UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

DOCKET NO. 9415

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: D. Michael Chappell

IN THE MATTER OF:

JOSEPH PEACOCK AND OSCAR CEBALLOS APPELLANTS

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND PARTICPANT LIST FOR

HORSERACING INTEGRITY AND SAFETY AUTHORITY

Comes now the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (the “Authority”), by and 

through counsel, to provide the Chief Administrative Law Judge and the parties notice that Bryan 

Beauman and Rebecca Price enter their appearance as counsel of record for the Appellee 

Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (the “Authority”). Counsel for the Authority will 

participate in the July 13, 2023, evidentiary hearing before this Commission. 

Pursuant to 16 CFR 4.1(a)(1)(i), counsel for the Authority are eligible to appear in this 

matter. Mr. Beauman is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States of 

America; United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits; United States 

District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky; and the Supreme Court of 

Kentucky. Mr. Beauman is in good standing with the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA No. 86968).

Ms. Price is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Kentucky and is in good standing 

with the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA No. 97312). With the permission of the presiding ALJ, 

Marc Guilfoil will join the Zoom proceeding and assist counsel as the corporate representative of 

HISA.

The Order on Stay Application and Application for Review issued by the Commission on 

July 3, 2023, did not afford the Authority the right to present witnesses. However, the Authority 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 1 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
moves the Commission to allow it the opportunity to rebut any additional arguments that 

Appellants make or evidence introduced at the evidentiary hearing that were not presented at the 

underlying Board hearing. This includes the Authority’s presentation of additional evidentiary 

exhibits and evidentiary witnesses as may be needed for rebuttal.

Respectfully submitted, 

STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER &

MOLONEY, PLLC

/s/ Bryan Beauman

BRYAN BEAUMAN

REBECCA PRICE

333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1500

Lexington, Kentucky 40507

Telephone: (859) 255-8581

bbeauman@sturgillturner.com

rprice@sturgillturner.com

HISA ENFORCEMENT COUNSEL 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 2 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 16 CFR 1.146(a) and 16 CFR 4.4(b), a copy of this Response is 

being served on June 26, 2023, via Administrative E-File System and by emailing a 

copy to:

Hon. D. Michael Chapel 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Administrative Law Judges 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Washington DC 20580 

via e-mail to Oalj@ftc.gov and electronicfilings@ftc.gov 

Joel B. Turner 

Frost Brown Todd 

400 W Market St. Suite 3200 

Louisville KY 40202-3363 

jturner@fbtlaw.com

Nolan M Jackson 

Frost Brown Todd 

20 F St. NW Suite 850 

Washington DC 20001

njackson@fbtlaw.com

/s/Bryan Beauman

Enforcement Counsel 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 3 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

DOCKET NO. 9415

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: D. Michael Chappell

IN THE MATTER OF:

JOSEPH PEACOCK AND OSCAR CEBALLOS APPELLANTS

HORSERACING INTEGRITY AND SAFETY AUTHORITY

PRE-HEARING EXHIBIT LIST AND THE RECORD BELOW

Comes now the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (the “Authority”), by and 

through counsel, to provide the Chief Administrative Law Judge the following Exhibits expected 

to be introduced at the evidentiary hearing on July 13, 2023 as the record in this matter:

• Exhibit 1 – Notice of Stewards Hearing for Joseph Peacock

• Exhibit 2 – Stewards Ruling for Oscar Ceballos

• Exhibit 3 – Stewards Ruling for Joseph Peacock

• Exhibit 4 – Notice of Appeal of Stewards Ruling by Joseph Peacock

• Exhibit 5 – Request for Stay Pending Appeal by Oscar Ceballos

• Exhibit 6 – Order on Request for Stay Pending Appeal for Oscar Ceballos

• Exhibit 7 – Letter Requesting Records from Stewards

• Exhibit 8 – Notice of Appeal Hearing on October 24, 2022, for Oscar Ceballos

• Exhibit 9 – Notice of Appeal Hearing on October 24, 2022, for Joseph Peacock

• Exhibit 10 – Order Consolidating Appeal Hearings on October 24, 2022

• Exhibit 11 – Order Continuing Appeal Hearing on October 24, 2022

• Exhibit 12 – Notice of Appeal Hearing on March 27, 2023

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 4 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
• Exhibit 13 – Appellants’ Hearing Exhibit on March 27, 2023 – video 

• Exhibit 14 – Authority’s Hearing Exhibit on March 27, 2023 – video 

• Exhibit 15 – Video Record of Hearing on March 27, 2023 – video 

• Exhibit 16 – Letter from Mr. Turner to Mr. Forgy on April 3, 2023

• Exhibit 17 – Closing Statement from Appellants with Exhibits

• Exhibit 18 – Post-Hearing Statement of Enforcement from the Authority 

• Exhibit 19 – HISA Board Decision on Appeal

• Exhibit 20 – Ceballos Ruling from August 10, 2022

• Exhibit 21 – Ceballos Payment for Ruling from August 10, 2022

Respectfully submitted, 

STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER &

MOLONEY, PLLC

/s/ Bryan Beauman

BRYAN BEAUMAN

REBECCA PRICE

333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1500

Lexington, Kentucky 40507

Telephone: (859) 255-8581

bbeauman@sturgillturner.com

rprice@sturgillturner.com

HISA ENFORCEMENT COUNSEL 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 5 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
Public

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 16 CFR 1.146(a) and 16 CFR 4.4(b), a copy of this Response is 

being served on June 26, 2023, via Administrative E-File System and by emailing a 

copy to:

