UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE

COMMISSION MATTER NO. 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: ----------

COMMISSIONERS: Lina M. Khan, Chair

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 

Alvaro Bedoya

IN THE MATTER OF:

JEFFREY POOLE 

APPELLANT

NOTICE OFAPPEAL AND APPLICATION FOR

REVIEW

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 3051 et seq., including§ 3058(b), 5 U.S.C. § 556 et seq., and 16 

CFR 1.145 et seq., including § 1.146, aggrieved Appellant Jeffrey Poole gives notice that he 

hereby appeals the August 10, 2023 decision of the Arbitrator appointed by the Horseracing 

Integrity Welfare Unit (“HIWU”) of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority ("HISA") 

in HIWU Case No. 2022-00431 which imposed civil sanctions consisting of a 22 month 

suspension, a $10,000 fine, 50 percent of the arbitration costs and $8,000 of HIWU’s share of 

the arbitration costs, as well as any underlying findings of fact and conclusions of law reached 

by the arbitrator in the proceeding below. A copy of the Final Decision (“Final Decision”) of 

the Arbitrator is annexed hereto. 

Appellant challenges the Arbitrator’s Final Decision and request de novo review 

under 15 U.S.C. § 3058(b)(l)-(3) and 16 C.F.R. 1.l 46(b)-for multiple reasons.

First, the arbitrator wrongfully concluded that possession of the banned substance Thyro-L 

was a “strict liability” offense. The testimony of Mr. Poole established that he did not consciously 

know that he had constructive possession of the remainder of the container of the medication that had 

been lawfully prescribed for a horse that he no longer trained at a time when Thyro-L, a therapeutic 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 1 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
medication had not yet been deemed a banned substance by HISA or HIWU. 

Second, the penalty assessed was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, prejudicial,

or otherwise not in accordance with law. As the Arbitrator expressly found, 1) that Mr. Poole 

was inexperienced with HISA’s Anti-Doping Medication Control program (“ADMC”), 2) 

that he had received limited training of the ADMC program, and 3) that there was the 

“absence of any impermissible use of the substance in question or any violation other than 

the Possession itself.”

Pursuant to 16 CPR l.146(a)(l), Appellant request an evidentiary hearing. Appellant request 

a hearing to contest facts that the Arbitrator claimed he found, and to supplement the record with 

testimony of Mr. Poole.

Further, pursuant to 16 CFR 1.148, Appellants request a stay of the Final Award civil 

sanctions during the pendency of the Administrative Law Judge's review. 

Respectfully Submitted,

BEILLY & STROHSAHL, P.A.

1144 S.E. 3rd Avenue

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316

Telephone 954-763-7000

Facsimile 954-525-0404

/s/ Bradford J. Beilly__________

Bradford J. Beilly

Fla. Bar No. 310328

brad@beillylaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 16 CFR 1.146(a) and 16 CFR 4.4(b), a copy of the forgoing is being 

served this 8th day of September 2023 via First Class mail and electronic mail upon the

following:

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Suite CC-5610 

Washington. DC 20580

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 2 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
Hon. D. Michael Chappell Chief

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Law Judges 

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580

(Courtesy copies via e-mail to oalj@ftc.gov and electronicfilings@ftc.gov)

John L. Forgy

Counsel, Horseracing Integrity and Safety 

Authority 40 I West Main Street, Suite 222

Lexington, KY 40507 

johnforgyl@gmail.com

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 3 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

1

BEFORE THE HORSERACING INTEGRITY AND SAFETY AUTHORITY’S ANTIDOPING AND MEDICATION CONTROL PROGRAM ARBITRATION PANEL

ADMINISTERED BY JAMS, CASE NO. 1501000576

In the Matter of the Arbitration Between:

HORSERACING INTEGRITY WELFARE UNIT (“HIWU” or “Claimant”),

Claimant

v.

JEFFREY POOLE (“Mr. Poole” or “Respondent”),

Respondent.

FINAL DECISION

I, THE UNDERSIGNED ARBITRATOR, having been designated, and having been duly 

sworn, and having duly heard the allegations, arguments, submissions, proofs, and evidence 

submitted by the Parties, after a full evidentiary hearing occurring in person in Hallandale, 

Florida on July 26, 2023, pursuant to the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 and its 

implementing regulations, do hereby FIND and DECIDE as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This case involves allegations of possession of a prohibited substance by a trainer 

of thoroughbred racehorses.

1.2 HIWU is the United States government-recognized entity responsible for sample 

collection and results management in the anti-doping testing of thoroughbred racehorses in the 

United States, pursuant to the Horseracing Integrity Act of 2020, 15 U.S.C. secs. 3051-3060. 

HIWU was represented initially by Allison Farrell, Esq., Senior Litigation Counsel of HIWU, 

who was later joined by James Bunting, Esq., of Tyr, LLP, of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

1.3 Mr. Poole is a high-level trainer of thoroughbred racehorses based currently at 

Gulfstream Park, in Hallandale, Florida. Mr. Poole was represented in these proceedings by 

Bradford Beilly, Esq. of Beilly & Strohsahl, P.A., based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

1.4 Throughout this Final Decision, HIWU and Mr. Poole shall be referred to 

individually as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 4 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

2

II. THE FACTS

2.1 Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties’ 

written submissions, pleadings, and evidence adduced at the hearing. Additional facts and 

allegations found in the Parties’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence may be set out, 

where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. While the Arbitrator has 

considered all of the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties 

in the present proceedings, the Arbitrator refers in this Final Decision only to the submissions 

and evidence the Arbitrator considers necessary to explain his reasoning. Except as noted, the 

facts are generally not in dispute, though the legal effect of those facts might be.

The Facts According to HIWU

2.2 On Friday June 2, 2023, at approximately 6:35 a.m., Senior Regulatory Veterinarian 

Dr. Carlos Aponte contacted Gulfstream Park’s Lead Security Supervisor, Denis Roman,

requesting a search of Barn 5, which was assigned to Thoroughbred Trainer Mr. Poole. Dr. 

Aponte had received a tip that Mr. Poole was in possession of Banned Substance Levothyroxine, 

which was branded under the name “Thyro-L.”

2.3 Approximately two hours later during the usual morning break at 8:30 a.m., Mr. 

Roman and his colleague, Security Supervisor Guido Gutierrez, met with Dr. Aponte at Barn 5. 

The security officials found Mr. Poole in Barn 5 and explained the purpose of the search, to

which Mr. Poole consented. Dr. Aponte, Mr. Roman, and Mr. Gutierrez commenced to search

Mr. Poole’s tack room/office, his feed room, and Stalls 20-29 in Barn 5.

2.4 During this search Dr. Aponte discovered a tub of Thyro-L clearly visible on a shelf

within Mr. Poole’s tack room/office. Upon discovering the Thyro-L, Dr. Aponte picked it up, 

identifying the substance inside the tub as Thyro-L, and told Mr. Poole it was a Banned 

Substance. Dr. Aponte handed the seized tub of evidence over to Mr. Gutierrez.

2.5 Upon the conclusion of the search, Mr. Guterriez and Mr. Roman took the evidence 

to the Gulfstream Park Backside Security Office. Mr. Gutierrez placed it in a Gulfstream Park 

evidence bag identified as Evidence Bag Number D0030244057, and sealed it. Gulfstream

security officers then contacted Shawn Loehr, HIWU’s Director of Investigative Operations. 

Mr. Loehr advised them that HIWU provides its own evidence bags for such purposes. The

seized evidence was then double bagged into a HIWU evidence bag which Mr. Roman obtained 

later that day from the Gulfstream Park Test Barn. Mr. Roman completed an Evidence

Report/Receipt.

2.6 At the request of HIWU, the seized evidence along with the Evidence 

Report/Receipt was shipped later that same day (June 2) via Fed Ex by Denis Roman from a

FedEx Drop Off location at 3269 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, Florida, 33021 to HIWU’s 

evidence storage room located at 4801 Main Street, Suite 350, Kansas City, Missouri, 64112. 

Upon arrival at HIWU’s office in Kansas City, HIWU Property Clerk Kelly Gilbane logged the 

evidence as received on June 12, 2023 and placed it in a numbered Evidence Locker.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 5 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

3

2.7 Mr. Poole was Provisionally Suspended for Possession of a Banned Substance

effective June 13, 2023 pursuant to a Notice Letter dated June 12, 2023.

2.8 A prescription label on the tub of the seized Banned Substance indicates that the 

Thyro-L was prescribed more than nine months prior, on September 27, 2022, by Dr. Scott Shell

of Chagrin Falls, Ohio for Covered Horse King Andres. Mr. Poole’s name, written as “Jeff

Poole,” is also clearly written on the prescription label.

2.9 Mr. Poole stopped training King Andres in or around October 2022. According to 

Equibase records reviewed by Director Loehr, King Andres last raced under Mr. Poole on 

September 26, 2022, at Thistledown Racetrack in Ohio. Beginning on October 27, 2022, King 

Andres was transferred to Trainer Rodney Faulkner and has been in training with him, in Ohio, 

ever since.

