable rules and 
regulations for the control, supervision and direction of applicants and 
permittees, including regulations providing for the supervising, disciplining, 
suspending, fining and barring from racing of all persons required to be 
licensed by this act, and for the holding, conducting and operating of all 
races, race meets and racetracks conducted pursuant to this act. The commission 
shall announce the place, time and duration of race meets for which license or 
permit fees shall be exacted." Section 11-25-104(c), W.S. 
1977.

The 
rule in effect in accord with that earlier statute was Ch. 1, § 3(1), Wyoming 
Rules of Racing and Pari-Mutuel Events:

"The 
Commission may rescind or modify any penalty or decision on infraction of the 
Rules imposed or made by the racing officials."

Obviously, someone came to recognize statutory insufficiency and rule 
limitations, since the legislature enacted Ch. 117, S.L. of Wyoming 1986, 
effective March 20, 1986, where the particular sections of the statute were 
newly enacted upon which the Commission relied in its decision in August, 1986, 
including, specifically, subsections (e) and (j), the latter subsection 
providing, for the first time:

"(j) Any 
fine or license suspension imposed by a steward or fine imposed by a starter may 
be appealed in writing to the commission within five (5) days after its 
imposition. The commission may affirm or reverse the decision of a steward or 
starter or may increase or decrease any fine or suspension. A fine imposed by 
the commission shall not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). Suspensions 
of a license may be for any period of time, but shall be commensurate with the 
seriousness of the offense." Section 11-25-104(j), W.S. 1977, 1987 
Cum.Supp.7

[¶11.]  The administrative hearing had reflected 
that Ballard had been suspended for something between five and eight months, 
occurring between the times of effectuation of the temporary restraining orders 
and interim injunctions by the district courts. Consequently, we are called to 
wonder whether Ballard has served all of the time for which he could legally be 
assessed so that any further consideration of the case as it is presently 
structured is moot. This decision requires interpretation of subsections (g) and 
(l) of § 3 of the Commission rules, quoted supra, and the effect of the words 
"rescind or modify." The definition of "modify" in Webster's Third New 
International Dictionary, Unabridged (1971) is, "to make more temperate and less 
extreme: lessen the severity of." By this analysis we conclude that the 
Commission in 1985 had no authority under its own rules to increase the 
suspension from what had been awarded by the stewards, at least without specific 
recommendations to them as only to be confirmed by the Commission, which did not 
occur.

[¶12.]  Consequently, this court is faced with 
the apparent posture of the State of Wyoming that the 1986 statute authenticated 
the 1985 award, or for that matter that it authorized the additional year's 
suspension which was given as a result of the 1986 hearing. Additionally, we are 
afforded the opportunity to consider the variously stated arguments presented by 
petitioners.8 

[¶13.]  Implicit in several of the listed appeal 
issues and actually the substantive issue argued by the parties on appeal in 
this extensively briefed case is whether a rule for absolute liability without 
fault or defense can be created by the agency.9 We decline all of those invitations 
for appellate discussion, and hold that the suspension limitations were 
constrained by the rules in effect at the date of the incident, and that the 
Commission then had no power with reference to the stewards' action except to 
rescind or modify. Petitioner's suspension expired after the original term of 
one and one-half months.10 We further hold that the ex post 
facto enactment of an authenticating statute cannot be utilized to legitimize 
action taken which was not authorized at the time the proscribed activity 
occurred.11 

[¶14.]  Even though resulting from the action of 
an administrative agency, the application of an increased fine and assessment of 
the penalty of an extended license suspension, authorized by statute enacted 
after the event occurred, offends Art. I, § 10 of the United States 
Constitution and Art. 1, § 35 of the Wyoming Constitution, as ex post facto. In 
re Jones, Wyo., 500 P.2d 690 (1972). 1 Cooley, 
Constitutional Limitations, p. 545 (8th ed.) recognizes that an express criminal 
designation is not required to invoke ex post facto limitations that apply to 
pecuniary penalty or action that deprive a party of any valuable right such as 
to follow a lawful calling by adding to the punishment and increasing the 
malignity of the forbidden act. The punitive results of penalty assessment are 
criminal in nature, and are to be differentiated from the civil forfeiture cases 
which are much litigated in the federal courts. One Lot Emerald Cut Stones and 
One Ring v. United States, 
409 U.S. 232, 93 S. Ct. 489, 
34 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1972); United 
States v. D.K.G. Appaloosas, Inc., 829 F.2d 532 
(5th Cir. 1987).