Hon. D. Michael Chapel 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Administrative Law Judges 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Washington DC 20580 

via e-mail to Oalj@ftc.gov and electronicfilings@ftc.gov

Joel B. Turner 

Frost Brown Todd 

400 W Market St. Suite 3200 

Louisville KY 40202-3363 

jturner@fbtlaw.com

Nolan M Jackson 

Frost Brown Todd 

20 F St. NW Suite 850 

Washington DC 20001

njackson@fbtlaw.com

/s/Bryan Beauman

Enforcement Counsel 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 6 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 7 of 68 * -PUBLIC 



FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 11 of 68 * -PUBLIC 

i 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 13 of 68 * -PUBLIC 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 15 of 68 * -PUBLIC 



October 5, 2022 

The Board of Stewards at the Downs at Albuquerque 

Larry Fontenot 

Elizabeth Garcia

Connie Estes

c/o Larry Fontenot 

larry.fontenot@state.nm.us 

Dear Stewards,

Our law firm serves as enforcement counsel in Horseracing Integrity and Safety 

Authority (HISA) proceedings, including appeals to the HISA Board from track-level rulings by 

stewards. We are contacting you to provide notification that an appeal has been filed from one of 

your rulings. For your reference and records, copies of the ruling and appeal are enclosed. 

Board review of the appeal from has yet to be scheduled, but upon scheduling it will be 

conducted remotely via the following Zoom meeting: Meeting ID: 832 4186 5546; Passcode: 

091033; Dial-in number: +1 646 931 3869. For the Board to conduct its review, we will need to 

obtain and submit a copy of the full record from your track-level hearing. The record should 

include the recording of your track-level hearing, video from the applicable race, and any other 

materials that were presented for consideration at the track-level hearing. Please contact us at 

your earliest convenience to discuss arrangements to make and deliver a copy of the full record. 

Whether the Board will hear witness testimony as part of its review is within the Board’s 

discretion. No Board determination regarding witness testimony has been made in this case. We 

will promptly notify you if the Board decides not to hear witness testimony. Pending the Board’s 

decision, your potential testimony must factor into our planning and scheduling. Please confirm 

your availability to testify after the Board’s review date and time has been scheduled. If any 

conflicts exist, we will coordinate with you and the Board to reschedule as needed. 

Once the Board review date and time is confirmed, we expect to follow up with you 

separately to schedule one or more meetings to prepare our defense of your ruling on appeal. Our 

follow-up will include reviewing the track-level hearing record and helping you prepare to 

testify. While these preparations are necessary, we will do our best to minimize the amount of 

disruption. As we make preparations for the appeal, you are also welcomed to contact us with 

any questions or concerns that you have. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 19 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
The name and contact information for all members of the enforcement counsel team are 

listed below. Any team member can be contacted or may contact you regarding this case; 

however, one attorney will likely be assigned as lead counsel as the appeal progresses. 

Attorney Bryan H. Beauman bbeauman@sturgillturner.com

Attorney Derrick T. Wright dwright@sturgillturner.com

Attorney Katie E. Bouvier kbouvier@sturgillturner.com

Attorney Rebecca C. Price rprice@sturgillturner.com

Paralegal Michael H. Peyton mpeyton@sturgillturner.com 

We appreciate your attention and look forward to working with you. As we begin appeal 

preparations, please contact us at your earliest convenience as indicated to confirm scheduling 

and make arrangements for delivery of the track-level hearing record. If you like, we can provide 

a link for you to upload large-file documents, video, and recordings. 

Sincerely,

STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY, PLLC

Bryan H. Beauman

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 20 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 21 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 22 of 68 * -PUBLIC 



FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 26 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 27 of 68 * -PUBLIC 



FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 31 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 32 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 33 of 68 * -PUBLIC 

i 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 34 of 68 * -PUBLIC 




Joel B. Turner

Partner

502.568.0392 (t)

502.581.1087 (f)

jturner@fbtlaw.com

400 West Market Street, Suite 3200 | Louisville, KY 40202 | 502.589.5400

Frost Brown Todd LLP | frostbrowntodd.com

0151952.0762715 4858-7726-3451v1

April 3, 2023

John Forgy, Counsel Via Email: johnforgy1@gmail.com

HISA - Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority

401 W. Main Street Suite 222

Lexington KY 40507

Re: HISA v. Joey Peacock, Oscar Ceballos et al.

Appeal of The Downs of Albuquerque Stewards Rulings (2022-DAA-52) / 

Sherriff Brown Race 6, September 24, 2022

Dear Mr. Forgy:

Please see the attached Closing Argument submitted on behalf of Mr. Joey Peacock and 

Mr. Oscar Ceballos in the above referenced matter. The referenced Exhibits are also attached or 

will be attached to a separate e-mail subject to the limitations on the amount of data you are able 

to receive at your G-mail address. The head-on of the video used by Mr. Peacock in the preparation 

of his chart was provided to you last week. Mr. Peacock and Mr. Ceballos reserve all rights should 

an appeal of the Board’s decision be required. 

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Joel B. Turner

Attachments

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 39 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
IN THE MATTER OF:

HISA v. Joey Peacock, Oscar Ceballos, et al.

Appeal of The Downs of Albuquerque Stewards’ Rulings

Sherriff Brown Race 6, September 24, 2022.