2.10 Equibase.com (in its own words, from its website, a database that records among 

other things horse racing results, mobile racing data, statistics, as well as other horse racing and 

thoroughbred racing information and data concerning horses, jockeys, trainers, and owners)

records indicate that Mr. Poole left Ohio sometime in late 2022 and moved to Tampa Bay 

Downs. It is apparent from the fact that the tub of Thyro-L was in his tack room in June 2023

that Mr. Poole took the tub of Thyro-L prescribed to King Andres with him when he moved to 

Tampa Bay Downs. The tub of Thyro-L was moved to Mr. Poole’s new barn in Tampa Bay

Downs despite the fact that King Andres had been previously transferred to a different trainer in 

October 2022 and Mr. Poole was no longer working with King Andres.

2.11 Mr. Poole raced a different Covered Horse at Tampa Bay Downs on January 7, 2023.

His last race at Tampa Bay Downs was on April 30, 2023.

2.12 Notably, while at Tampa Bay Downs, Mr. Poole participated in a presentation on

March 15, 2023 about the new ADMC Program. During this presentation, Dr. Mary Scollay, 

HIWU’s Chief of Science, discussed the Controlled Medications and Banned Substances under

the ADMC Program. Mr. Poole and others in attendance were specifically told about their 

obligation to understand and comply with the ADMC Program and that Levothyroxine, branded 

as Thyro-L, would be a Banned Substance when the ADMC Program was implemented.

2.13 Several weeks after that, Mr. Poole packed up his barn for the second time and 

moved to Gulfstream Park. It is again apparent from the fact that the tub of Thyro-L was in his

tack room in June 2023 that Mr. Poole took the tub of Thyro-L prescribed to King Andres with

him when he moved to Gulfstream Park. This tub was moved to Mr. Poole’s new barn in

Gulfstream Park even though Mr. Poole was not working with King Andres, had not worked 

with KingAndres for at least half a year, and had been specifically told prior to this move that

Thyro-L was a Banned Substance.

2.14 On May 18, 2023, Mr. Poole raced Newyearsblockparty in Race 5 at Gulfstream

Park, who won the race. Mr. Poole continued to race at Gulfstream Park, with his last start 

being on June 11, 2023.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 6 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

4

2.15 During the search of his tack room when the tub of Thyro-L was discovered and 

seized, Mr. Poole claimed that he was not aware it was a Banned Substance. Later that same 

day, Mr. Poole changed his story.

2.16 Mr. Poole called Dr. Mary Scollay, HIWU’s Chief of Science, on June 2 following

the search of his tack room and seizure of the tub of Thyro-L. Mr. Poole knew Dr. Scollay from 

her time working as the regulatory veterinarian at Gulfstream Park and he had also seen her 

recently in March 2023 when she presented to him and others about the ADMC Program. Mr. 

Poole appeared to be upset during this conversation. During their conversation, Mr. Poole

admitted to Dr. Scollay that the Thyro-L was in his tack room and he acknowledged knowing

that it was a Banned Substance. While Mr. Poole tried to explain away his possession of the

Thyro- L by arguing that it was legal under Ohio law when it was prescribed for King Andres in

September of 2022, Dr. Scollay told him that possession of a Banned Substance – regardless of

when it was prescribed – was still a Violation of the ADMC Program Rules once they took 

effect on May 22, 2023.

2.17 During their phone conversation on June 2, 2023, Mr. Poole admitted to Dr. Scollay

that he recalled being at her presentation at Tampa Bay Downs on March 15, 2023. He also 

admitted that he knew he made a mistake in possessing the Banned Substance and he

overlooked removing it from his barn. Mr. Poole further admitted that the horse for whom the 

medication had been prescribed left his barn months ago.

The Facts According to Mr. Poole

2.18 Mr. Poole does not dispute the fact that the remains of a previously opened and 

expired one-pound tub of Thyro-L was found in the tack room of Barn 5 of Gulfstream Park 

on June 2, 2023 by Dr. Carlos Aponte, an employee of Gulfstream Park. What Mr. Poole does 

dispute is the allegation that he was in actual or constructive possession of the tub of expired 

Thyro-L on that date.

2.19 Thyro-L is a therapeutic medication for the treatment of hypothyroidism in horses. 

Prior to May 22, 2023, the presence of the remainder of a tub of Thyro-L that had been 

prescribed by a veterinarian for the treatment of a thoroughbred racehorse in a tack room at 

Gulfstream Park would not have been a violation of any Florida state statute or administrative 

regulation.

2.20 On May 22, 2023, the date that HISA’s medication rules took effect, Thyro-L was 

declared to be a “banned substance” and the mere “possession” of it became a violation of Rule 

3214(a) of HISA’s Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program (Protocol) (“ADMC 

Program”). On May 22, 2023, the remainder of the previously opened and expired tub of ThyroL was situated on a shelf in the tack room of Barn 5 of Gulfstream Park. This tub remained in 

the same location and on the same shelf in the tack room of Barn 5 of Gulfstream Park, between 

May 22, 2023 and June 2, 2023, when the tub was discovered and seized by Dr. Aponte.

2.21 The previously opened and expired tub of Thyro-L that was found on a shelf in Barn 

5 of Gulfstream Park on June 2, 2023 was originally prescribed by Ohio-licensed veterinarian 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 7 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

5

Dr. Shell for the lawful treatment of the racehorse known as “King Andres,” while the horse 

was located and racing in the state of Ohio during calendar year 2022. This tub was the second 

tub of Thyro-L that had been prescribed by Dr. Shell for administration to King Andres for the 

treatment of hypothyroidism. The first one-pound tub of Thyro-L was prescribed and delivered 

to Mr. Poole on August 9, 2022. The entire contents of the tub had been administered to King 

Andres by September 27, 2022 when the second tub was prescribed and delivered. Per the 

lawfully issued prescription of the tub of Thyro-L that was purchased on September 27, 2022, 

Mr. Poole opened the tub and administered daily one scoop from the tub to King Andres in 

Ohio. Mr. Poole administered one scoop of the Thyro-L to King Andres daily for approximately 

3 to 4 weeks, until the horse was sold in Ohio to be raced under the name of another trainer.

2.22 The last time any of the Thyro-l contained in the second tub prescribed by Dr. Shell 

was administered to King Andres was in October of 2022 while both King Andres and the tub 

containing Thyro-L were situated within the State of Ohio. None of the Thyro-L in either of 

the two tubs was administered to any other horse trained by Mr. Poole.

2.23 In late October 2022, when Mr. Poole relocated the horses he was training from 

Ohio to Tampa Bay Downs in Florida, he did not know that the remainder of the second tub of 

Thyro-L, which had been prescribed for King Andres, had been transported to Tampa Bay 

Downs along with all of his tack and other lawful medications and supplements that he owned 

or possessed. The tack, medications, and supplements were all packed in Ohio and unpacked at 

Tampa Bay Downs by grooms employed by Mr. Poole.

2.24 Likewise, in early May of 2023 when Mr. Poole relocated the horses he was training 

from Tampa Bay Downs to Gulfstream Park in Hallandale Beach, Florida, he did not know 

that the remainder of the second tub of Thyro-L tub, which had been prescribed for King 

Andres, had been transported to Gulfstream Park along with all of his tack and other lawful 

medications and supplements that he owned or possessed.

2.25 Like the move from Ohio to Tampa Bay Downs, Mr. Poole’s tack, medications, and 

supplements were all packed at Tampa Bay Downs and unpacked at Gulfstream Park by 

grooms employed by Mr. Poole. The tub of Thyro-L ended up being placed on a shelf in the 

tack room at Gulfstream Park behind leg paints and salves used to address leg injuries in 

horses.

2.26 Thyro-L was legal for use in both Ohio and Florida through May 22, 2023. Prior to 

May 22, 2023, it was not a violation of Florida law for Mr. Poole to be in possession of the 

remainder of the tub of Thyro-L at either Tampa Bay Downs or Gulfstream Park as long as he 

did not administer the medication to any horses he trained at either track without a prescription. 

Mr. Poole did not administer any portion of the tub of Thyro-L at issue in this proceeding to 

any of the horses that he trained other than the administration to King Andres while within the 

state of Ohio.

2.27 Mr. Poole knew that Thyro-L became a banned substance under HISA’s ADMC 

Protocol as of May 22, 2023 when HIWU’s medication protocols took effect. What he did not 

know on May 22, 2023 was that the remainder of the tub of Thyro-L, which was originally 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 8 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

6

prescribed to King Andres in September of 2022, was then situated on a shelf in the tack room 

of Barn 5 at Gulfstream Park.

The Stipulated Facts

2.28 On the eve of the evidentiary hearing, the Parties submitted the following joint 

stipulation of facts:

“1. On June 2, 2023, Dr. Carlos Aponte, Senior Veterinarian for Gulfstream Park, 

found the remainder of a one-pound tub of the then Banned Substance Thyro-L in 

Trainer Jeffrey Poole’s tack room/office located within Barn 5 at Gulfstream Peak. 

The tub of Thyro-L has a prescription label on it dated September 27, 2022 from

Ohio Veterinarian Scott Shell and Trainer Poole’s name is written on the 

prescription label affixed to the tub.

2. From mid-May of 2022 until late October of 2022, Trainer Poole trained the 

horses under his care out of a barn located at Thistledown Racino in the State of

Ohio.

