1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

FTC DOCKET NO. 9417

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: D. Michael Chappell

IN THE MATTER OF:

JEFFREY POOLE APPELLANT

AGENCY’S REPLY TO APPELLANT’S PROPOSED CONCLUSION OF LAW

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

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

following Reply to Appellant’s Proposed Conclusion of Law dated October 11, 2023. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/20/2023 OSCAR NO 608796 | PAGE Page 

PUBLIC

1 of 7 * -PUBLIC 
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

Law and Proposed Order is being served on October 20, 2023, via Administrative E-File System 

and by emailing a copy to: 

Hon. D. Michael Chappell

Chief Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Law Judges

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington DC 20580

via e-mail to Oalj@ftc.gov

April Tabor

Office of the Secretary

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20580

Via email electronicfilings@ftc.gov 

BEILLY & STROHSAHL, P.A. 

Bradford J. Beilly

1144 S.E. 3rd Avenue

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 

brad@beillylaw.com 

Attorney for Appellant 

/s/ Bryan Beauman

Enforcement Counsel

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/20/2023 OSCAR NO 608796 | PAGE Page 2 of 7 * -PUBLIC 
3

I. OVERVIEW

On October 11, 2023, one day following the deadline imposed in the briefing schedule set 

out in the September 28, 2023 Order of Justice D. Michael Chappell of the Federal Trade 

Commission (“FTC”), Trainer Poole submitted a Motion to Accept Late Filed Conclusions of 

Law. No reason was provided for the failure to adhere to the schedule ordered, save for that Trainer 

Poole’s counsel “inadvertently failed to calendar the due date for filing the proposed conclusions 

of law as required by this Tribunal’s order.”1 On the same day, Trainer Poole submitted his laconic 

Proposed Conclusions of Law, with no supporting legal brief attached. 

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

response to Trainer Poole’s Proposed Conclusions of Law.2 Simply put, Trainer Poole has not 

advanced any arguments for challenging or impugning the detailed, rational, and comprehensive 

decision of Arbitrator Jeffrey Benz (the “Arbitrator”), which found that Trainer Poole violated 

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

possessing Levothyroxine (“Thyro-L”), a Banned Substance, and imposed reasonable 

Consequences on that basis. 

The Arbitrator expressly considered and incorporated into his Final Decision the only 

discernable argument in Trainer Poole’s Proposed Conclusions of Law, the evidence that Trainer 

Poole did not possess an intent to violate the ADMC Program: Trainer Poole’s sanctions were 

reduced from 24 to 22 months of ineligibility largely on that basis. However, the evidence before 

the Arbitrator, which was canvassed extensively in his Final Decision, was amply sufficient to 

1 Appellant’s Motion to Accept Late Filed Proposed Conclusions of Law, October 11, 2023, at para. 2. 

2 All capitalized terms not otherwise undefined have the meanings ascribed to them in the October 10, 2023 Supporting 

Legal Brief submitted by HISA.

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/20/2023 OSCAR NO 608796 | PAGE Page 3 of 7 * -PUBLIC 
4

establish Significant Fault on the part of Trainer Poole. The Arbitrator’s Final Decision was based 

on the consideration of all relevant factors, was grounded in the evidence before him, and was 

manifestly reasonable. It is clear that that evidence justifies a finding of significant Fault, and the 

imposition of corresponding sanctions. 

II. SANCTIONS IMPOSED WERE REASONABLE AND IN ACCORDANCE

WITH LAW

Trainer Poole’s appeal is directed solely at the Consequences imposed by the Arbitrator 

and enforced by HISA in accordance with ADMC Program Rule 3225(a) and 3223(b): a 22-month 

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

amount of $8,000 (the “Consequences”). This Honorable Court should only set aside the 

Consequences if they are found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, prejudicial, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law. Trainer Poole has not (and cannot) point to any argument, 

evidence, or fact that was not considered and reasonably incorporated by the Arbitrator into his 

decision and can point to no legitimate reason to challenge the Consequences imposed therein. 

A. There is No Basis to Interfere with the Arbitrator’s Decision

Trainer Poole does not allude to the applicable tests to establish that the Arbitrator’s 

decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, 

because it is apparent that this standard cannot be met. 

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 3058(b)(1), this appeal is limited to whether “the final civil 

sanction of the Authority [HISA] was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not 

in accordance with law.”3 Statutory interpretation of §706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure 

3 15 U.S.C. § 3058(b)(2)(A)(iii).

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/20/2023 OSCAR NO 608796 | PAGE Page 4 of 7 * -PUBLIC 
5

Act, 5 U.S.C. (the “APA”), provides longstanding guidance on how the arbitrary, capricious, abuse 

of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law standard is to be assessed.