INTRODUCTION:

Mr. Joseph Peacock is before the HISA Hearing Panel with his appeal from The Downs at Albuquerque Stewards’ 

Rulings dated September 25, 2022, disqualifying Sheriff Brown, (hereinafter, the “Horse” or “Sheriff Brown”)

the winner of the sixth race on September 24, 2022, and redistributing the $108,000 winner’s share of the purse. 

Mr. Peacock believes that because of a lack of familiarity with the new and confusing HISA Riding Crop Rule,

The Downs at Albuquerque Stewards (the “Stewards”) applied HISA rules 2280 and 2282 incorrectly,

inappropriately, and in a manner inconsistent with allowing the Jockey, Oscar Ceballos, to use the crop to ensure 

the safety of other horses and riders during the running of the subject race. 

It is Mr. Peacock’s more specific contention that the Stewards did not consider and apply:

1) the expressly permissive provisions of HISA 2280 (b)(4), (JP Exhibit 4) which states:

“A rider may... (4) Use the crop to preserve the safety of Horses and riders...” or

2) the exceptions, expressly set forth in HISA 2282 (a) (JP Exhibit 5) which states:

“(a) violations of rule 2280 shall be categorized as follows, with the exception that use of the crop for 

the safety of horse, and rider shall not count toward the total crop uses...” (emphasis added); and

3) the Stewards made inaccurate findings of the total number of strikes, (some of the jockey’s motions, 

we contend, were waving or showing of the riding crop as is permitted) and the location of the strikes

based solely upon poor quality video without considering whether each of Mr. Ceballos (the “Jockey” or 

“Mr. Ceballos”) motions with the riding crop actually resulted in contact with the horse and completely 

ignored the jockey’s testimony which differentiated between actual contact with the horse and permitted 

waving and showing of the riding crop or use of the Riding crop to ensure the safety of Horses and riders

as permitted by the HISA Rules set forth above.

DISCUSSION:

HISA 2280 Use of Riding Crop limits the riders use of the crop to a total of six (6) strikes on the hindquarters of 

the horse. It also permits an unlimited number of “taps” to the shoulders with such “taps” being defined as use of 

the crop in the uncocked position while both hands are holding the reins and with the hands in contact with the 

horse’s neck. It is unclear from the plain language of the HISA riding crop rule whether use of the riding crop in 

the uncocked position to strike the horse on the shoulder would count as one (1) of the six (6) strikes permitted. 

To further add to the Stewards confusion, on two separate occasions in July 2022, HISA attempted to clarify the 

rule to include strikes to the shoulder to the total number of permitted strikes (which were introduced at the hearing 

as JP Exhibits 7 & 8) and may have further confused the Stewards it intended to assist by including contradictory 

and inconsistent language attempting to clarify a rule that needed to be formally amended to address the issue.

Mr. Fontenot, the presiding New Mexico State Steward admitted on cross examination in this case, that the rule 

does not directly address how the Stewards were to treat such strikes to the shoulder. Nevertheless, in his 

testimony Mr. Fontenot made it clear that it was his steadfast opinion that the distinction did not matter to the 

Stewards; it was his factual conclusion, shared by the other Stewards, that Mr. Ceballos struck Sheriff Brown 

eleven (11) times on the hindquarters. If any reasonable person views the poor-quality video available, this 

conclusion by the Stewards should call into question the level of care in their assessment of the video and their 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 40 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
2 of 5

ability to properly evaluate jockeys’ use of the riding crop. When challenged on cross examination, Mr. Fontenot 

doubled down and emphasized it was as easy as counting to eleven (11). Clearly, Mr. Ceballos did not hit the 

horse eleven (11) times on the hindquarters. Mr. Fontenot testified that the Stewards replayed the video several 

times and counted the strikes and agreed that eleven (11) was the total number of strikes, five (5) over the limit 

which required the disqualification of the horse and redistribution of the purse.

That conclusion is clearly contrary to what the poor-quality video and the other evidence presented by Mr. Peacock 

at the Hearing demonstrates. It calls into question the credibility of Mr. Fontenot’s testimony and the seriousness 

with which he and the other Stewards performed one of their primary responsibilities, i.e. having an acute 

awareness and understanding of the rules of racing, observing, and investigating the facts occurring during the 

running of a race, then interpreting and applying the rules of racing to the facts observed to reach a fair and 

equitable decision about possible rule infractions.

Although it may appear that during the stretch run of the race in question Mr. Ceballos raised his arm and moved 

his riding crop in a motion that resulted in the striking of his mount, his testimony that a) he only actually struck 

the horse three (3) or four (4) times, b) that the other movements that appeared to be strikes were actually permitted 

uses as a “wave ” or “show” of the riding crop “without physically contacting the horse,” (HISA 2280 (b)(3); JP 

Exhibit 4) and, c) that no other actual striking contact with the riding crop took place during the stretch run of the 

race. Upon further questioning, Mr. Ceballos clarified that there may have been incidental brushing of the shoulder

with the riding crop during the stretch run of the race, but no additional strikes. Apparently, the Stewards did not 

elicit this testimony at Mr. Ceballos hearing (although contrary to the HISA Rule 8320 (a) and NMAC 15.2.1.9 

(B)(6)(d), there is no tape recording or transcript to establish what testimony was elicited at Mr. Ceballos 

Stewards’ hearing) and if it was, as Mr. Fontenot’s dismissive conclusions about the absence of any safety issue 

in his testimony before the Board demonstrate, the Stewards did not give that testimony any weight in making 

their decision. 

