1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

FTC DOCKET NO. 9417 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: D. Michael Chappell

IN THE MATTER OF:

JEFFREY POOLE APPELLANT

AGENCY’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

Comes now the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (“HISA”) pursuant to the Order 

for Supplemental Response dated October 23, 2023 and submits the following Supplemental Brief

responding to Appellant’s argument with respect to the arbitration award, including without 

limitation, information as to the actual total cost of the arbitration dated October 27, 2023. 

PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/27/2023 OSCAR NO 608841| PAGE Page 1 of 5 * -PUBLIC 
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

being served on October 27, 2023, via Administrative E-File System and by emailing a copy to: 

Hon. D. Michael Chappell 

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

April Tabor

Office of the Secretary

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20580

Via email to electronicfilings@ftc.gov 

BEILLY & STROHSAHL, P.A. 

Bradford J. Beilly 

1144 S.E. 3rd Avenue 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 

brad@beillylaw.com 

Attorney for Appellant 

/s/ Bryan Beauman 

Enforcement Counsel 

PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/27/2023 OSCAR NO 608841| PAGE Page 2 of 5 * -PUBLIC 
3 

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, Inc. (“HISA”) submits this Supplemental 

Brief in response to the October 23, 2023 Order of Justice D. Michael Chappell of the Federal 

Trade Commission. 

In his Final Decision, Arbitrator Jeffrey Benz (the “Arbitrator”) included in the 

Consequences imposed on Trainer Poole a “modest contribution to the arbitration costs of HIWU 

of $8,000”1

 under Rule 3223(b) of HISA’s Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program 

(“ADMC Program”).

2 As noted by the Arbitrator, an award of some portion of the adjudicative 

costs against a Respondent found to have committed a violation of Rule 3214(a) is mandatory 

under Rule 3223(b), although the quantum is discretionary.3 The total cost of arbitration was 

$30,333.10,4 paid for entirely by HISA. The $8,000 contribution ordered by the Arbitrator was just 

under one-fourth of the overall fee for adjudication. 

Mr. Benz has over a decade of experience as an arbitrator, and has arbitrated hundreds of 

doping cases.5 It stands to reason that Mr. Benz is well-aware of his own hourly rate, travel 

expenses, JAMS’ standard fees, and the typical cost of arbitration in comparable disputes. By the 

time that the Arbitrator was drafting the Final Decision, the entirety of the base and vast majority 

1 Final Decision, at para. 7.29, Appeal Book of HISA (“HAB”), Tab 2, p. 37. 

2 Further, Rule 3223(b) includes as a potential sanction “[p]ayment of some or all of...[HIWU’s] legal costs.” HIWU

did not seek any payment for its legal costs before the Arbitrator. See Final Decision, at para. 7.23, HAB, Tab 2, pp.

35-36.

3 Final Decision, at para. 7.25, HAB, Tab 2, p. 36.

4

JAMS Arbitration Final Statements, Supplemental Appeal Book of HISA (“SHAB”), Tabs 1 and 2, pp. 4-6 and 8-9.

This includes a final billing statement to HISA for $26,058.10, and a final billing statement to the Appellant’s counsel

Bradford J. Beilly for $4,275.00, respectively. Despite the Arbitrator’s statement at para. 7.29 of the Final Decision

that “Mr. Poole is responsible to pay half of the arbitration costs already,” HISA pays all arbitration costs up front, and

thus refunded the Appellant’s initial share of the arbitration cost. See July 10, 2023 refund check in the sum of

$4,275.00 from HISA to Mr. Beilly, SHAB, Tab 3, p. 11. Responsible Persons are only required to pay adjudication

costs if they are awarded against a Responsible Person as a Sanction by the Arbitral Body.

5 See Jeffrey G. Benz, Esq., FCIArb, FCollArb, CEDS JAMS Profile, available at Jeffrey G. Benz, Esq., FCIArb,

FCollArb, CEDS, JAMS Mediator and Arbitrator (jamsadr.com).

PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/27/2023 OSCAR NO 608841| PAGE Page 3 of 5 * -PUBLIC 
4 

of the hourly costs of adjudication had already accrued, as had the Arbitrator’s travel expenses. It 

is reasonable to assume that Mr. Benz was therefore able to estimate the total cost of arbitration 

with reasonable accuracy when determining the $8,000 figure ordered to be paid by the Appellant. 

As set out in HISA’s October 20, 2023 Reply Brief, this appeal is limited to whether “the 

final civil sanction of the Authority [HISA] was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law.”6 The sanction imposed on Trainer Poole by the Arbitrator 

of contributing $8,000 towards the cost of adjudication, or less than one-quarter of the total, was

rational and based exclusively and entirely on relevant factors as set forth in paras. 7.25–29 of the 

Final Decision.

7 As agreed to by HIWU and the Appellant, the Arbitrator’s analysis was guided by 

the general principle that “the fine should follow the fault.”8 The Arbitrator then modified the 

financial penalty for the benefit of Appellant, to account for specific mitigating factors he 

perceived in this case.9 Specifically, the contribution to arbitration costs awarded by the Arbitrator 

was determined “to be appropriate given the circumstances and the ease with which Mr. Poole 

could have avoided his predicament or the expense of arbitration fees by HIWU balanced against 

his conduct and the circumstances.”10

The $8,000 contribution sum was chosen by the Arbitrator after he had heard all of the 

evidence in this case, assessed Trainer Poole’s degree of fault, and the adjudication costs in this 

case had already been largely incurred, so as to provide Mr. Benz with a reasonable basis upon 

which he could estimate the total cost of adjudication. 

6 15 U.S.C. § 3058(b)(2)(A)(iii).

7 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm 

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). 8 Final Decision, at para. 7.24.

9 Final Decision, at paras. 7.26-27. 10 Final Decision, at para. 7.29.

PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/27/2023 OSCAR NO 608841| PAGE Page 4 of 5 * -PUBLIC 
5 

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 27th day of October, 2023. 

/s/Bryan H. 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

MICHELLE C. PUJALS

ALLISON J. FARRELL

4801 Main Street, Suite 350

Kansas City, MO 64112

Telephone: (816) 291-1864 

mpujals@hiwu.org

afarrell@hiwu.org

HORSERACING INTEGRITY & 

WELFARE UNIT, A DIVISION OF 

DRUG FREE SPORT LLC

PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/27/2023 OSCAR NO 608841| PAGE Page 5 of 5 * -PUBLIC