[¶15.]  Additionally, without invoking the 
constitutional prohibition, the attempted imposition of the augmented penalties 
by retroactive application of the 1986 statute offends interpretive statute § 
8-1-107, W.S. 1977:

"If a 
statute is repealed or amended, the repeal or amendment does not affect pending 
actions, prosecutions or proceedings, civil or criminal. If the repeal or 
amendment relates to the remedy, it does not affect pending actions, 
prosecutions or proceedings, unless so expressed, nor shall any repeal or 
amendment affect causes of action, prosecutions or proceedings existing at the 
time of the amendment or repeal, unless otherwise expressly provided in the 
amending or repealing act."

See 
Wyoming Refining Co. v. Bottjen, Wyo., 695 P.2d 647 (1985); Matter of Estate of Boyd, Wyo., 
606 P.2d 1243 (1980).

[¶16.]  The administrative appeal is reversed and 
remanded for dismissal of any further suspension.12

FOOTNOTESmarker1fn01marker0fn0"A 
trainer shall be the absolute insurer of 
and responsible for the condition of the horses entered in a race, 
regardless of the acts of third parties. Should the chemical or other analysis 
of blood or urine sample, or other tests, prove positive, showing a presence of 
any narcotic, stimulant, depressant, foreign substance or drug of any kind or 
description, the trainer of the horse may, in the discretion of the Commission, 
have and receive any or all of the following penalties: be fined, suspended, his 
license revoked or ruled off and in addition the owner of the horse and any 
other person or persons shown to have had the care or attendance of the horse, 
may in the discretion of the Commission, have any or all of the following 
penalties inflicted: be fined, suspended, his license revoked, or ruled off." 
(Emphasis added.) Chapter 1, § 10(p), Wyoming Rules of Racing and Pari-Mutuel Events 
(sometimes referred to in the record as Rule 10P).

See, however:

"No horse 
participating in a race shall carry in its body any foreign substance except as 
provided in these procedures." Chapter 1, § 11(a), Wyoming Rules of Racing 
and Pari-Mutuel Events (sometimes referred to in the record as Rule 
11A).

"A finding 
by the chemist that a foreign substance is present in the test sample shall be prima facie evidence that such 
foreign substance was administered and carried in the body of the horse 
while participating in a race. Such a finding shall also be taken as prima facie evidence that the trainer and 
his agents responsible for the care or custody of the horse have been negligent in the handling or 
care of the horse." (Emphasis added.) Chapter 1, § 11(b), Wyoming Rules of Racing 
and Pari-Mutuel Events (sometimes referred to in the record as Rule 
11B).

2 In the 
absence of anything else to be discerned in this file, that injunctive order is 
probably still in effect, since the Administrative Procedures Act hearing was 
not held until after another injunctive order was issued by a different district 
court.

3 Legal 
counsel from the Attorney General's office became involved apparently with the 
preliminary-injunction process in UintaCounty on August 1 and 2, 1985, and 
continued to be involved thereafter in representing the Commission. However, 
counsel handling the present appeal is not the initial 
representative.

4 If the 
Commission has not already done so, it is suggested that it obtain and use a 
date receipt or file stamp, or both, as neither one is found to have been used 
for instruments in this record.

5                                              
"NOTICE AND 
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

"YOU ARE 
HEREBY NOTIFIED by the Wyoming Pari-Mutuel Commission, in accordance with § 
11-25-104(c) (W.S. 1978) and pursuant to the Wyoming Administrative Procedure 
Act, §§ 16-3-101 et seq. (W.S. 1977), by and through this Notice and Order to 
Show Cause that certain infractions have been charged against you by George 
Grierson, Carlton `Tinker' Lane and Herman `Slim' Summers, Stewards of the 
Wyoming Pari-Mutuel Commission. The Commission having considered said 
infractions finds that the alleged acts or omissions constitute a breach of the 
Wyoming Rules of Racing and Pari-Mutuel Events.