Mr. Fincher, who rode several thousand races as a professional jockey, testified that the use of the riding crop by 

Mr. Ceballos was not offensive to any of the HISA rules, either based on the number of strikes or their location. 

Mr. Fincher testified there were three (3) or four (4) strikes to the hip (one right-handed and up to three (3) lefthanded) and an indeterminable number to the shoulder (due to the poor quality of the video.) He went on to say 

that even if contact was made to the shoulder with riding crop, that use was intended to keep the horse straight, to

keep it from further lugging in (he testified that the horse entered the stretch in the widest of all horses and finished 

next to the second place horse in the three (3) path,) and would therefore not count against the total of six (6) 

strikes as the strikes to the shoulder qualified as exceptions for the safety of the horses and riders under HISA 

Rule 2282 (a). Mr. Fincher testified that there are two primary reasons to strike a horse, one is to motivate or 

encourage best effort and those strikes are on the hindquarters. The second reason a jockey uses the riding crop 

is to guide the horse while continuing to ride forwardly in a manner to encourage the horse, rather than taking a 

hold of the horse and guiding with the reins, which might result in the horse slowing down. Those strikes to guide 

a horse, he explained, take place on the shoulder on the side of the horse to which the horse is drifting or lugging 

in. In this case that would be to the left shoulder as can be seen from the video head-on. 

Mr. Fincher also noted that in Sheriff Brown’s previous race on September 3, 2022, Mr. Ceballos had the whip in 

his right hand as he passed the eventual winner in the stretch and was unable to use the riding crop in his left hand 

to stop the horse from lugging in. Consequently, Mr. Ceballos had to take hold of the right rein to guide him away 

from the other horses as he lugged in during the stretch run, slowing Sheriff Brown’s momentum and costing him 

the race. That mistake, Mr. Fincher testified, was not repeated in the subject race as Mr. Ceballos switched the 

ridding crop into his left hand as he straightened the Horse for the stretch drive and was able to use the crop to 

guide the horse and keep him from lugging in and possibly endangering other horses and riders. As Mr. Ceballos 

testimony establishes and the videos demonstrate, it would be reasonable to conclude that Mr. Ceballos, knowing 

that he was restricted to a maximum of six (6) strikes during the race, struck the horse only three (3) or four (4) 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 41 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
3 of 5

times to the hindquarters and otherwise waved or showed the stick to the horse in a manner consistent with keeping 

the horse straight to ensure the safety of the horse and the other riders in the race. 

Mr. Fincher and the Stewards watched the same video and came to different conclusions. None of the Stewards 

had any experience as a professional rider; Mr. Fincher rode thousands of races (close to 6,500 according to 

Equibase statistics for sanctioned Thoroughbred (4137) and Quarter Horse (2354) races ridden.) It is clear from 

Mr. Fontenot’s dismissive testimony that the Stewards, without equivocation or thorough investigation, without 

first questioning Mr. Ceballos or Mr. Fincher, without first consulting with a HISA Steward and without 

considering any of the exceptions to the counting of strikes, hastily determined that a HISA riding crop rule 

violation had occurred during the race in question. It is obvious that the Stewards, represented by Mr. Fontenot, 

had already made up their minds that a HISA riding crop infraction had taken place before they met with Mr. 

Ceballos, Mr. Fincher, and Mr. Peacock. In what Mr. Fontenot called a “hearing” of the matter, and the Stewards 

informed each of them that a rule violation had taken place because the Stewards had counted eleven (11) strikes, 

and that, as much as they disliked having to do so, Sheriff Brown was going to be disqualified and the purse of 

$108,000 redistributed. 

That legal conclusions (violation and penalty) were presented to each of the parties as the Stewards pre-judged 

finding after their review of the videos. (See factual findings in the Notice of Hearing issued to Mr. Peacock, JP 

Exhibit 3.) With each of the parties faced with the imposition of the HISA riding crop rules by the Stewards for 

the first time to disqualify a horse and redistribute a substantial purse, the Stewards presented their determination 

of the facts and the penalty as a foregone conclusion, with little room for dispute or discussion. The parties were

simply told that if they did not like the Stewards’ decision, they could appeal it. As Mr. Fontenot testified, the 

Stewards, when faced with an unpleasant and complicated situation, intended to move this case beyond their 

sphere and let the HISA Appeal Board sort out the proper application of the new riding crop rules.

Mr. Peacock’s chart, (JP Exhibit 12) prepared after hours of viewing, carefully describes each of what appear to 

be the strikes to Sheriff Brown counted by the Stewards during the race. Each strike is noted with the elapsed 

time noted as appears on the head-on view of the video. In reviewing the videos, the first question Mr. Peacock

considered was whether the riding crop actually contacted the horse each time the jockey made a motion to 

encourage or guide the horse. Mr. Peacock’s conclusions are also set forth on the chart in a separate column and 

posit that the videos confirmed three (3) definite strikes to the hip, and possibly as many as four (4) strikes to the 

shoulder. Mr. Peacock refers to observations of the jockey’s movements suggesting that what appear to be strikes,

upon careful examination of the same stages of the race on the video pan shots, show with greater clarity the 

location of the jockey’s arm and the placement of the whip. Mr. Peacock was able to conclude based upon these 

careful observations, that these motions by Mr. Ceballos are waves of the riding crop, not strikes, and supports 

that conclusion by his observation that the jockey displays a different arm angle and no passage of the crop behind 

the jockey’s body as distinguishing the motion associated with strikes and waves. This level of analysis was sadly 

lacking by the Stewards lacking experience with a new and confusing rule which appears to have been above their 

pay grade to interpret.