Even where – as here – a review is conducted de novo,

4

and particularly where the issue is 

one of mixed fact and law,5the key criteria used to determine whether a decision was arbitrary or 

capricious is whether it was rational and based on a consideration of relevant factors.6 While the 

Court may examine the evidence anew to draw their conclusions, the determination under review 

may be invalidated pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §3058(b)(2)(A)(iii) only where it fails to “examine the 

relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.”7 This is the analysis to be 

undertaken by this Honorable Court, regardless of any level of deference ultimately attributed to 

the Arbitrator’s decision.

HIWU agrees with Trainer Poole that “sanctions imposed must take into account the 

particular facts and circumstances of the covered party’s possession,”8and submits that they indeed 

did so in this case. Here, there is no indication that the Arbitrator failed to consider any salient 

factors or evidence advanced by Trainer Poole, or that he did not engage in “reasoned decision

4 15 U.S.C. § 3058(b)(1).

5

It is a bedrock principle of review that typically, increasing deference is owed as the basis for the appellate or 

reviewing court’s intervention moves on the continuum from purely legal to purely factual questions: “the standard of 

review for a mixed question all depends—on whether answering it entails primarily legal or factual work.” U.S. Bank 

Nat. Ass’n v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 138 S.Ct. 960, 967 (2018), see generally Martha S. Davis, A Basic Guide to 

Standards of Judicial Review, 33 S.D. L. REV. 469 (1988). In this case, it is evident that the fundamental question 

relates to the application of highly specific facts to a straightforward legal standard (i.e., of Mr. Poole’s idiosyncratic 

situation to the clear and unchallenged definitions of Presence and liability under the ADMC Program). 

6 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971). Moreover, “while in theory, de novo 

review is a very different standard from that of reasonableness, in practice it is difficult to see how courts would be 

able to ignore reasonable agency interpretations in reaching their conclusions.” David Zaring, Reasonable Agencies, 

96 VA. L. REV. 135, 161 (2010).

7 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). 

8 Trainer Poole’s Proposed Conclusions of Law, at para. 13. 

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/20/2023 OSCAR NO 608796 | PAGE Page 5 of 7 * -PUBLIC 
6

making.”9 The “essential facts”10 upon which the decision was based are weighed and discussed 

at length,11 and the Arbitrator’s determinations were justified by concrete and substantial evidence, 

going far beyond a “conclusory statement.”12

On the contrary, the Appellant cites the Arbitrator’s decision favorably in his Proposed 

Conclusions of Law, failing to address the fact that the Arbitrator based the Consequences in part 

on the language cited at paragraphs 7 and 13 of the Proposed Conclusions: that there was “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.” 

Far from disregarding this evidence and contrary to Trainer Poole’s submissions,

13 the 

Arbitrator explicitly considered it as a mitigating factor when reducing Trainer Poole’s sanctions 

from 24 to 22 months of ineligibility. There is not a single other piece of evidence, factor, or 

consideration that Trainer Poole alleges was disregarded. It cannot be said that there was no 

“rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.”14

The Arbitrator examined the relevant factors and did not rely on any irrelevant data, and 

clearly articulated the connection between the facts found and the decision taken. 

9 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 52 (1983) (“...the agency’s explanation 

for rescission of the passive restraint requirement is not sufficient to enable us to conclude that the rescission was the 

product of reasoned decisionmaking”); Petroleum Commc’ns, Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1164, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

10 United States v. Dierckman, 201 F.3d 915, 926 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Bagdonas v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 93 F.3d 

422, 426 (7th Cir. 1996)).

11 Final Decision, at paras. 2.1-2.28, 7.4, 7.17, 7.20, Appeal Book of HISA (“HAB”), Tab 2, pp. 10-14, 30-31, 33-35. 

12 Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Nuclear Reg. Comm’n, 988 F.2d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

13 Trainer Poole’s Proposed Conclusions of Law, at para. 12. 

14 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines 

v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/20/2023 OSCAR NO 608796 | PAGE Page 6 of 7 * -PUBLIC 
7

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 20

th day of October, 2023.

/s/Bryan H. Beauman

BRYAN BEAUMAN

REBECCA PRICE

333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1500

Lexington, Kentucky 40507

Telephone: (859) 255-8581

bbeauman@sturgillturner.com

rprice@sturgillturner.com

HISA ENFORCEMENT COUNSEL

MICHELLE C. PUJALS

ALLISON J. FARRELL

4801 Main Street, Suite 350

Kansas City, MO 64112

Telephone: (816) 291-1864 

mpujals@hiwu.org

afarrell@hiwu.org

HORSERACING INTEGRITY & 

WELFARE UNIT, A DIVISION OF 

DRUG FREE SPORT LLC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/20/2023 OSCAR NO 608796 | PAGE Page 

PUBLIC

7 of 7 * -PUBLIC