3. While training horses in Ohio, Trainer Poole obtained prescriptions from Dr. 

Scott Shell for one pound tubs of Thyro-L on August 9, 2022 and on September 27, 

2022 for administration of the Thyro-L to the horse named King Andres. Both one 

pound tubs of Thyro-L prescribed by Dr. Shell were purchased by Trainer Poole 

from Dr. Shell. The Thyro-L was to be administered daily to King Andres by adding 

one scoop per day to the horse’sfeed.

4. Thyro-L is a medication that can be prescribed by a licensed veterinarian for 

treatment of a racehorse. Prior to May 22, 2023, the use and/or possession of a tub 

of Thyro-L prescribed by a licensed veterinarian for the treatment of a particular

thoroughbred racehorse would not have breached any Florida state statute or

administrative regulation provided the Thyro-L was only used in connection with 

that racehorse.

5. The horse KingAndres wassold in October 2022 to another owner and moved

from Trainer Poole’s barn to Trainer Rodney Faulkner. Trainer Poole had no 

involvement and was not responsible for King Andres training and care after the 

sale in October 2022.

6. In late October 2022, all of Trainer Poole’s tack, medications, equipment and

supplements were moved from his barn in Ohio to Tampa Bay Downs in Florida. 

The medications that were moved included the remainder of the tub of Thyro-L.

7. King Andres remained in Ohio when Trainer Poole moved the horses he was

training from his Ohio Barn to Tampa Bay Downs.

8. On March 11, 2023, Trainer Poole executed and returned via fax to 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 9 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

7

Gulfstream Park’s Racing Office a 2023 Spring/Summer Meet Stall Application (the 

“Stall Application”) for stalls and barn space at Gulfstream Park. Exhibit C to

Respondent’s Exhibit Book includesthe following:

(i) Page 1 lists all of the horses under Trainer Poole to be stalled at 

Gulfstream Park; 

(ii) Page 3is a copy of the Stall Application filled out and signed by 

Trainer Poole; and 

(iii) Page[sic] 2 and 4 is [sic] a clean version of the Stall Application.

9. The Stall Application permits Gulfstream Park security officers to search

Trainer Poole and his tack room and feed room. Such a search could be conducted

with no advance notice to Trainer Poole. Anything that was deemed “prohibited” 

or “illegal” by Gulfstream Park security could be confiscated by Gulfstream Park.

10. On March 15, 2023, Trainer Poole attended a presentation by Dr. Mary 

Scollay, HIWU’s Chief of Science, at Tampa Bay Downs where Dr. Scollay 

discussed the pending implementation of HISA’s Anti-Doping Medication Control 

Program (“ADMC Program”). The presentation made by Dr. Scollay included the 

PowerPoint slide deck at Exhibit K of the Agency’s Book of Exhibits.

11. In early May 2022, all of Trainer Poole’s tack, medications, equipment and 

supplements were moved from Tampa Bay Downs to Gulfstream Park in Hallandale 

Beach Florida. The medications that were moved included the remainder of the tub

of Thyro-L prescribed by Dr. Shell on September 27, 2022.

12. Trainer Poole’s first start at Gulfstream was on May 18, 2023.

13. HISA’sADMC Program went into effect on May 22, 2023. Trainer Poole knew

that Thyro- L became a Banned Substance under HISA’s ADMC Program as of May 

22, 2023 when HISA’S medication protocols took effect.

14. The parties agree that there are no issues, objections or concerns raised 

about the chain of custody after seizure of the remainder of the tub of Thyro-L by 

Dr. Aponte on June 2,2023.”

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3.1 On June 11, 2023, HIWU issued its EAD notice to Mr. Poole asserting a charge for 

possession of a Banned Substance for possession of Levothyroxine (Thyro-L).

3.2 On June 14, 2023, HIWU issued its amended EAD notice to Mr. Poole asserting an 

amended charge for possession of a Banned Substance for possession of Levothyroxine (ThyroL). This letter also informed Mr. Poole that HIWU was imposing a provisional suspension on 

him effective as of June 13, 2023.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 10 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

8

3.3 On June 23, 2023, HIWU issued its charging letter to Mr. Poole asserting a charge 

for possession of a Banned Substance for possession of Levothyroxine (Thyro-L).

3.4 Mr. Poole sought to obtain relief from the provisional suspension and an 

organizational preliminary scheduling hearing was convened to set the process for that hearing

on June 26, 2023. The Parties agreed upon leaving that hearing to meet and confer on the 

process going forward and to reconvene on June 29, 2023, to set a hearing on application to lift 

the provisional suspension.

3.5 On June 29, 2023, the Parties held a further preliminary hearing with the Arbitrator 

whereby they advised the Arbitrator that they had agreed to move ahead with a hearing on the 

merits and forego the hearing to lift the provisional suspension, and they had agreed that the 

Arbitrator would serve as the Arbitrator for the evidentiary hearing as no schedule setting or 

consideration of the merits had been had on the application to lift the provisional suspension.

3.6 As a result, and based on the Parties’ agreed major dates, the Arbitrator issued 

Procedural Order No. 1, on June 30, 2023, providing in pertinent part as follows:

“Pursuant to the HIWU Anti-Doping Medication Control Program Rules 

7290 (Arbitration Procedures) two preliminary hearings were held by Zoom on

June 26 and 29, 2023 before sole arbitrator Jeffrey Benz (“Arbitrator”).

Appearing at the hearing on behalf of HIWU was Allison Farrell, Esq., and 

appearing on behalf of Mr. Poole was Bradford Beilly, Esq. (individually, HIWU 

and Mr. Poole shall be referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as “Parties”).

By agreement of the Parties (the Parties met and conferred and agreed the 

dates and hearing location as set forth herein) and Order of the Arbitrator, the 

following is now in effect:

1. Regarding Briefs and Exhibits

a. Each party shall serve and file electronically a prehearing Brief 

on all significant disputed issues, setting forth briefly the party’s positions and the 

supporting arguments and authorities, on the dates specified below:

i. Claimant’s Pre-Hearing Brief: July 13, 2023; and

ii. Respondent’s Pre-Hearing Brief: July 20, 2023.

The parties shall submit their exhibits to be used at the hearing, electronically 

to the Arbitrator and the other party on the dates their respective initial pre-hearing 

briefs are”

a. The parties shall submit their exhibits to be used at the hearing, 

electronically to the Arbitrator and the other party on the dates their 

respective initial pre-hearing briefs are due. The parties also shall 

include with their respective submissions an index to the exhibits. All 

briefs, and any witness statements, shall be transmitted 

electronically in MS Word versions to the Arbitrator.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 11 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

9

b. Claimant shall use letters and Respondent shall use numbers to mark 

their exhibits. To the extent that one party has submitted an exhibit 

that another party also intends to use (such as the World Anti-Doping 

Code or the USADA Protocol), the other should not include a second 

copy of that document in its own exhibits but should otherwise refer to 

the exhibit submitted by the other side. The Parties shall endeavor to 

agree on a joint set of exhibits to minimize duplication. If possible, to 

make the hearing proceed more smoothly electronically, the Parties 

shall file their exhibits as an indexed .pdf file such that the Arbitrator 

and any Party could click on the index and be taken directly to the

exhibit within the .pdf file of all exhibits.

2. Regarding Stipulations of Uncontested Facts and Procedure

a. In each case, if they are able to agree, the Parties shall submit a 

Stipulation of Uncontested Facts on or before the date the first prehearing brief is due from Claimant. 

b. In their first brief, Claimant shall state efforts undertaken to agree to 

stipulations of uncontested fact with Respondent and the points of 

disagreement; Respondent may respond within seven (7) days 

thereafter.

c. The Parties shall, in advance of the hearing, and no later than 48 hours 

before the hearing, agree upon and submit to the Arbitrator the order 

of witnesses to testify at the hearing that they have been able to agree 

upon; if the Parties are unable to so agree, they shall submit their 

respective positions by said deadline.

3. Regarding Witnesses

a. Claimant shall serve and file a disclosure of all witnesses reasonably 

expected to be called by Claimant on or before the due date of its prehearing brief. 

b. Respondent shall serve and file a disclosure of all witnesses reasonably 

expected to be called on or before the due date of its initial prehearing brief.

c. The disclosure of witnesses shall include the full name of each witness, 

a short summary of anticipated testimony sufficient to give notice to the 

other side of the general areas in which testimony shall be given, copies 

of experts’ reports anda written C.V. of any experts. If certain required 

information is not available, the disclosures shall so state. Each party 

shall be responsible for updating its disclosures as such information 

becomes available. The duty to update the information continues up to 

and including the date that hearing(s) in this matter terminate. The 

Arbitrator encourages the Parties to submit sworn witness statements 

which would constitute their direct testimony, requiring only crossexamination after a witness confirms their witness statement.

d. The parties shall coordinate and make arrangements to schedule the 

attendance of witnesses at the Hearing (defined below) so that the case 

can proceed with all due expedition and without any unnecessary 

delay.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 12 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

10

4. Regarding the Hearing

The Hearing in this matter will commence before the Arbitrator in person on 

July 26, 2023 starting at 9:00am local time at the conference room at 

Gulfstream Park Racetrack, 901 S Federal Hwy, Hallandale Beach, FL 33009.

5. Regarding Submission of Documents

All documents due to be submitted hereunder shall be submitted electronically 

by email to the Arbitrator at jeffreybenz@gmail.com and shall be submitted 

using the JAMS Access system. The Parties shall not communicate with the 

Arbitrator directly and alone; all communications with the Arbitrator are to 

be copied to the other side, and the JAMS case manager, at the same time as 

the communications are made to the Arbitrator and in the same form.

