i 

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 PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER 

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

briefing schedule of the Administrative Law Judge dated September 28, 2023, and submits the 

following Proposed Conclusions of Law and Proposed Order. 

HORSERACING INTEGRITY & SAFETY AUTHORITY 

/s/Bryan H. Beauman 

BRYAN H. BEAUMAN 

REBECCA C. 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 

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 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608725 | PAGE 

PUBLIC

Page 1 of 12 * -PUBLIC 
ii

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 16 CFR 1.146(a) and 16 CFR 4.4(b), a copy of this Proposed Conclusions of 

Law and Proposed Order is being served on October 10, 2023, via Administrative E-File System 

and by emailing a copy to: 

Hon. D. Michael Chapell 

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

April Tabor

Office of the Secretary

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20580

Via email 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 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608725 | PAGE Page 

PUBLIC

2 of 12 * -PUBLIC 
1 

PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1 The August 8, 2023 decision of arbitrator Jeffery Benz (the “Final Decision”) appointed by 

the Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit (“HIWU”) for the Horseracing Integrity and Safety 

Authority, Inc. (“HISA”) considered and applied HISA’s Anti-Doping and Medication 

Control Program (“ADMC Program”) and imposed civil sanctions of a 22-month period of 

Ineligibility, a $10,000 fine, and a contribution to the arbitration costs of HIWU in the amount 

of $8,000 in accordance with ADMC Program Rule 3225(a) and 3223(b) (the 

“Consequences”). 

2 The Arbitrator clearly considered, applied, and followed the rules of the ADMC Program. 

3 The Consequences are not arbitrary or capricious. They are supported by the evidence and 

are rationally connected to the evidence. 

4 The evidence establishes that Mr. Poole bore a significant degree of Fault. Factors relating to 

an intention to cheat and the economic impact of the civil sanction on Mr. Poole are not 

relevant to his degree of Fault. However, the Arbitrator appropriately considered these factors 

in exercising his discretion to establish the amount of the mandatory fine and to determine the 

amount Mr. Poole should contribute toward the arbitration costs. 

5 The Appellant’s assertion that the civil sanctions are improper because Mr. Poole’s knowledge 

of and training in the ADMC Program was limited is without merit. 

6 First, as a Responsible Person and Covered Person, Mr. Poole has an independent obligation 

under the ADMC Program to: (i) be knowledgeable of and comply with the ADMC Program; 

and (ii) ensure that employees, personnel, and agents involved in any way with the care, 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608725 | PAGE Page 

PUBLIC

3 of 12 * -PUBLIC 
2 

treatment, training, or racing of the horses he works with are familiar with the ADMC 

Program. ADMC Program Rule 3040 specifically sets-out certain obligations of the Appellant 

as a Covered Person and as a Responsible Person, including “to be knowledgeable of and to 

comply with the Protocol and related rules at all times... [and] to familiarize themselves with 

the most up-to-date version of the Protocol and related rules and all revisions thereto.” 

7 Second, and in any event, this evidence was specifically considered and relied on as a 

mitigating factor in Mr. Poole’s favor to reduce his period of Ineligibility from 24 months to 

22 months. 

8 Mr. Poole’s appeal contesting the civil sanctions imposed in the Final Decision is dismissed 

and the sanctions in the Final Decision of a 22-month period of Ineligibility, a $10,000 fine, 

and a contribution to the arbitration costs of HIWU in the amount of $8,000 are affirmed. 

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608725 | PAGE Page 4 of 12 * -PUBLIC 
3 

PROPOSED ORDER

The undersigned Chief Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), having reviewed the 

parties’ submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, supporting legal brief and 

reply to conclusions of law and briefs, hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions 

of law. 