There are no such factual investigations or detailed findings by the Stewards. There should be. In fact, there are

no such findings other than the total number of strikes over the limit (5) in the ruling issued to Mr. Ceballos (JP 

Exhibit 1) and no mention whatsoever in the ruling issued to Mr. Peacock (JP Exhibit 2). The only factual basis 

mentioned in Mr. Peacock’s ruling is a reference to a rule violation by Mr. Ceballos (a legal conclusion) and to 

the wrong rule, HISA Rule 2282 (a), the penalty provision, not the actual HISA Rule 2280 (b)(1) alleged to have 

been violated, i.e. the six (6) strike maximum rule.) Mr. Peacock and Mr. Ceballos deserve better, and the general 

rule of administrative law requires that the factual basis (findings of fact, conclusions of law) to be made and 

included in Stewards’ rulings to provide the underlying basis for their legal conclusions. The Stewards in this case 

are required to complete a form as set forth in NMAC 15.2.1.9 (B)(7)(b) including this information. This they 

failed to do.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 42 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
4 of 5

It is the clear intention of the HISA riding crop rules 2280 and 2282 to be read in conjunction. To properly enforce 

these rules the Stewards would need to undertake a much more careful investigation of the facts and application 

of the rules. It is not just a quick and perfunctory counting of what appeared to be strikes to the hip and shoulder 

of the horse, but also an assessment of each of the jockey’s arm movements appearing to be a hit, to distinguish 

if it was a permitted “Show or wave” of the crop (HISA 2280 (b)(3)) (as specifically set forth on Mr. Ceballos’ 

appeal form) or a permitted use of the crop to, “preserve the safety of Horses and riders;” (HISA 2280 (b)(3)). If 

the Stewards identified more than six (6) strikes (as opposed to showing or waving the stick or taps to the shoulder, 

all permitted uses of the crop) then the first step in HISA 2282 (a) would have to be considered. Any exceptions 

to the counting of strikes (for the safety of the horses and riders) would reduce the total number of strikes 

accordingly, before the assessment of the proper classification of penalty could be determined. 

Thus, The Downs at Albuquerque Stewards failed to do their analysis of potential riding crop infractions in race 

six on September 24, 2022. They never asked Mr. Ceballos or Mr. Fincher if the obvious lugging by Sheriff Brown

was characteristic of his behavior or if any of the strikes were intended to keep the Horse straight. Mr. Fontenot, 

acting on behalf of the Stewards, never asked Mr. Ceballos if he had any concern for the safety of the horses or 

riders in the race, or for his own safety, because his horse was lugging in. Mr. Fontenot admitted in his testimony 

that he observed the horse enter the stretch the widest of all and finished the race in the three path, but never asked 

the rider about it, never asked where he struck the horse or if he struck the horse because of safety concerns. Mr. 

Fontenot simply concluded, as he testified, that there was not a safety issue, so he did not inquire about it.1

CONCLUSION:

The standard of review in this case is set forth in HISA Rule 8350 (f) and permits the HISA Board hearing this 

case to uphold the Stewards’ decision, “unless it is clearly erroneous or not supported by the evidence or applicable 

law.” The Stewards decision in this case was not supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence and was 

inconsistent with the applicable HISA rules. It was, therefore, clearly erroneous.

In this case, as Mr. Fontenot’s testimony made abundantly clear, the Stewards, after receiving phone calls from 

jockey agents for other riders, simply reviewed the poor-quality videos of the subject race in a very perfunctory 

manner, counted what appeared to be strikes, and hastily concluded there were eleven (11), a violation of HISA 

2280 (b)(1). They then applied the penalty provisions of HISA 2282 (a)(2) without first interviewing the Jockey

to determine why the riding crop was used by him (to prevent the horse from further lugging in and causing a 

safety issue for other horses and riders) and without considering the possible exceptions permitted is undertaken 

to “preserve the safety of horse and riders.” (HISA 2280 (b)(4).) 

The Stewards then presented their findings to Mr. Ceballos, Mr. Fincher, and Mr. Peacock at their hearings and,

instead of making a fair inquiry into what motivated Mr. Ceballos to use his riding crop as he did, informed the 

parties that if they did not like the Stewards Ruling, they could appeal it. The Stewards apologetically told Mr. 

Ceballos and Mr. Peacock that they were required to make that ruling because of the “5 strikes in excess of the 

limit.” That was the only factual basis for the Stewards decision provided as was set forth in Mr. Ceballos ruling 

handed to him shortly after his hearing. 

Making a diligent effort to understand and apply the new and confusing HISA Riding Crop Rule was clearly 

beyond what the Stewards were willing to do. As Mr. Fontenot admitted in his testimony, the Stewards primary 

goal was to dispose of the case as soon as possible and move forward. 

Even if the Jockey struck the horse eleven (11) times, which Mr. Peacock and Mr. Ceballos dispute, (and offer 

their testimony as well as Mr. Fincher’s experienced opinions to rebut,) at least two (2), and possibly more, of 

1 There is evidence in the record at the Hearing of this matter before the HISA Board about what was said at the Stewards’ hearings of this 

matter that is contradictory without any means to resolve it since none of the Stewards’ hearings were recorded or transcribed as is required 

by HISA Rule 8320(a) and NMAC 15.2.1.9 (B)(6)(d). That leaves the Board with a credibility issue that would not exist had there been 

the required tape recording or transcript of the sworn testimony.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 43 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
5 of 5

0151952.0762715 4854-6958-1146v2

4/3/2023 4:21 pm

what appear on the head-on video to be five (5) strikes to the left shoulder of the horse (with the riding crop in the 

jockey’s the left hand) occurring between the eighth pole and the finish line, were to keep the horse from further 

lugging in and ensure the safety of the horses and riders in the race as the rules expressly permit. Strikes such as 

these are exceptions for the purpose of calculating any penalty, if one is appropriate under the HISA riding crop 

rules. 