6. Further Disputes Process

To the extent any dispute arises between the Parties beyond what has been 

stated already, any Party wishing to bring that dispute to the attention of the 

Arbitrator shall do so promptly after such dispute arises by sending a brief 

email to the Arbitrator, copied to the other side and JAMS (and filing on the 

JAMS Access system), outlining in basic, brief, general terms the nature of the 

dispute, their position thereon, and the relief being requested with relation 

thereto. The other side shall file a response, distributed to the same email list 

(and file with JAMS Access) and in line with the original email shortly 

thereafter briefly outlining in basic, general terms the nature of the dispute 

and their position thereon. There shall be no response to that email. The 

Arbitrator will, based on these two emails, determine the next steps with 

respect to resolving the dispute.

7. Miscellaneous Provisions

a. All deadlines and requirements stated herein will be strictly enforced. 

Any deviation requires the permission of the Arbitrator based on a 

showing of good cause by the Party seeking an extension of time.

b. This order shall continue in effect unless and until amended by 

subsequent order of the Arbitrator. 

c. Unless specified otherwise herein, for all deadlines for any Party to 

take any action under this Order, the time by which such action shall 

be due for each such designated action shall be midnight Pacific Time

on the date given.

d. The Parties’ attention is drawn to the relevant provisions of the 

procedural rules that limit the liability of the Arbitrator in these 

proceedings. The Arbitrator agrees to participate in these proceedings 

on the basis that, and in reliance on the fact that, those provisions apply 

and the Parties agree to be bound by them. If any Party disagrees that 

those provisions apply here, they must notify the Arbitrator within 

seven (7) days of the date of this order in writing.”

The Parties complied with the deadlines and other requirements set forth in Procedural Order 

No. 1.

3.7 On July 19, 2023, Mr. Bunting gave notice that he was also going to be representing 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 13 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

11

HIWU in this proceeding, alongside Ms. Farrell.

3.8 On July 19, 2023, HISA provided notice that it intended to exercise its right of 

observation in the proceeding through three representatives (its CEO and two in-house counsel).

3.9 On July 21, 2023, the Arbitrator issued Procedural Order No. 2, providing in 

pertinent part as follows:

“Since the issuance of Procedural Order No. 1 herein, the Parties have made 

various submissions, including their legal and evidentiary submissions for the 

Hearing. The purpose of this Order is to address certain other matters that remain 

open at the moment:

1. The stated intention of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety 

Authority, Inc. (“HISA”) to participate as “observers” (as set forth 

in Rule 7060(a)) at the Hearing is hereby noted. The Sole 

Arbitrator reads Rule 7060(a) as not providing the Sole Arbitrator 

with any authority to address this issue, but the Sole Arbitrator 

notes that no objections were received. The Sole Arbitrator 

requests that HISA provide by 6pm ET on July 24, 2023, the 

identity of those who will participating as observers and to indicate 

whether such person(s) will be participating as an observer in 

person or by virtual means (the arrangement for any virtual 

appearances shall be made by HIWU on site).

2. The Sole Arbitrator notes the entry of appearance as a 

“representative” of James Bunting, Esq., and has received no 

objection thereto. Given that it appears that the State of Florida is 

one of only a handful of US states that approaches appearances by 

non-Florida counsel in domestic arbitrations as a matter for 

regulation, the Sole Arbitrator requests that all lawyers appearing 

in this proceeding, whether as counsel or representative, no matter 

where admitted, ensure and certify in writing that they are in 

compliance with Rules 1-3.11 and 4-5.5 of the Rules Regulating the 

Florida Bar by 6pm ET on July 25, 2023. Those rules may require 

the filing of a form by non-Florida counsel. Those rules do not 

appear to apply to an individual when sitting as an arbitrator in a

domestic arbitration in the State of Florida. The Sole Arbitrator 

invites any Party to provide any comments on any of the matters 

raised in this paragraph by 6pm ET on July 24, 2023.

3. The Sole Arbitrator requests that the Parties meet and confer and 

provide to the Sole Arbitrator no later than 6pm ET on July 25, 

2023, their proposed and agreed hearing schedule (assuming a 

hearing commencing at 9 am and ending no later than 6pm) as well 

as a list of any open issues or matters that need to be addressed at 

the start of the Hearing.

4. The provisions of Procedural Order No. 1 remain with full force 

and effect to the extent not expressly modified herein. Capitalized 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 14 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

12

terms herein shall have the same meaning as such terms are defined 

in Procedural Order No. 1.

3.10 The Parties’ counsel complied with the obligations set forth in Procedural Order 

No. 2.

3.11 On July 23, 2023, the Arbitrator was provided with notice of an unopposed motion 

filed by Mr. Poole to permit the taking of two witnesses by Zoom. As a result, on July 24, 

2023, the Arbitrator issued Procedural Order No. 3 granting said unopposed motion.

3.12 The evidentiary hearing proceeded at the Gulfstream Track in Hallandale, Florida, 

commencing at 9am local time, on July 26, 2023.

3.13 At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, both parties confirmed that they had 

been given a full, fair, and equal opportunity to present their case.

3.14 On July 27, 2023, the Arbitrator issued Procedural Order No. 4, confirming the 

closing of the evidence.

3.15 Upon the adjournment of the hearing, and the closing of the evidence, the Arbitrator 

commenced writing this Final Decision, which issued within the time required by the applicable 

rules.

IV. JURISDICTION

4.1 HIWU was created pursuant to the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, 

15 U.S.C. secs. 3051-3060 (“Act”), and is charged with administering the rules and enforcement 

mechanisms of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority’s (“HISA”) Anti-Doping and 

Medication Control Program (“ADMC Program”). The ADMC Program was created pursuant 

to the Act, approved by the Federal Trade Commission on March 27, 2023, and implemented 

on May 22, 2023. See 88 Fed. Reg. 5084-5201 (January 26, 2023). The ADMC Program sets 

out the applicable rules that govern this proceeding and ground the jurisdiction of the Panel 

over all participants. Rule 3020 providesthat the anti-doping rulesset out in the ADMCProgram 

apply to and are binding on violations by Covered Persons, and Covered Persons are defined 

under ADMC Program Rule 1020:

“(a) The Protocol applies to and is binding on:

...

(3) the following persons (each, a Covered Person): all Trainers, Owners, 

Breeders, Jockeys, Racetracks, Veterinarians, Persons licensed by a State Racing 

Commission, and the agents, assigns, and employees of such Persons; any other 

Persons required to be registered with the Authority; and any other horse support 

personnel who are engaged in the care, treatment, training, or racing of Covered

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 15 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

13

Horses.”

4.2 Pursuant to section 3054 of the Act, “Covered Persons” must register with the

Authority. However, they are bound by the Protocol by undertaking the activity (or activities) 

that make(s) them a Covered Person, whether or not they register with the Authority.

4.3 ADMC Program Rule 3030(a) further defines a “Responsible Person” to mean: “the 

Trainer of the Covered Horse.”

4.4 Mr. Poole is a Trainer who is required to be and is registered with HISA. As such, 

the Respondent is both a “Responsible Person” and a Covered Person who is bound by and 

subject to the ADMC Program.

4.5 The Rule 7000 Series of the ADMC Program sets out the arbitration procedures

governing a charged violation of the ADMC Program, providing as follows:

“Rule 7010. Applicability.

The Arbitration Procedures set forth in this Rule 7000 Series shall apply to all 

adjudications arising out of the Rule 3000 Series.

Rule 7020. Delegation of Duties

(a) Subject to Rule 3249, Anti-Doping Rule Violations arising out of the Rule 3000

Series and violations of Rule 3229 (together, ‘‘EAD Violations’’) shall be 

adjudicated by an independent arbitral body (the ‘‘Arbitral Body’’) in accordance

with the Rule 3000 Series and these Arbitration Procedures. The Arbitral Body may

also adjudicate any other matter referred to it under the Protocol, and any other 

matter that might arise from time to time under the Protocol that the Agency 

considers should be determined by the Arbitral Body.”

4.6 Where HIWU issues a Charge Letter effecting charges on a Covered Person, arbitral 

proceedings are initiated pursuant to Rule 7060:

“Rule 7060. Initiation by the Agency

(a) EAD Violations. Unless Rule 3249 applies, if the Agency charges a Covered 

Person with an EAD Violation, the Agency shall initiate proceedings with the

Arbitral Body. If a Covered Person is charged with both an EAD Violation and an 

ECM or Other Violation, the procedures for EAD Violations apply. The parties to 

the proceeding shall be the Agency and the Covered Person(s) charged. The Owner

and the Authority shall be invited to join in the proceedings as observers and, if 

accepted as such, receive copies of the filings in the case. In the context of EAD

Violation cases, the Owner may be permitted to intervene and make written or oral

submissions.”

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 16 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

14

4.7 In this case, arbitration proceedings were commenced before JAMS, the designated 

arbitration provider. Two Zoom hearings (see below) were conducted between the parties 

during which it was agreed that the Arbitrator would serve as the sole arbitrator in this 

proceeding.

4.8 No Party disputed jurisdiction here and all Parties fully participated in the 

proceedings without objection.