Introduction 

On September 8, 2023, Appellant Jeffrey Poole (“Appellant” or “Mr. Poole”), 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 3051 et seq., 5 U.S.C. § 556 et seq., and 16 C.F.R. § 1.145 et seq., filed a 

Notice of Appeal and Application for Review of an August 8, 2023 decision of an arbitrator (the 

“Final Decision”) appointed by HIWU for the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, 

Inc.(“HISA”). The Final Decision determined that Mr. Poole violated Rule 3214(a) of HISA’s 

ADMC Program by Possessing Levothyroxine (“Thryo-L”), a Banned Substance, and imposed 

civil sanctions of a 22-month period of Ineligibility, a $10,000 fine, and a contribution to the 

arbitration costs of HIWU in the amount of $8,000. 

In his Notice of Appeal, Mr. Poole requested an evidentiary hearing to contest the 

facts found by the arbitrator and to supplement the record with further testimony. Appellant further 

asserted that the civil sanctions imposed upon him were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, prejudicial, or otherwise not in accordance with law and thereby reviewable by this 

tribunal pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 3058(b)(2)(A) and 16 C.F.R. §1.146(b)(3). HISA filed a response 

to the Notice of Appeal on September 18, 2023, asserting, inter alia, that Appellant failed to 

identify any material facts in dispute and that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608725 | PAGE Page 

PUBLIC

5 of 12 * -PUBLIC 
4 

Rule 1.146(c)(2) of the Procedures for Review of Final Civil Sanctions Imposed 

under the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (“Rules”) requires the Administrative Law Judge 

of the Federal Trade Commission to assess, based on the notice of appeal and the response thereto, 

whether there are contested facts and whether supplementation of the record below is necessary. 

16 C.F.R. § 1.146 (c)(2)(i)-(iii), (v). On September 19, 2023, in order to facilitate the assessment 

required under Rule 1.146, Appellant was directed to submit a statement specifically identifying 

the material facts in dispute and summarizing the proposed supplemental testimony (September 

19 Order). On September 25, 2023, Appellant submitted his response to the September 19 Order 

in which he withdrew his request for an evidentiary hearing to contest facts and to supplement the 

record and reasserted his appeal of the civil sanctions imposed upon him as arbitrary, capricious, 

an abuse of discretion, prejudicial, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 

Pursuant to Rule 1.146(c)(2), based on the Notice of Appeal, HISA’s response 

thereto, and the September 25, 2023 submittal of Appellant, neither party sought to supplement or 

contest the facts found by HISA, the factual record is sufficient to adjudicate the merits of the 

review proceeding, and an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. 16 C.F.R. § 1.146(c)(2). Therefore, 

in accordance with Rule 1.146(c)(3), this administrative appeal was limited to briefing by the 

parties to the issue of the civil sanctions. 16 C.F.R. § 1.146(c)(3). 

The Authority’s Rule on Sanctions and Consequences 

Rule 3070(b) of the ADMC Program sets-out the applicable law for the purpose of 

interpreting and applying the ADMC Program. That Rule provides that the ADMC Program “shall 

be interpreted as an independent and autonomous text and not by reference to existing law or 

statutes.” Rule 3070(d) further provides that the World-Anti Doping Code (“WADC”) and 

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608725 | PAGE Page 6 of 12 * -PUBLIC 
5 

jurisprudence interpreting its provisions may be considered when interpreting and applying the 

ADMC Protocol (which is the Rule 3000 series of the ADMC Program, and which sets out the 

substantive equine anti-doping rules). 

The Final Decision below concerned an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (“ADRV”) 

for Possession of a Banned Substance in breach of Rule 3214(a). 

Under Rule 3223, the required sanction for a violation of Rule 3214(a)1 is a period 

of Ineligibility of 2 years, a fine of up to $25,000, and payment of some or all of the adjudication 

costs and the Agency’s legal costs. 

