Public

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

FTC DOCKET NO. D-9415

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: ____________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

JOSEPH PEACOCK AND OSCAR CEBALLOS APPELLANTS

RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF APPEAL 

AND APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (the “Authority”) files this 

Response to Appellants’ Peacock and Ceballos Notice of Appeal and Application for 

Review. The Authority moves the Commission to uphold the Authority’s Decision on 

Appeal (the “Decision”) and deny Appellants’ request for an evidentiary hearing, as 

it is unnecessary to supplement or contest facts in the record. Pursuant to 16 CFR 

1.146(c)(3) of this Commission’s Procedures for Review of Final Civil Sanctions 

Imposed under the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, the appeal should be limited 

to briefing by the parties or oral argument.

It is important to first identify the HISA rule that governs this case. 

Appellants’ assert the Decision of the Board of the Authority (the “Board”) failed to 

contain written findings of fact,

1 that the appeal proceeding conducted by the Board 

was guided by standards set forth in the Authority’s Rule 8340, and that a 

1 See Notice of Appeal and Application for Review, at p. 2-3, second allegation of 

error.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/26/2023 | Document No. 608144 | PAGE 1 of 10 | PUBLIC
Public

2

“preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Appellant Ceballos committed 

a violation” of Rule 2280.”

2 These arguments are based upon a misreading of the 

Authority’s Rules. Rule 8340 establishes procedures for an initial hearing by a Board 

Panel. This proceeding conducted by the Board was not a Board Panel hearing, but

instead a hearing on an appeal of a stewards’ ruling pursuant to Rule 8350. Rule 8340

and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard set forth in Rule 8340(f) do not 

apply to this case. 

The Authority’s rules clearly outline the adjudication and appeal of violations 

of Rule 2280, Use of Riding Crop. Rule 8320(a) confers upon the stewards presiding 

at the racetrack the authority to adjudicate violations of Rule 2280. If the stewards 

issue a ruling finding a violation, the ruling may be appealed to the Board: “Any 

ruling by the stewards finding a violation may be appealed to the Board of the 

Authority under the procedures described in Rule 8350.” Rule 2280 (emphasis 

added). The Board then conducts the appeal and “shall uphold the decision unless it 

is clearly erroneous or not supported by the evidence or applicable law.” Rule 

8350(f) (emphasis added). The clearly erroneous standard set forth in Rule 8350(f) is 

the applicable standard. The Board considered all of the evidence presented by the 

parties at the hearing and in post-hearing briefs, and found “there was no clear error, 

and that the stewards’ ruling was supported by evidence and applicable law...”3 Rule 

8350 does not require the Board to issue findings of fact. 

2 Notice of Appeal, at p. 2

3 Attachment A. Decision on Appeal, at p. 2.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/26/2023 | Document No. 608144 | PAGE 2 of 10 | PUBLIC
Public

3

Appellants are required under 16 CFR 1.146(a)(1) to “state whether the 

hearing is sought to supplement or context facts” and that “each issue must be plainly 

and concisely stated.” The Notice of Appeal curiously states “[a]appellants request a 

hearing to contest facts that HISA may claim it found, and to supplement the record 

with testimony of the Stewards’ witness that Appellants could not present because 

the witness did not appear in person.”4 Appellants’ Notice makes clear that the only

fact they seek to contest is whether any of the strikes to the horse were made in order 

to preserve the safety of horse and rider or were not actually strikes.

5 Thus, if the 

ALJ decides to conduct a hearing, the testimony at the hearing should be limited to 

how many strikes to the horse were for safety purposes, or were taps to the shoulder 

or mere waves of the crop, and therefore not countable strikes under Rule 2280’s 

prohibition.

6 This is the same factual issue litigated at the Board appeal hearing. 

Appellants identify no new evidence which requires the record to be to be 

supplemented before the ALJ. There is no basis for Appellants’ request to supplement 

the record on appeal. 

Further, Appellants assert the Authority denied them due process under Rule 

8340 (the inapplicable rule) because Albuquerque Downs Steward Fontenot appeared 

via Zoom. Rule 8350(e) specifically permits the hearing to be conducted “by means of 

an audio-visual videoconferencing system or a telephone audio system.” Id.

4 Notice of Appeal, at p. 3.

5 Id.

6 See Rule 2280(b)(1) (stating that a rider may “use the crop on the hindquarters to 

activate and focus the horse a maximum of 6 times during a race...”)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/26/2023 | Document No. 608144 | PAGE 3 of 10 | PUBLIC
Public

4

Appellants allege that the hearing did not allow a full presentation of evidence or the 

opportunity to conduct cross-examination.7 In fact, the hearing included a thorough 

review of audio-visual race footage. Steward Fontenot then gave direct testimony 

against Appellants for approximately seven and one-half minutes and was 

extensively cross-examined by Appellants’ attorney for 48 minutes. Appellant 

Ceballos, Appellant Peacock, trainer Todd Fisher were all permitted to testify. The 

Board held an exhaustive hearing for one hour and fifty-six minutes that allowed 

Appellants ample opportunity to present their case. The Appellants’ assertion that 

the Authority denied them the right to be heard and present evidence ignores the 

lengthy record created during the Board hearing, and Appellants’ Notice identifies no 

area of testimony that they were denied from exploring. The record is complete, and 

no supplementation of the record is required.

Similarly, Appellants have not established that a hearing is necessary to 

supplant the record. Appellants identify no “weighty, probative, and substantial 

evidence and compelling argument” that the procedure below violated 15 U.S.C. 

3057(c) or the Authority’s Rule 8300 Series.8 Appellants also far fall short of 

identifying a failure of adequate due process. 

There is no need for an additional hearing, as the underlying record is fully 

complete and was reviewed at length by the Board. Appellants have not identified 

any new supplemental evidence the Board did not already consider during the appeal 

7 Notice of Appeal, at p. 8.

8 16 CFR 1.146(c)(5).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/26/2023 | Document No. 608144 | PAGE 4 of 10 | PUBLIC
Public

5

hearing. The Board applied the appropriate standard and found the Stewards’ ruling 

was not clearly erroneous. The Authority therefore moves the Commission to uphold 

the Decision, and to limit the ALJ’s review to briefing or oral argument by the parties, 

pursuant to 16 CFR 1.146(a)(c)(3).

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 6/26/2023 | Document No. 608144 | PAGE 5 of 10 | PUBLIC
Public

6

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 U.S. First Class Mail 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 6/26/2023 | Document No. 608144 | PAGE 6 of 10 | PUBLIC
Page 1 of 4

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.”

ATTACHMENT

A

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/26/2023 | Document No. 608144 | PAGE 7 of 10 | PUBLIC
Page 2 of 4

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 6/26/2023 | Document No. 608144 | PAGE 8 of 10 | PUBLIC
Page 3 of 4

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 6/26/2023 | Document No. 608144 | PAGE 9 of 10 | PUBLIC
Page 4 of 4

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 6/26/2023 | Document No. 608144 | PAGE 10 of 10 | PUBLIC