4.9 Accordingly, the Arbitrator finds that jurisdiction is proper here.

V. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS

5.1 Rule 3214(a) of the ADMC Program provides as follows:

“The following acts and omissions constitute Anti-Doping Rule Violations by the 

Covered Person(s) in question: . . . Possession of a Banned Substance or a Banned

Method, unlessthere is compelling justification for such Possession.”

5.2 Mr. Poole is a Covered Person under the ADMC Program. It is alleged that Mr. 

Poole was in possession of Levothyroxine (Thyro-L), which is identified on the Prohibited List 

– Technical Document as a Category S4 Banned Substance. Additionally, Rule 4415(e) 

identifies “thyroid hormone and thyroid hormone modulators” as Category S4 Banned

Substances under the umbrella of “Hormone and metabolic modulators”.

5.3 The ADMC Program defines “Possession” as follows:

“Possession means actual, physical possession, or constructive possession (which 

shall be found only if the Covered Person has exclusive control or intends to 

exercise exclusive control over the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or 

the premises in which a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method exists). If the 

Covered Person does not have exclusive control over the Prohibited Substance or 

Prohibited Method or the premises in which a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited 

Method exists, constructive Possession shall only be found if the Covered Person

knew about the presence of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and 

intended to exercise control over it. There shall be no Anti-Doping or Controlled 

Medication Rule violation based solely on Possession if, prior to receiving 

notification of any kind of any violation, the Covered Person has taken concrete 

action demonstrating that the Covered Person never intended to have possession

and has renounced possession by explicitly declaring it to the Agency. 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this definition, the act of purchasing 

(including by any electronic or other means) a Banned Substance or Banned 

Method constitutes Possession by the Covered Person who makes the purchase,

whether or not the Banned Substance or Banned Method purchased is ever 

delivered to the Covered Person.”

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 17 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

15

5.4 In summary, under the ADMC Program, Possession is established (in the absence 

of a compelling justification for the Possession) in three circumstances:

(a) By the act of purchasing (including by any electronic or other means) a 

Banned Substance or Banned Method, regardless of whether the Banned Substance 

or Banned Method purchased is ever delivered to the Covered Person;

(b) Where a Covered Person has exclusive control or intends to exercise 

exclusive control of, or over, either (i) the substance or (ii) the premises where the 

substance is located; or

(c) If the Covered Person does not have exclusive control over the substance 

or the premises where the substance is located, constructive possession will be

established if the Covered Person knew of the presence of the substance and 

intended to exercise control over it.

5.5 Pursuant to Rule 3121, the burden of proof is on HIWU to establish that a violation 

of the ADMC Program has occurred to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel. “This 

standard of proof is higher than a balance of probabilities but lower than clear and convincing 

evidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Rule 3121.

5.5 The World Anti-Doping Code (“WADC”) provides the framework for a 

harmonious international anti-doping system and is widely used in international sports, and 

expressly acknowledged as the basis for the ADMC Program. Rule 3070 provides in pertinent 

part that:

“(b) Subject to Rule 3070(d), the Protocol shall be interpreted as an independent 

and autonomous text and not by reference to existing law or statutes. . . .

(d) The World Anti-Doping Code and related International Standards, 

procedures, documents, and practices (WADA Code Program), the comments 

annotating provisions of the WADA Code Program, and any case law interpreting 

or applying any provisions, comments, or other aspects of the WADA Code 

Program, may be considered when adjudicating cases relating to the Protocol, 

where appropriate.”

5.6 The definition of Possession in the ADMCProgram issubstantively identical to the

definition of possession in the WADC (see Article 2.6). 

5.7 ADMC Program Rule 3040 sets out certain obligations of a trainer such as Mr. 

Poole, as both a Covered Person and a Responsible Person, in pertinent part as follows:

“Rule 3040. Core Responsibilities of Covered Persons

(a) Responsibilities of All Covered Persons

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 18 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

16

It is the personal responsibility of each Covered Person:

(1) to be knowledgeable of and to comply with the Protocol and related rules at 

all times. All Covered Persons shall be bound by the Protocol and related rules, and 

any revisions thereto, from the date they go into effect, without further formality. It

is the responsibility of all Covered Persons to familiarize themselves with the most 

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

(b) Additional Responsibilities of Responsible Persons

In addition to the duties under Rule 3040(a), it is the personal responsibility of each 

Responsible Person: . . .

(4) to inform all Covered Persons (including Veterinarians), employees,

personnel, agents, and other Persons involved in any way with the care, treatment, 

training, or racing of his or her Covered Horses of their respective obligations 

under the Protocol (including, in particular, those specified in Rule 3040(a));

(5) to adequately supervise all Covered Persons (including Veterinarians), 

employees, personnel, agents, and other Persons involved in any way with the care, 

treatment, training, or racing of his or her Covered Horses, including by (without

limitation):

(i) conducting appropriate due diligence in the hiring process before engaging 

their services;

(ii) clearly communicating to such Persons that compliance with the Protocol is 

a condition of employment or continuing engagement in the care, treatment, 

training, or racing of his or her Covered Horses;

(iii) creating and maintaining systems to ensure that those Persons comply with 

the Protocol; and

(iv) adequately monitoring and overseeing the services provided by those Persons 

in relation to the care, treatment, training, or racing of his or her Covered Horses;

(6) to bear strict liability for any violations of the Protocol by such Covered 

Persons (including Veterinarians), employees, personnel, agents, and other Persons 

involved in the care, treatment, or racing of his or her Covered Horses; . . .”

5.8 Pursuant to ADMC Program Rule 3223, the ineligibility, and financial penalties 

for a first anti- doping rule Violation of Rule 3214(a) (Possession) is:

a. Two (2) years of Ineligibility, and 

b. A “Fine up to $25,000 . . . and Payment of some or all of the adjudication costs and 

[HIWU]’s legal costs.”

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 19 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

17

5.9 Where a Violation of the ADMC Program is established, the Respondent may be 

entitled to a mitigation of the applicable Consequences, only where he establishes on a balance 

of probabilities, that he acted with either No Fault or Negligence, or No Significant Fault or 

Negligence. Fault is defined in the ADMC Program as:

“any breach of duty or any lack of care appropriate to a particular situation. 

Factors to be taken into consideration in assessing a Covered Person’s degree of 

Fault include (but are not limited to) the Covered Person’s experience and special 

considerations such as impairment, the degree of risk that should have been 

perceived by the Covered Person, and the level of care and investigation exercised

by the Covered Person in relation to what should have been the perceived level of 

risk. With respect to supervision, factors to be taken into consideration are the 

degree to which the Covered Person conducted appropriate due diligence, 

educated, supervised, and monitored Covered Persons (including Veterinarians), 

employees, personnel, agents, and other Persons involved in any way with the care, 

treatment, training, or racing of his or her Covered Horses, and created and 

maintained systems to ensure compliance with the Protocol. In assessing the 

Covered Person’s degree of Fault, the circumstances considered must be specific 

and relevant to explain the Covered Person’s departure from the expected standard 

of behavior. Thus, for example, the fact that the Covered Person would lose the 

opportunity to earn large sums of money during a period of Ineligibility, or the fact 

that the Covered Person or Covered Horse only has a short time left in a career, or 

the timing of the horseracing calendar,would not be relevant factorsto be considered

in reducing the period of Ineligibility based on degree of Fault.” 

5.10 ADMC Program Rule 3224 permits the reduction of sanctions where there is No 

Fault or Negligence, as follows:

“Rule 3224. Elimination of the Period of Ineligibility Where There Is No Fault or 

Negligence

(a) If a Covered Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears 

No Fault or Negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation(s) charged, the 

otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility and other Consequences for such 

Covered Person shall be eliminated (except for those set out in Rule 3221(a) and 

Rule 3620)...

(b) Rule 3224 only applies in exceptional circumstances...”

5.11 No Fault or Negligence is defined by the ADMC Program as:

“the Covered Person establishing that he or she did not know or suspect, and could 

not reasonably have known or suspected, even with the exercise of utmost caution, 

that he or she had administered to the Covered Horse (or that the Covered Horse’s

system otherwise contained) a Banned Substance or a Controlled Medication 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 20 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

18

Substance, or that he or she had Used on the Covered Horse a Banned Method or a

Controlled Medication Method, or otherwise committed an Anti-Doping Rule 

Violation or Controlled Medication Rule Violation. For any violation of Rule 3212 

or Rule 3312, the Covered Person must also establish how the Prohibited Substance 

entered the Covered Horse’s system in order to establish No Fault or Negligence.”

On the record at the hearing, counsel for Mr. Poole confirmed he was not seeking a finding of 

No Fault or Negligence, only a finding of No Significant Fault or Negligence if the charge of 

Possession was upheld.

5.12 ADMC Program Rule 3225 also allows for the reduction of sanctions where there 

is No Significant Fault or Negligence, as follows:

“Rule 3225. Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility Where There Is No Significant 

Fault or Negligence

Reductions under this Rule 3225 are mutually exclusive and not cumulative, i.e., no

more than one of them may be applied in a particular case.

(a) General rule.

Where the Covered Person establishes that he or she bears No Significant Fault or 

Negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation in question, then... the period of 

Ineligibility shall be fixed between 3 months and 2 years, depending on the Covered 

Person’s degree of Fault.”