The elimination of any two of those apparent strikes to the shoulder reduces the penalty from a Class 2 violation 

to a Class 3 violation and does not require the disqualification of the horse and the redistribution of the $108,000 

winner’s share of the purse. Mr. Peacock contends that at least two of those strikes should not be counted and 

that he should not be subject to the harsh penalty assessed by the Stewards in this case because it was based upon 

a rigid and one-dimensional interpretation of the HISA Riding crop rule and unreliable finding of facts by the 

Stewards.

As set forth above, the Stewards prejudged the case, misapplied the HISA rules 2280 and 2282, failed to properly 

investigate and identify the number of actual strikes, failed to consider the exceptions to the number of strikes to 

be counted and improperly disqualified Sheriff Brown. The disqualification and redistribution of the $108,000 

purse earned by Joey Peacock, as well as the fine and suspension of Mr. Ceballos, were improper and were

undertaken by the Stewards in a manner contrary to the preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the 

hearing of this matter before the Stewards and this Board and contrary to how the HISA Riding Crop Rule was 

intended to be applied. Therefore, the Stewards ruling was clearly erroneous and was prejudicial to both Mr. 

Ceballos and Mr. Peacock.

Mr. Peacock and Mr. Ceballos respectfully request that the Board find that the Stewards Ruling was contrary to 

the proper and intended application of the HISA Riding Crop Rule, was clearly erroneous, reject the Stewards 

Rulings against Mr. Ceballos and Mr. Peacock and find that there were exceptions to the limit on strikes that 

would take the total number of strikes below the threshold of six permitted strikes -- resulting in no violation of 

the HISA Riding Crop Rule.

Respectfully submitted,

Joel B. Turner

Attorney for Joey Peacock and Oscar Ceballos

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 44 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 45 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 46 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 47 of 68 * -PUBLIC 

N i o g o m s io 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 48 of 68 * -PUBLIC 

 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 49 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
JP Exhibit 4 

2280. Use of Riding Crop 

(a) A Jockey or exercise rider who uses a crop during a Race or Workout shall do so only in a 

professional manner consistent with maintaining focus and concentration of the Horse for safety 

of Horses and riders, or for encouragement to achieve optimal performance. 

(b) A rider may: 

(1) Use the crop on the hindquarters to activate and focus the Horse a maximum of 6 times 

during a race. The 6 permitted uses shall be in increments of 2 or fewer strikes. The rider must 

allow at least 2 strides for the Horse to respond before using the crop again. 

(2) Tap the Horse on the shoulder with the crop while both hands are holding on to the reins and 

both hands are touching the neck of the Horse. 

(3) Show or wave the crop to the Horse without physically contacting the Horse. (4) Use the crop 

to preserve the safety of Horses and riders. 

(c) A rider may not: 

(1) Raise the crop with the rider’s wrist above the rider’s helmet when using the crop; 

(2) Injure the Horse with the crop or leave any physical marks, such as welts, bruises, or 

lacerations; 

(3) Use the crop on any part of the Horse’s body other than the shoulders or hindquarters; 

(4) Use the crop during the post parade or after the finish of the race other than to avoid a 

dangerous situation or preserve the safety of Horses and riders; 

(5) Use the crop if the Horse has obtained its maximum placing; 

(6) Use the crop persistently even though the Horse is showing no response; 

(7) Use a crop on a 2-year-old Horse in races before April 1 of each year other than to avoid a 

dangerous situation or preserve the safety of Horses and riders; or 

(8) Strike another Horse or person with the crop. 

(d) In any Race in which a Jockey will ride without a crop, that fact shall be declared at entry, 

included in the official program, and an announcement of that fact shall be made over the public 

address system. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 50 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
JP Exhibit 5 – HISA 2282 Riding Crop Violations and Penalties 

2282. Riding Crop Violations and Penalties 

(a) Violations of Rule 2280 shall be categorized as follows, with the exception that use of the 

crop for the safety of Horse and rider shall not count toward the total crop uses: 

(1) Class 3 Violation—1 to 3 strikes over the limit. 

(2) Class 2 Violation—4 to 9 strikes over the limit. 

(3) Class 1 Violation—10 or more strikes over the limit. 

(b) Unless the stewards determine the merits of an individual case warrant consideration of an 

aggravating or mitigating factor, the penalties for violations are as follows: 

(1) Class 3 Violation— 

(i) $250 or 10% of Jockey’s portion of the purse, whichever is greater; 

(ii) Minimum 1-day suspension for the Jockey; and 

(iii) 3 points; 

(2) Class 2 Violation— 

(i) $500 or 20% of Jockey’s portion of the purse, whichever is greater; 

(ii) Horse disqualified from purse earnings, 

(iii) Minimum 3-day suspension for the Jockey; and 

(iv) 5 points; 

(3) Class 1 Violation— 

(i) $750 fine or 30% of Jockey’s portion of the purse, whichever is greater, 

(ii) Horse disqualified from purse earnings, 

(iii) Minimum 5-day suspension for the Jockey; 

(iv) 10 points. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 51 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 52 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 53 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
We write to clarify recent questions posed by the stewards concerning the interpretation of the

HISA riding crop rule.