"YOU ARE 
FURTHER NOTIFIED that pursuant to Chapter III of the Wyoming Rules of Racing and 
Pari-Mutuel Events a hearing will be held on November 1st, 1985 in room 302 of 
the State Capitol, Cheyenne, Wyoming at 8:00 o'clock A.M. of said date subject, 
however, to objections thereto by you.

"That the 
alleged acts and conduct which warrant the intended action by the Commission to 
suspend your license and impose a fine are acts or omissions which constitute 
violations of the Wyoming Rules of Racing and Pari-Mutuel Events in the 
following respects:

"1. That Roy 
Ballard, licensed as a trainer by the Commission, allowed the horse, Ators 
Greeter, to participate in the fifth race on July 19th, 1985 at Wyoming Downs 
with the drug prednisolone in its body. This is a violation of Chapter I, 
Sections 11(a) and (b) of the rules in that Roy Ballard, as trainer of Ators 
Greeter, is negligent in the handling and care of the 
horse.

"2. That 
trainer Roy Ballard is the absolute insurer of and is responsible for the 
condition of the above horse pursuant to Chapter I, Section 10(p) of the rules, 
and thus is subject to any of the penalties provided for in that 
section.

"FAILURE TO 
RESPOND at the above mentioned hearing or make other answer will result in the 
allegations contained herein to be taken as true and your license as a trainer 
may be suspended or revoked, and a fine may be imposed by the Wyoming 
Pari-Mutuel Commission and other sanctions may be imposed as authorized by 
statute or the rules of said Wyoming Pari-Mutuel 
Commission."

6 Minutes of 
the Commission meeting on April 5, 1986, again 
reflect:

"Prior to a 
lunch break the public meeting was adjourned to allow the Commissioners an 
opportunity discuss, via phone, Roy Ballard's petition for a reduction of 
suspension and/or fine with his attorney, Frank Bayless of Cheyenne. No 
reductions were approved via the phone conversation with Mr. Bayless, whose 
comments were heard by all Commissioners present at the meeting and George 
Grierson and Pat Krueger via a speaker phone."

7 This case 
does not come to this court in this appeal with discussion in brief by either 
litigant concerning how the Commission could apply the 1986 statutory penalties 
and procedure to the 1985 occurrence.

8"Argument 
I

"THE WYOMING PARI-MUTUEL COMMISSION 
VIOLATED ROY BALLARD'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING GUARANTEED BY THE 
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 
SIX OF THE WYOMING 
CONSTITUTION.

"A. 
The Commission Violated Section 16-3-112(a), W.S. 1977, Providing that Hearings 
Under the Wyoming APA Shall be Conducted in an Impartial 
Manner.

"B. 
The Commission Violated Section 16-3-107(k), W.S. 1977, Providing that Hearings 
Under the Wyoming APA Shall Proceed with Reasonable Dispatch to Conclude any 
Matter Presented to it Except that Due Regard Shall be had for the Convenience 
and Necessity of the Parties or their 
Representatives.

"C. 
Because the Commission Failed, Prior to Instituting Proceedings, to Give Roy 
Ballard Notice by Mail and an Opportunity to 
Show Compliance With All Lawful Requirements for the Retention of His License, 
No Suspension of His License is Lawful. "D. The Commission Violated Roy 
Ballard's Federal and Wyoming Constitutional 
Right to Due Process Codified in the Wyoming APA, Section 16-3-107, W.S. 
1977.

"Argument II

"THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AGAINST A LICENSED TRAINER, ISSUED CONTRARY TO 
THE EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS OF THE WYOMING APA, SECTIONS 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) AND 
16-3-108(a), WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND AN ABUSE OF 
DISCRETION.

"A. 
No Substantial Evidence that, While Participating in the Race at WyomingDowns on July 19, 
1985, Ators Greeter Carried in its Body an Unauthorized 
Substance.

"B. 
The Commission Abused its Discretion When, Contrary to the Legislative Intent of 
Section 11-25-108, W.S. 1977, as amended, it Fined Roy Ballard and Suspended His 
Trainer's License Without Giving Weight to the Necessary Evidence of 
Prednisolone's Use, Effect, or Status as a Stimulant or 
Retardant.

"Argument III

"BY 
ORDERING EXCESSIVE AND UNFAIR PENALTIES AGAINST ROY BALLARD, THE COMMISSION 
ACTED ARBITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY AND ABUSED ITS 
DISCRETION.