5.13 No Significant Fault or Negligence is defined in the ADMC Program as:

“the Covered Person establishing that his or her fault or negligence, when viewed 

in the totality of the circumstances and taking into account the criteria for No Fault 

or Negligence, was not significant in relationship to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation 

or Controlled Medication Rule Violation in question. For any violation of Rule 3212

or 3312, the Covered Person must also establish how the Prohibited Substance

entered the Covered Horse’s system in order to establish No Significant Fault or

Negligence.”

VI. THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS AND CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

6.1 The Parties asserted various arguments in their pre-hearing briefs and at the hearing. 

The below is an effort to summarize their fundamental positions. To the extent necessary, the 

Arbitrator will address the various arguments that were made in the Analysis section below.

HIWU’s Contentions

6.2 To summarize, HIWU asserted that by having the Thyro-L in his assigned stall on 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 21 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

19

the date it was found, after the effective date of the ADMC Program, Mr. Poole is guilty of 

Possession.

6.3 HIWU requested the following relief in its pre-hearing Brief:

“(a) A period of Ineligibility of two (2) years for Trainer Poole as a Covered

Person, beginning on June 13, 2023, the date the Provisional Suspension was

imposed;

(b) A fine of USD $25,000.00;

(c) Payment of all of the adjudication costs and HIWU’s legal;

(d) Public Disclosure as required by ADMC Program Rule 3620, in accordance 

with ADMC Program Rule 3231; and

(e) Any other remedies which the learned Arbitrator considers just and 

appropriate in the circumstances.”

HIWU “acknowledges that the Panel has discretion to determine the appropriate fine. In the 

absence of mitigating circumstances, however, the Agency submits that it is appropriate in 

each case to impose a $25,000.00 fine.” At the evidentiary hearing, HIWU and Mr. Poole’s 

counsel asserted the view that the fine follows the fault; in other words, given the “up to” 

language, the amount of the fine should be commensurate with any corresponding level of 

fault finding. Also at the evidentiary hearing, HIWU agreed that it was no longer seeking a 

contribution toward its legal fees.

Mr. Poole’s Contentions

6.4 Mr. Poole’s position is as follows:

“The ultimate issue in this arbitration is whether Mr. Poole was in 

constructive possession of the partially used tub of Thyro-L that was found in the 

tack room of Barn 5 of Gulfstream Park on June 2, 2023. In order to be in 

constructive possession, the first step in the analysis is whether Mr. Poole had 

exclusive possession of the tack room in Barn 5. The stall application signed by Mr. 

Poole prior to his May 2023 arrival at Gulfstream Park expressly states as follows:

8. Applicant hereby authorizes and consents to physical searches by 

Gulfstream Park security officers of his/her person and of any stall tack 

room and feed room assigned to him/her, and Applicant hereby 

authorizes and consents to physical searches of any other property in 

Applicant’s possession or area under its control located at Gulfstream 

Park, including but not limited to motor vehicles.

The foregoing paragraph 8 of the Gulfstream Park stall agreement with Mr. Poole 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 22 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

20

establishes that Mr. Poole never had exclusive possession of the tack room in Barn 

5 as Gulfstream Park employees could enter the tack room at any time.

The next part of the analysis is whether Mr. Poole knew about the presence of 

the partially used tub of Thyro-L and intended to exercise control over it. The words 

“knew” and “intent” clearly go to an analysis of Mr. Poole’s state of mind. Mr. 

Poole will testify that he did not know that the tub was situated on a shelf in the tack 

room of Barn 5. He will also testify that, had he known that the tub was located in 

the tack room of Barn 5, he would have disposed of it.

The cases CAS 2007/A/1311, Sevdalin Marinov v. Australian Sports AntiDoping Authority and CAS 2017/A/5369, WADA v SAIDS & Gordon Gilbert are 

relevant to the analysis of Mr. Poole’s knowledge and intent. In Sevdalin Marinov, 

the panel stated that pursuant to CAS jurisprudence, “knowledge” is a necessary 

element of the offence of “trafficking”, be it by “possessing”, “holding” and/or 

“storing” the banned substances. In addition, the ability to exercise control over 

the prohibited substances is required for the purposes of satisfying the concept of 

“holding, storing or possessing”. Exclusivity control is not necessary.

In WADA v SAIDS, et al., the panel stated that

a CAS panel could be persuaded by an athlete’s assertion of lack of 

intent, where it is sufficiently supported by all of the circumstances and 

context of his/her case, even if such a situation may inevitably be 

extremely rare. . .

These arbitration decisions support the concept that both “lack of knowledge” 

and “lack of intent” can be established by the testimony of Mr. Poole and an 

examination of the circumstances and context of his particular case. The 

circumstances and context of the alleged constructive possession by Mr. Poole in 

this case mandate against a finding that he had the requisite knowledge that the 

unused portion of the tub of Thyro-L was located in Barn 5 and that he consciously 

intended to exercise control over the tub.

The simple fact in this case is that Mr. Poole forgot that he was in possession 

of a portion of the second tub of Thyro-L, which had been prescribed for 

administration to King Andres after the horse was transferred to another trainer in 

the State of Ohio in late October 2022. The testimonial and documentary evidence 

will establish that Mr. Poole has extremely poor eyesight. Mr. Poole’s testimony 

will also establish that he did not personally pack the remainder of the tub of ThyroL when he moved from Ohio to Tampa Bay Downs at the end of October 2022. Mr. 

Poole’s testimony will further establish that he did not unpack the remainder of the 

tub of Thyro-L when he relocated to Tampa Bay Downs in October 2022. Likewise, 

Mr. Poole’s testimony will establish that he did not pack the remainder of the tub of 

Thyro-L, or unpack it, when he moved from Tampa Bay Downs to Gulfstream Park 

in early May 2023. The testimony will also establish that the partially used tub of 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 23 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

21

Thyro-L ended up on a shelf in the tack room of Barn 5 behind some leg paints and 

salves. Finally, the testimony will establish Mr. Poole was advised and knew that 

Thyro-L became a banned substance during early May of 2023. Notwithstanding, 

he did not see the partially used tub of Thyro-L in the tack room at Barn 5 of 

Gulfstream Park in between the time he moved into Gulfstream Park and June 2, 

2023 when Dr. Aponte found it and seized it.”

6.5 Mr. Poole seeks the following relief:

“Based upon the plain meaning of the term ‘constructive possession’ set forth in 

HISA’s Rules, Mr. Poole was not in possession of Thyro-L on June 2, 2023. 

Accordingly, this panel must find in favor of Mr. Poole. Alternatively, based on the 

facts and circumstances of this case, if Mr. Poole is found to have been in possession 

of the recently banned Thyro-L, Mr. Poole requests a finding of “No Significant 

Fault or Negligence” as the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that his level 

of fault or negligence was not significant in relationship to the Anti-Doping Rule 

Violation that occurred.”

VII. ANALYSIS

7.1 The only charge at issue in this case is one of Possession under the ADMC Program. 

Mr. Poole disputes that the elements of that charge have been met and the Parties disagree on 

any applicable punishment should the elements of the charge of Possession be found to have 

been met by HIWU.

Possession

7.2 To establish a charge for Possession under the ADMC Program, HIWU must 

demonstrate that the elements of the definition of Possession have been met:

“Possession means actual, physical possession, or constructive possession (which 

shall be found only if the Covered Person has exclusive control or intends to 

exercise exclusive control over the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or 

the premises in which a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method exists). If the 

Covered Person does not have exclusive control over the Prohibited Substance or 

Prohibited Method or the premises in which a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited 

Method exists, constructive Possession shall only be found if the Covered Person

knew about the presence of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and 

intended to exercise control over it. There shall be no Anti-Doping or Controlled 

Medication Rule violation based solely on Possession if, prior to receiving 

notification of any kind of any violation, the Covered Person has taken concrete 

action demonstrating that the Covered Person never intended to have possession

and has renounced possession by explicitly declaring it to the Agency. 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this definition, the act of purchasing 

(including by any electronic or other means) a Banned Substance or Banned 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 24 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

22

Method constitutes Possession by the Covered Person who makes the purchase,

whether or not the Banned Substance or Banned Method purchased is ever 

delivered to the Covered Person.”

7.3 In summary, under the ADMC Program, Possession is established (in the absence 

of a “compelling justification” for the Possession) in three circumstances:

(a) By the act of purchasing (including by any electronic or other means) a 

Banned Substance or Banned Method, regardless of whether the Banned Substance 

or Banned Method purchased is ever delivered to the Covered Person;

(b) Where a Covered Person has exclusive control or intends to exercise 

exclusive control of, or over, either (i) the substance or (ii) the premises where the 

substance is located; or

(c) If the Covered Person does not have exclusive control over the substance 

or the premises where the substance is located, constructive possession will be

established if the Covered Person knew of the presence of the substance and 

intended to exercise control over it.