There are four basic concepts to keep in mind:

First, the counting of the six permitted strikes is limited ONLY to strikes on the hindquarters. A

strike to the shoulder or anywhere else on the horse except the hindquarters is not permitted and

does NOT count toward the six permitted strikes. The rule further limits the six permitted strikes

to increments of two or fewer strikes, and the rider must allow at least two strides for the horse to

respond before using the crop again.

Second, contact by the crop to the shoulder is permitted ONLY as a TAP to the shoulder, and not

as a STRIKE. If a jockey uses the crop on the shoulder while both hands are holding on to the

reins and both hands are touching the neck of the horse, that use is considered a TAP.

Third, the jockey may also use the crop to preserve the safety of horses and riders. Use of the crop

for purposes of safety is not considered a violation of the riding crop rules.

Fourth, other than in the three circumstances outlined above, the jockey is prohibited from using

the crop on any part of the horse’s body other than the shoulders or hindquarters.

The penalties for exceeding the number of permitted strikes on the hindquarters are set forth in

Rule 2282. Rule 2282 classifies the penalties as Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 violations,

depending upon the number of strikes over the six strike limit. The Authority will be issuing official

Guidance that all other violations of the riding crop rule should generally be treated, for penalty

determination, as similar to Class 3 violations, subject to the stewards’ determination of

aggravating and mitigating factors. As examples, absent mitigating or aggravating

circumstances, the Class 3 type penalties would apply to strikes other than to the hindquarters,

striking the horse in increments of more than two strikes, and failure to allow at least two strides

for the horse to respond before using the crop again. Under no circumstances should any riding

crop violation (including Class 1 or 2 Violations) result in a change in the order of finish that

alters the pari-mutuel payout. Instead, the disqualification of the horse and redistribution of purse

monies occur after the Stewards have held a hearing and issued a ruling. If a horse is disqualified

after finishing first in a conditioned race, the horse will maintain its previous condition.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 54 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
JP Exhibit 8 

Clarification sent by HISA to the stewards in July 2022: 

 “In Covered Horse Races subject to the jurisdiction of HISA, HISA will not enforce the prohibition in Rule 

2280 against striking a horse on the shoulder with the riding crop, as long as the total number of strikes 

to the shoulder and the hindquarters together do not exceed the 6 uses of the crop permitted by Rule 

2280(b)(1).”

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 55 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 56 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
Page 1 of 4

HORSERACING INTEGRITY AND SAFETY AUTHORITY 

ACTION NO. 2022-00431 

IN RE: APPEAL OF OSCAR CEBALLOS AND JOSEPH PEACOCK APPELLANTS 

POST-HEARING STATEMENT OF ENFORCEMENT 

HISA enforcement counsel submits this post-hearing statement as permitted by the 

Board. The issue to be addressed in these post-hearing submissions was the significance of 

counting strikes to the shoulder under the Rule 2280 limits. 

On September 25, 2022, a ruling was issued by the Stewards at Albuquerque Downs 

concerning SHERIFF BROWN, a horse ridden by jockey Oscar Ceballos and owned by Joseph 

Peacock. The Stewards found a violation of HISA Rule 2280, Use of Riding Crop, because 

jockey Ceballos struck his horse more than 10 times during the running of the 6th race at the 

track on September 24, 2022. The ruling imposed upon Appellant Ceballos a $2,160.00 fine, a 

three-day suspension from riding in a covered horserace, and 5 HISA points, and resulted in a 

disqualification of the horse from purse earnings due to the jockey’s violation of Rule 2280. 

The stewards reviewed the race video and concluded Ceballos struck the horse at least 11 

times. The strikes occurred near the end of the race coming out of the turn and continued 

throughout the stretch. The first two strikes were by the jockey’s right hand, and the remaining 

were with his left hand. 

At the hearing on March 27, 2023, Appellants questioned the application of Rule 2280 to 

contact by the riding crop to the horse’s shoulder. Strikes to the shoulder count for purposes of 

the limit under Rule 2280. In late July 2022, HISA sent clarification to the stewards informing 

that “In Covered Horse Races subject to the jurisdiction of HISA, HISA will not enforce the 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 57 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
Page 2 of 4

prohibition in Rule 2280 against striking a horse on the shoulder with the riding crop, as long as 

the total number of strikes to the shoulder and the hindquarters together do not exceed the 6 uses 

of the crop permitted by Rule 2280(b)(1).” For two months before the running of this race, the 

application of the rule was clear: strikes on the shoulder counted toward a combined six-strike 

limit; and that is exactly how the Stewards applied the Rule in for this race as testified to by 

Steward Larry Fontenot. 

This clarification was important. The text of the Rule could be interpreted as prohibiting 

any single strike to the shoulder. In fact, an earlier memorandum from HISA to the stewards said 

just that: no strikes to the shoulder are permissible and it was that earlier memorandum that was 

quoted from at the hearing by Appellants. 

Consider that Rule 2280 allows the crop to be used “on the hindquarters” and to “tap the 

horse on the shoulder.”1 Under such a reading of the Rule, no strike to the shoulder is allowed. 

The subsequent clarification quoted above relaxed the interpretation of the Rule that would have 

prohibited any single strike to the shoulder. For two months prior to this race, strikes to the 

shoulder were permissible but still subject to a limit of six strikes when combined with any 

strikes to the hindquarters. 