"A. 
Finding of Fact Number 12 and Conclusion of Law Number 6(b), and the Sanctions 
Based Thereon are Violations of the Wyoming APA, the Federal and Wyoming 
Constitutions and are Invalid.

"B. 
In Light of the Testimony and Evidence About Prednisolone, the Commission Abused 
its Discretion by Imposing Against Roy Ballard an Unfair and Overly Harsh 
Sanction.

"C. 
Commission Acted Arbitrarily and Capriciously by Imposing a Fine and Suspension 
in Disregard of Facts and Circumstances.

"D. 
The Commission Unlawfully Exceeded its Authority by Suspending Roy Ballard's 
License Beyond the Expiration Date.

"E. 
No Further Sanctions Can Fairly or Equitably be Imposed Upon Roy 
Ballard.

"Argument

"THE COMMISSION VIOLATED BECKY BALLARD'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE 
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 
SIX OF THE WYOMING 
CONSTITUTION."

9 Commission 
rule-drafting attention is directed, if present rules remain unchanged, to the 
absolute-insurer provision of Rule 10(p) and the prima-facie 
evidence-of-negligence criteria found in Rules 11(a) and (b). We are not certain 
whether an absolute liability rule exists if all provisions are to be read 
together.

Absolute-insurer cases cited by the parties include Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 99 S. Ct. 2642, 61 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1979); Solimena v. State, Fla. App., 402 So. 2d 1240 (1981), review 
denied 412 So. 2d 470 (1982); Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Caple, Fla., 362 So. 2d 1350 (1978); Sanderson v. 
New Mexico Racing Commission, 80 N.M. 200, 453 P.2d 370 (1969); Johnson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 5 Pa. Commw. 453, 290 A.2d 277 (1972). We would 
add Barkley v. Louisiana State Racing Comm., La. App., 506 So. 2d 580 (1987), 
where the absolute-insurer rule was in issue and appellate reversal occurred in 
finding a due-process violation by the administrative 
agency.

10 We have 
additional question as to the status of the record in this case. This includes 
doubts, although advised at oral argument that the Commission is no longer 
attempting to suspend Becky L. Ballard, or that anyone considers the action to 
be pending against Wyoming Downs, whether the appeal from an administrative 
decision should properly have been filed in the civil action proceeding, or, for 
that matter, if a final order is presented by this appeal as occurring in First 
Judicial District Docket 110, No. 265, of an injunctive action by appeal taken 
from an order of an administrative agency. In dismissing the proceeding as moot, 
we will not pursue these interesting subjects.

11 In 
Commission and court actions this record demonstrates that on July 27, 1985, 
racetrack steward action occurred by assessment of a one-and-one-half months 
suspension and $200 fine; August 2, preliminary injunction entered until a 
hearing was held; August 16, without notice or hearing a meeting was held when 
penalties were increased to $1,500 and one-year suspension; September 28, appeal 
denied without evidentiary hearing; November 1, pursuant to order to show cause 
and notice rehearing denied without evidentiary hearing; April 1, 1986, petition 
to modify denied April 6 without evidentiary hearing; April 30, another 
preliminary injunction was issued by a different court and then finally on June 
20, 1986 the hearing was held and the penalty additionally increased by another 
year's suspension. Justification for any increased penalty for the 1985 incident 
as contained in the 1986 Commission decision could come only from the law 
enacted in 1986.

12 Discreetly 
stated, as both officers of the court and officials of state government, more 
attention should have been paid to basic and well-established principles of 
administrative law by persons responsible for legal advice to the governmental 
agency and particularly so since the preliminary injunction first issued on 
August 2, 1985 referenced the stipulation for entry and then 
ordered:

"* 
* * that the above-named Stewards and Commission, their agents, servants, 
employees and all persons in active concert and participation with them be and 
they are hereby restrained and enjoined, until plaintiff receives a hearing 
before the Commission on the charges leading to his suspension by the Stewards * 
* *."

An 
unnoticed agency session to increase the penalties from $200 and one and 
one-half months to $1,500 and one year hardly seems an answer to the mandatory 
criteria of the injunctive action as well as the nonhearing proceeding which 
followed as finally climaxed by the text of the trial hearing order as then 
authenticated by the penalties provided by a newly passed statute.