7.4 There is no dispute that:

a. The Thyro-L product was a Banned Substance under the ADMC Program;

b. 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 

implantation of the ADMC Program on May 22, 2023;

c. 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,

before the implementation of the ADMC Program, for use by another horse 

that was no longer in Mr. Poole’s possession at Gulfstream Park;

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

had lawfully used the Thyro-L product some months before it was found at 

Gulfstream Park, to another track in Tampa, and then to Barn 5 at Gulfstream 

Park;

e. On March 15, 2023, Mr. Poole attended a presentation by Dr. Mary Scollay, 

HIWU’s Chief of Science, at Tampa Bay Downs, where Dr. Scollay discussed 

the pending implementation of the ADMC Program;

f. Mr. Poole knew that Thyro-L would become a Banned Substance upon 

implementation of the ADMC Program on May 22, 2023; 

g. Mr. Poole for all intents and purposes had exclusive us and control of the barn he 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 25 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

23

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; and

h. There was no evidence that the Thyro-L product was used by Mr. Poole on 

any horse after the implementation of the ADMC Program or on any horse 

other than King Andres for whom it was prescribed.

7.5 There was also unopposed evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing that Dr. 

Scollay directed those who listened to her presentation, including Mr. Poole, to undertake a 

“spring cleaning” of their barns and tack rooms to ensure that there were no Banned Substances 

present, and Thyro-L was specifically identified. Mr. Poole testified that he remembers Dr. 

Scollay saying this and that he simply did not do it.

7.6 Here, there can be no reasonable dispute that Mr. Poole was at all relevant times in 

Possession of the Thyro-L that was found. He admits he originally purchased the Thyro-L for 

use by another horse and he testified at the evidentiary hearing that in his business of training 

horses he finds ways to save a little money so it would be natural to retain unused medications 

for a horse even after they leave his possession in case it can be re-prescribed for use by another 

horse later, so he retained the Thyro-L product after losing possession of King Andres, the horse 

for which the Thyro-L was prescribed. He also testified that there was no practice in his 

business of transferring medications, along with possession, of a horse, in part because of 

competitive reasons (in other words, since he no longer owned the horse it might be racing 

against one of his horses and he would find no incentive to assist that horse in its future 

performances). He also testified that he alone would be responsible for feeding his horses and 

selecting substances to feed his horses and items to have in his barn, where the Thyro-L was 

found (if it was to be administered, he testified it would be administered by adding it to a horse’s 

feed).

7.7 Mr. Poole argues that he was not conscious of the Thyro-L being in his tack room 

in Barn 5 at Gulfstream Park because:

a. In light of his diagnosis of COPD, he would have others pack up and unpack 

his tack rooms and barns when he moved and he did not inventory, pack, or 

unpack his belongings himself;

b. He remembers seeing the Thyro-L in his barn at the track in Tampa; and

c. He was not conscious of the Thyro-L having made the move from Tampa to 

Gulfstream Park because he last saw the Thyro-L in Tampa and did not 

inventory the unpacking of the move or otherwise inventory or search through 

the barn he was allocated at Gulfstream Park.

7.8 Whether he was aware of the Thyro-L being in his tack room in Barn 5 at 

Gulfstream Park is of no legal moment under the definition of Possession. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 26 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

24

7.09 There can be no doubt that Mr. Poole had exclusive control over the premises where 

the Thyro-L was found. He used the space every day (with no holidays of significance) since 

obtaining the assignment of the space from Gulfstream Park. No one else had use of the space 

other than those under the direction of Mr. Poole. Mr. Poole’s use of the space was subject to 

limited possibilities of incursion by Gulfstream Park personnel or its agents, such as for 

purposes of inspections and maintenance and repairs of the space, but everyone knew, including 

Mr. Poole, that this was his space. As he testified, Mr. Poole was invited by Gulfstream Park

to move his horses there and he accepted the invitation, including the use of the barn he was 

assigned. Accordingly, the Arbitrator finds that Mr. Poole had exclusive possession of the barn 

in which the Thyro-L was found.

7.10 Even if the Arbitrator were to accept that Mr. Poole did not have exclusive control 

over the premises where the Thyro-L was found, Mr. Poole clearly intended to exercise control 

over the Thyro-L. He brought it from site to site where he was allocated barns and he admitted 

he kept possession of the Thyro-L despite the horse for whom it was prescribed being sold so 

that he could save money in the event he had another horse that needed Thyro-L and was 

prescribed it (he would thereby not need to pay for another tub of the product and could repurpose this one).

7.11 Accordingly, the Arbitrator finds that for all relevant times, Mr. Poole was in 

Possession of the Thyro-L.

Punishment-Ineligibility

7.12 Having determined that Mr. Poole committed the act of Possession under the 

ADMC Program, the Arbitrator may consider whether the standard two (2) years period of 

ineligibility may be reduced by considering whether there was No Significant Fault or 

Negligence (Mr. Poole did not seek a finding of No Fault or Negligence, but even if he had for 

the reasons stated below in finding Significant Fault 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). For a charge of Possession, unlike for charges of Use or Presence, 

there is no predicate to reaching the No Significant Fault or Negligence standard (such as having 

to show source). Accordingly, in Possession cases, once the elements of Possession are found 

to be present, the analysis proceeds directly to the fault analysis to the extent that has been 

asserted by a charged party.

7.13 No Significant Fault or Negligence is defined in the ADMC Program as:

“the Covered Person establishing that his or her fault or negligence, when viewed 

in the totality of the circumstances and taking into account the criteria for No Fault 

or Negligence, was not significant in relationship to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation 

or Controlled Medication Rule Violation in question. . . .”

7.14 The definition of No Fault or Negligence is as follows:

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 27 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

25

“the Covered Person establishing that he or she did not know or suspect, and could 

not reasonably have known or suspected, even with the exercise of utmost caution, 

that he or she had administered to the Covered Horse (or that the Covered Horse’s

system otherwise contained) a Banned Substance or a Controlled Medication 

Substance, or that he or she had Used on the Covered Horse a Banned Method or a

Controlled Medication Method, or otherwise committed an Anti-Doping Rule 

Violation or Controlled Medication Rule Violation. . . .”

In short, with respect to Possession, No Fault or Negligence is established where the accused 

“did not know or suspect, and could not have reasonably known or suspected, even with the 

exercise of utmost caution,” that the elements of Possession were satisfied.

7.15 If the Arbitrator was to find No Significant Fault or Negligence here, then Mr. Poole 

could be Ineligible for anywhere between three (3) months and twenty-four (24) months, all 

depending on the level of fault. Rule 3225(a). This is a broad range of possible Ineligibility. 

Other cases considering this issue across a similarly broad range have found it useful, 

analytically, to break the range into three basic groupings. This Arbitrator finds such a grouping 

to be useful for analyzing fault in Possession cases.

7.16 In CAS 2013/A/3327 Cilic v. International Tennis Federation, the CAS panel 

determined that such broad fault ranges can be broken down into categories of month ranges of 

fault based on level of fault and then the precise punishment within those category ranges could 

be further broken down into precise fault-based punishments on a monthly basis. As stated by 

the CAS Panel:

“71. In order to determine into which category of fault a particular case might 

fall, it is helpful to consider both the objective and the subjective level of fault. The 

objective element describes what standard of care could have been expected from 

a reasonable person in the athlete’s situation. The subjective element describes 

what could have been expected from that particular athlete, in light of his personal 

capacities. 

72. The Panel suggests that the objective element should be foremost in 

determining into which of the three relevant categories a particular case falls. 

73. The subjective element can then be used to move a particular athlete up 

or down within that category.”

7.17 Roughly adhering to the Cilic ranges here, on the three (3) to twenty-four (24) 

months overall range, the 21 months of possible periods of Ineligibility could be broken down 

into roughly three (3) seven (7) month ranges of objective fault. The period of three (3) to ten

(10) months could be described as slight or insignificant fault. The period of ten (10) to

seventeen (17) months could be described as moderate fault. The period of seventeen (17) 

months to twenty-four (24) months could be described as significant fault.

7.18 The Arbitrator determines that Mr. Poole’s conduct demonstrates that he 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 28 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

26

objectively falls into the significant fault range for the following reasons:

a. Mr. Pool was aware that the ADMC Program was new and that it regulated the use 

and possession of certain substances that may have previously been permitted.

b. Mr. Poole admits that he was told in a seminar presented by HIWU’s Dr. Scollay

(someone he knew and for whom he had great respect) before the implementation 

of the ADMC Program that the Thyro-L was specifically banned under the new 

rules and that all trainers should undertake a “spring cleaning” of the medications 

and other substances on the shelves in their barns before the implementation of the 

ADMC Program. Mr. Poole admits he did not do that.

c. Mr. Poole admits that despite having heard this presentation and noting that ThyroL was banned under the ADMC Program he was aware that the Thyro-L that was 

found on his shelf originated with King Andres in Ohio and was at least transported 

to his barn at the Tampa facility, though he was not conscious that the Thyro-L had 

made it to his barn at Gulfstream Park. He admits that he delegated the 

responsibility for packing his barns at various tracks to his employees because he 

suffers from COPD and cannot engage in most any kind of labor as a result. The 

rules are clear that delegation of this sort, of a task that he would bear responsibility 

for under the ADMC Program, remains his responsibility and the Thyro-L made it 

to the track room in Barn 5 in Gulfstream Park as a result of his delegation.

d. Mr. Poole did not undertake any review or oversight of the unpacking of the 

substances that were in his tack room in Barn 5 at Gulfstream Park or the continued 

presence of such substances while he was there after the implementation of the 

ADMC Program.

e. Mr. Poole, in his written submissions (he did not advance this position as strongly 

at the hearing), in summary, took the position that his poor eyesight contributed to 

his inability to ascertain that the Thyro-L was present on his shelf. The Arbitrator 

finds that this is not helpful to his case and is actually harmful. That he had poor 

eyesight and knew that he had poor eyesight (there were medical records submitted 

spanning years demonstrating the same) means that he had an obligation to take 

steps to ameliorate that issue so that he could meet his obligations under the ADMC 

Program and simply to be able to continue to practice his profession as a trainer. 