A Covered Person may be entitled to mitigation of the above noted sanctions, only 

where he or she establishes on a balance of probabilities that he or she acted with either No Fault 

or Negligence (Rule 3224), or No Significant Fault or Negligence (Rule 3225). The ADMC 

Program provides that assessment of Fault is a specific exercise that is concerned only with the 

Covered Person’s actions leading up to the ADRV. Corollary considerations such as the economic 

impact of the imposed sanctions after the fact, are not considered as relevant factors in reducing 

potential ineligibility based on degree of Fault.

The Final Decision 

The Arbitrator found that “there can be no reasonable dispute that Mr. Poole was 

at all relevant times in Possession of the Thyro-L that was found.” The Arbitrator’s determination 

was grounded in substantial evidence, including that: 

1 The Appellant does not dispute on appeal that he committed a Possession ADRV under Rule 3214(a). 

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608725 | PAGE Page 7 of 12 * -PUBLIC 
6 

a) The Thyro-L product was found on a shelf in the tack room of Barn 5 (the barn assigned to

Mr. Poole) at Gulfstream Park on June 2, 2023, after implementation of the ADMC Program

on May 22, 2023;

b) The Thyro-L product was purchased by Mr. Poole, pursuant to a lawful veterinarian

prescription, at a time when it was not a Banned Substance and before the implementation

of the ADMC Program, for use by another horse that was no longer in Mr. Poole’s custody

or care at Gulfstream Park;

c) The Thyro-L product had been moved from the track in Ohio where Mr. Poole had lawfully

used itsome months before it was found at Gulfstream Park; the Thyro-L product was moved

from Ohio to another track in Tampa, and then to Barn 5 at Gulfstream Park, where it was

found; and

d) Mr. Poole had exclusive use and control of the barn he was assigned at Gulfstream Park,

save for limited permitted inspections by Gulfstream Park-related personnel for certain

reasons, and there was no evidence that the Thyro-L came to rest on the shelf on which it

was found through any intrusion by anyone other than someone in the employ of Mr. Poole.

The Arbitrator then assessed whether the two-year period of Ineligibility should be 

reduced. The Arbitrator first noted that “Mr. Poole did not seek a finding of No Fault or 

Negligence, but even if he had... there simply is no way that the exceptional circumstance of a 

finding of No Fault could possibly be made here; Mr. Poole’s conduct in many ways epitomized 

fault.” The Arbitrator then considered whether the applicable sanctions should be reduced based 

on Mr. Poole establishing No Significant Fault or Negligence. In this respect, the Arbitrator 

referred to the CAS decision in Cilic v. International Tennis Federation,

2 where the CAS Panel 

determined that broad Fault ranges can be broken down into categories of month ranges based on 

the degree of Fault of the individual Covered Person. Drawing on Cilic, the Arbitrator applied an 

analysis that first determined the objective level of Fault and then assessed subjective factors of 

Fault. The Arbitrator determined that objective ranges of Fault should be organized in three 

categories, as follows:

2 CAS 2013/A/3327 Marin Cilic v. International Tennis Federation (ITF), Award of 11 April 2014, at paras 69-73.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608725 | PAGE Page 

PUBLIC

8 of 12 * -PUBLIC 
7 

• Insignificant fault: Three (3) to ten (10) months;

• Moderate fault: Ten (10) to seventeen (17) months

• Significant fault: Seventeen (17) months to twenty-four (24) months.

The Arbitrator concluded that Mr. Poole’s conduct fell into the upper most range 

of significant Fault. The detailed factual assessment undertaken by the Arbitrator included finding 

that Mr. Poole “took no steps to mitigate his objective level of fault.” The Arbitrator then 

considered subjective factors which he concluded justified a slight reduction in Mr. Poole’s degree 

of Fault reducing the period of Ineligibility from 24 months to 22 months.

On his assessment of the applicable fine, both sides agreed with the principle that 

the fine should follow the Fault. Despite the degree of Fault established, the Arbitrator considered 

other evidentiary factors that in his view militated against the fine following the Fault in this case, 

including the absence of any intention of wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Poole. The fine was set to 

$10,000. 