If Appellants’ argument is true that Rule 2280 does not allow the counting of strikes to 

the shoulder as applying in combination with strikes to the hindquarters, then the result is Rule 

2280 prohibits any strike to the shoulder. The better interpretation of Rule 2280 is to allow 

strikes to the shoulder but not an excessive amount which can be judged as already set forth in 

the Rule – no more than six in total and no more than two strikes in succession before allowing 

1

 As the Board is familiar with, to constitute a tap and not a strike, the jockey’s hands must be 

holding onto the reins and touching the horse’s neck. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 58 of 68 * -PUBLIC 

Page 4 of 4

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Bryan Beauman 

BRYAN BEAUMAN 

REBECCA PRICE 

STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY, PLLC 

333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1500 

Lexington, Kentucky 40507 

Telephone: (859) 255-8581 

bbeauman@sturgillturner.com 

rprice@sturgillturner.com 

HISA ENFORCEMENT COUNSEL 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 Undersigned enforcement counsel certifies that on April 3, 2023, this post-hearing 

supplement was served via email to Counsel for Appellant Joel B. Turner: jturner@fbtlaw.com. 

/s/Bryan Beauman

 Enforcement Attorney 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 60 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
HORSERACING INTEGRITY AND SAFETY AUTHORITY

ACTION NO. 2022-00431 

IN RE: APPEAL OF JOSEPH PEACOCK

AND OSCAR CEBALLOS APPELLANTS 

DECISION ON APPEAL

This matter arises under the jurisdiction of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority 

(the “Authority”) established pursuant to the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (the “Act) at 15 

U.S.C. § 3051, et seq. 

On September 25, 2022, a stewards ruling was issued by Stewards at Albuquerque Downs

to Joseph Peacock, Jr. (“Appellant Peacock”), as owner of a Covered Horse registered as 

SHERIFF BROWN and to Oscar Ceballos (“Appellant Ceballos”), as jockey of SHERIFF 

BROWN. The ruling stated that Appellant Ceballos violated HISA Rule 2280, Use of Riding 

Crop, by striking SHERIFF BROWN eleven times during the running of the sixth race at 

Albuquerque Downs on September 24, 2022. As a result of Appellant Ceballos’ violation of Rule 

2280, the Stewards imposed a fine of $500.00, a three-day suspension from participating in a 

Covered Horserace, five HISA points, and disqualification of SHERIFF BROWN from any 

eligible purse earnings. 

Pursuant to Rule 8350, Appellants Ceballos and Peacock appealed the decision to the 

Board of the Authority (the “Board”) for review. The standard of review for appeals to the Board 

is set forth in Rule 8350(f): “Upon review of the decision which is the subject of the appeal, the 

Board shall uphold the decision unless it is clearly erroneous or not supported by the evidence or 

applicable law.”

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 61 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
Notice of the appeal hearing was served electronically on both Appellants on March 6, 

2023. In accordance with the notice, the Board convened remotely via Zoom on Monday, March 

27, 2023, at approximately 10:30 a.m. EDT. Attorneys Bryan H. Beauman and Rebecca C. Price 

appeared as counsel for the Authority. Attorney Joel Turner appeared as counsel for the 

Appellants. Appellant Ceballos and Appellant Peacock appeared for the hearing and were 

accompanied by the trainer of SHERIFF BROWN, Todd Fincher. All parties were provided the 

opportunity to present testimony, evidence, and argument to the Board, and did so. The Board 

notes that both parties received excellent legal representation. 

After hearing the evidence, the Board retired to deliberate, and then rendered its decision 

on the record. This was a factually difficult and well-argued case. The Board did not reach a view 

on how it would have decided the matter in a de novo setting. The standard of review, however, 

is whether the stewards ruling in this case is clearly erroneous or is not supported by the evidence 

and applicable law. The Board finds there was no clear error, and that the stewards’ ruling was 

supported by evidence and applicable law, and therefore AFFIRMS the stewards ruling and the 

attendant sanctions imposed upon Appellants, including disqualification of SHERIFF BROWN

from any eligible purse earnings in connection with the sixth race on September 24, 2022, at 

Albuquerque Downs. Appellant Ceballos shall have thirty (30) days from the date of the order to 

pay any fine and will serve dates of suspension to be set by the stewards at Albuquerque Downs. 

This decision is the final decision of the Authority pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 3058. 

APPEAL RIGHTS

 Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 3058(b), the Appellants may appeal the civil sanction imposed by 

this decision to the Federal Trade Commission within 30 days of the Authority’s submission to the 

Federal Trade Commission of notice of the civil sanction. The Authority will provide notice of 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 62 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
this decision to the Federal Trade Commission on the date that this decision is issued to the 

Appellants. 

So ORDERED this 17th day of May, 2023. 

______________________________ 

Charles P. Scheeler 

Chair, Board of Directors 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 63 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
CERTIFICATE OF ISSUANCE 

Undersigned counsel certifies that on May 17, 2023, this Decision on Appeal was issued 

via first class mail and email to: 

Joel Turner 

jturner@fbtlaw.com

400 West Market Street, Suite 3200 

Louisville, Kentucky 40202 

Bryan Beauman

bbeauman@sturgillturner.com

333 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 

Lexington, Kentucky 40507 

/s/ John Forgy 

John Forgy 

Counsel to HISA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 64 of 68 * -PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 65 of 68 * -PUBLIC 


FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 07/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608209 | PAGE Page 68 of 68 * -PUBLIC