He cannot hide behind his long-known physical limitation, without asserting more, 

as a way to avoid his anti-doping obligations under the ADMC Program. He gave 

a statement just before adjournment of the hearing where he told the story of how 

despite his poor eyesight he was able to pass the eye exam for the Florida drivers 

license test and obtain a drivers license by simply making a physical adjustment to 

his eye using his fingers during the test. He could have put in place other methods 

or systems to allow him to meet his obligations; he could have delegated certain 

tasks specifically to his grooms (under the ADMC Program his grooms were 

required to be knowledgeable about the requirements of the ADMC Program and 

apparently, as he admitted at the hearing, were not), or he could have found devices 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 29 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

27

or methods to improve his eyesight to the extent medically available. He did not 

do any of those things.

7.19 In short, Mr. Poole took no steps to mitigate his objective level of fault. As a result, the 

Arbitrator finds that Mr. Poole’s objective fault is considerable, and significant, putting him in the 

uppermost range of objective fault.

7.20 In determining the next analytical issue, his subjective level of fault and the precise number 

of months within the significant objective fault range, the Arbitrator finds in Mr. Poole’s favor that:

a. Mr. Poole had been operating in his profession under the old system, with 

different rules, long before (decades before) implementation of the ADMC 

Program. The ADMC Program was new and no one, including Mr. Poole, had 

experience under it (though the program had been explained to him in some detail 

by HIWU representatives at a seminar he attended) and there was only one 

education session (though HIWU cannot be faulted for that given the recent 

implementation of the program), and there was no evidence that Mr. Poole intended 

to cheat or did cheat (see, e.g., CAS 2008/A/1490 World Anti-Doping Agency 

(WADA) v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) & Eric Thompson); and

b. Mr. Poole’s coming into possession of Thyro-L was lawful at the time, and 

up until implementation of the ADMC Program, and there was no evidence that he 

ever used the Thyro-L with a horse other than King Andres (for whom it was 

prescribed) or after implementation of the ADMC Program. In other words, there 

is no evidence that Mr. Poole either 1) was a cheater, or 2) kept the Thyro-L in 

his Possession after the implementation of the ADMC Program, for any improper 

purpose. 

7.21 As a result, the Arbitrator determines that Mr. Poole may benefit from a very slight 

reduction in his subjective level of fault. Accordingly, after consideration of the factors in the 

prior paragraph, the Arbitrator determines that Mr. Poole should receive the benefit of a very 

modest 2 months reduction in his level of fault from what normally would have been twentyfour (24) months.

7.22 Accordingly, the Arbitrator has no choice but to find that Mr. Poole should suffer a 

period of Ineligibility at the highest end of the range, 22 months, commencing on June 13, 

2023 (the date of implementation of his provisional suspension).

Punishment-Fine, Payment Toward Legal Fees and Arbitration Costs

7.23 Under the ADMC Program, the punishment includes, in addition to a period of 

Ineligibility, a, “Fine up to $25,000 . . . and Payment of some or all of the adjudication costs 

and [HIWU]’s legal costs”. Rule 3223(b). These consequences appear to be mandatory in their 

application; in other words, upon finding a violation, the Arbitrator must also make a finding 

on the applicable fine and the payment of the adjudication costs and HIWU’s legal costs. Here, 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 30 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

28

HIWU has taken away the need to make a finding on the latter category, specifically disclaiming 

seeking to recover a contribution to its legal costs, so the Arbitrator need not take up that issue.

7.24 Both sides agreed with the principle that the fine should follow the fault. In other 

words, the amount of the fine under the range allowed of “up to $25,000” should be 

commensurate with the amount of fault found.

7.25 From reading Rule 3223(b), it is clear that the use of “and” after the statement of 

the period of Ineligibility is conjunctive, and requires the Arbitrator to issue a fine of some 

amount “up to $25,000”. The amount of this fine, however, appears to be entirely discretionary 

with the Arbitrator (which HIWU concedes in its brief), though some amount of fine appears 

to be mandatory. This Arbitrator is of the view that the notion that the fine should follow the 

fault is a useful convention for assessing a fine in any particular case arising under the ADMC 

Program generally, particularly in cases involving Use or Presence, violations requiring intent, 

or violations that resulted in some performance enhancing effect on the results of a particular 

race.

7.26 Here, however, there was no indication of any intention or wrongdoing by Mr. 

Poole other than the Possession itself after the implementation of the ADMC Program (the 

substance came into his possession lawfully before it was banned, though it unfortunately for 

him remained in his possession after it was banned), or any benefit gained by Mr. Poole or any 

of his horses from the facts underlying the Possession violation (e.g., there was no evidence of 

administration or other forms of anti-doping rule violations involving the Thyro-L or that any 

results were affected). Given the relatively recent vintage of the ADMC Program, and the fact 

that there had been only one training session on its requirements (albeit one where the substance 

in question was specifically mentioned and a “spring cleaning” of all prohibited substances held 

by trainers was specifically recommended) the Arbitrator finds it difficult for the fine to follow 

the fault here. As it is, Mr. Poole is facing a nearly twenty-one months suspension of his ability 

to engage in training horses and a significant fine consistent with his high degree of fault would 

simply be making it much more, and unnecessarily, difficult for Mr. Poole to return to the 

business at the end of his period of Ineligibility. With the fault following the fine, the Arbitrator 

would have to set a fine at 22/24ths of $25,000, or $22,917. Such a fine, of this quantum, under 

these limited circumstances, would not enhance Mr. Poole’s knowledge of his mistakes or 

otherwise deter others from making a similar mistake.

7.27 Accordingly, the Arbitrator determines that on the limited facts of this case, 

considering the inexperience of Mr. Poole with the ADMC Program, the limited training he 

received, and the absence of any impermissible use of the substance in question or any violation 

other than the Possession itself, the fine should be set at $10,000, to be paid by the end of his 

period of ineligibility. This is an imprecise calculation but one that the Arbitrator determines 

to be appropriate under the circumstances, particularly given the ease with which Mr. Poole 

could have avoided his predicament balanced against his conduct and the circumstances.

7.28 With respect to issues of costs to be assessed, the Arbitrator notes that HIWU has 

stated it does not seek reimbursement of or contribution to its legal fees in this case. HIWU

does seek contribution to the costs of the arbitration proceeding, including the compensation of 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 31 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

29

the Arbitrator and the arbitral bodies fees. While the assessment of some portion of costs 

appears to be mandatory given the conjunctive language used in Rule 3223(b), the amount of 

the contribution toward the arbitration costs appears, like the fine, to be purely discretionary 

with the Arbitrator.

7.29 Using the same factual and equitable considerations for assessing the fine above, 

the Arbitrator determines that Mr. Poole should make a modest contribution to the arbitration 

costs of HIWU of $8,000 (Mr. Poole is responsible to pay half of the arbitration costs already), 

to be paid by the end of his period of Ineligibility. This too is not a scientific calculation, but 

one determined by the Arbitrator 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..

Publication

7.30 As part of its claims for relief, HIWU seeks an order for publication of the Final 

Decision under Rule 3231. The Arbitrator has reviewed Rule 3231, and Rule 3630 to which 

Rule 3231 refers. Those rules appear to be mandatory and provide conditions under which 

publication is required, and certain limited conditions under which publication may not be 

permitted or required. In any event, there is no action the Arbitrator can take to 1) cause 

publication to occur (i.e., the Arbitrator does not control the HIWU website or any other website 

on which publication might occur, 2) the publication would occur after the Arbitrator is functus 

officio, and 3) the rules cited appear to govern the conditions and processes under which 

publication occurs or does not occur and the Arbitrator has no power to address those matters.

7.31 Accordingly, the Arbitrator denies this request for relief (for publication) as being 

ultra vires to the power of the Arbitrator to grant. HIWU must simply follow the relevant rules 

set forth in the ADMC Program in addressing publication.

7 AWARD

8.1 On the basis of the foregoing facts, legal analysis, and conclusions of fact, the 

Arbitrator renders the following decision: 

a. Mr. Poole is found to have committed his first anti-doping rule violation of 

Possession. As a result, Mr. Poole shall:

1. Be suspended for a period of Ineligibility of twenty-two (22) months, 

commencing June 13, 2023, the effective date of his provisional 

suspension, and ending on April 12, 2025;

2. Be fined $10,000 to be paid to HIWU by the end of the period of 

Ineligibility; and

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 32 of 33 * -PUBLIC 
HIWU v Poole – FINAL DECISION

30

3. Be required to pay a contribution of $8,000 toward HIWU’s share of 

the arbitration costs of this proceeding by the end of his period of 

Ineligibility.

b. This Decision shall be in full and final resolution of all claims and 

counterclaims submitted to this arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby 

denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED AND AWARDED.

Dated: August 8, 2023

____________________________

Jeffrey G. Benz, Arbitrator

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/14/2023 OSCAR NO 608570 | PAGE Page 33 of 33 * -PUBLIC