Finally, on the issue of costs, the Arbitrator applied the same analysis as that to 

followed to set the quantum of the fine and determined that Mr. Poole should contribute $8,000 to 

the costs of the arbitration. 

The Standard of Review on Appeal 

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 3058(b)(1), a HISA civil sanction is subject to de novo

review by an Administrative Law Judge of the FTC. As set-out above, the review at hand is limited 

to a determination of whether “the final civil sanction of the Authority was arbitrary, capricious, 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608725 | PAGE 

PUBLIC

Page 9 of 12 * -PUBLIC 
8 

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”3 Generally, a decision or sanction 

will not be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law 

where (i) the decision abides by the applicable rules,4 and (ii) the sanction is rationally connected 

to the facts.5

Conclusions of Law

1. The August 8, 2023 decision of arbitrator Jeffery Benz (the “Final Decision”) appointed by

the Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit (“HIWU”) for the Horseracing Integrity and Safety

Authority, Inc. (“HISA”) considered and applied HISA’s Anti-Doping and Medication

Control Program (“ADMC Program”) and imposed civil sanctions of a 22-month period of

Ineligibility, a $10,000 fine, and a contribution to the arbitration costs of HIWU in the amount

of $8,000 in accordance with ADMC Program Rule 3225(a) and 3223(b) (the

“Consequences”).

2. The Arbitrator clearly considered, applied, and followed the rules of the ADMC Program.

3. The Consequences are not arbitrary or capricious. They are supported by the evidence and are

rationally connected to the evidence.

4. The evidence establishes that Mr. Poole bore a significant degree of Fault. Factors relating to

an intention to cheat and the economic impact of the civil sanction on Mr. Poole are not relevant

to his degree of Fault. However, the Arbitrator appropriately considered these factors in

3 15 U.S.C. § 3058(b)(2)(A)(iii). 4 Guier v. Teton County Hosp. Dist., 2011 WY 31, 248 P.3d 623 (Wyo. 2011) 5 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1983); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. 

Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971)

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608725 | PAGE Page 10 of 12 * -PUBLIC 
9 

exercising his discretion to establish the amount of the mandatory fine and to determine the 

amount Mr. Poole should contribute toward the arbitration costs. 

5. The Appellant’s assertion that the civil sanctions are improper because Mr. Poole’s knowledge

of and training in the ADMC Program was limited is without merit.

6. First, as a Responsible Person and Covered Person, Mr. Poole has an independent obligation

under the ADMC Program to: (i) be knowledgeable of and comply with the ADMC Program;

and (ii) ensure that employees, personnel, and agents involved in any way with the care,

treatment, training, or racing of the horses he works with are familiar with the ADMC Program.

ADMC Program Rule 3040 specifically sets-out certain obligations of the Appellant as a

Covered Person and as a Responsible Person, including “to be knowledgeable of and to

comply with the Protocol and related rules at all times... [and] to familiarize themselves with

the most up-to-date version of the Protocol and related rules and all revisions thereto.”

7. Second, and in any event, this evidence was specifically considered and relied on as a

mitigating factor in Mr. Poole’s favor to reduce his period of Ineligibility from 24 months to

22 months.

8. Mr. Poole’s appeal contesting the civil sanctions imposed in the Final Decision is dismissed

and the sanctions in the Final Decision of a 22-month period of Ineligibility, a $10,000 fine,

and a contribution to the arbitration costs of HIWU in the amount of $8,000 are affirmed.

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608725 | PAGE Page 11 of 12 * -PUBLIC 
10 

The Commission hereby AFFIRMS the Final Decision and UPHOLDS the civil 

sanctions in the Final Decision dated August 8, 2023. 

Entered this _______ day of _____________, 2023 

D. Michael Chappell

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/10/2023 OSCAR NO 608725 | PAGE Page 12 of 12 * -PUBLIC