PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

__________________________________________ 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Jeffrey Poole, ) Docket No. 9417 

) 

Appellant. ) 

__________________________________________)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DECLARE 

CIVIL SANCTIONS UNENFORCEABLE

I.

On August 8, 2023, an arbitrator appointed by the Horseracing Integrity Welfare Unit 

(“HIWU”) of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (“HISA”) issued a decision finding 

that Jeffrey Poole (“Poole” or “Appellant”) violated Rule 3214(a) of HISA’s Anti-Doping 

Medication Control Program (“ADMC”) by possessing Levothyroxine, a banned substance, and 

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

arbitration costs of HIWU in the amount of $8,000 (“Decision”). 

On August 11, 2023, HIWU issued a Notice of Final Civil Sanctions Under the ADMC 

Program (“HIWU Notice”). The HIWU Notice enclosed the Decision of the arbitrator and 

indicates that it was sent via email to the email address Poole provided to HISA, with a “cc:” to 

Brad J. Beilly, counsel for Poole. 

On August 12, 2023, HISA filed a HISA Civil Sanction Notice with the Secretary of the 

Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), through electronicfilings@ftc.gov (“HISA Civil Sanction 

Notice”). The HISA Civil Sanction Notice indicates that it was sent as a “cc:” to Jeffrey Poole.

On September 8, 2023, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal and Application for Review

with the FTC. 

On September 25, 2023, Appellant filed a motion to declare the civil sanction 

unenforceable (“Motion”), based on an alleged failure to properly serve the HISA Civil Sanction 

Notice in accordance with the applicable rules. HISA filed a response opposing the Motion on 

September 26, 2023, which HISA amended by a filing submitted on September 27, 2023 

(“Opposition”). 

As set forth below, the Motion is DENIED. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/28/2023 OSCAR NO 608667 | PAGE Page 1 of 3 * -PUBLIC 
PUBLIC 

2 

II.

Appellant argues in his Motion that for the civil sanctions to be enforceable, the HISA 

Civil Sanction Notice must have been served upon him on the same day that the HISA Civil 

Sanction Notice was filed with the FTC. Although the HISA Civil Sanction Notice indicates that 

a “cc:” was sent to Poole, Poole avers in an affidavit (“Poole Affidavit”) that he did not in fact 

receive it. Appellant thus argues that HISA failed to comply with the requirements of 16 C.F.R. 

§ 1.145. In addition, Appellant argues that HISA failed to comply with the requirements of 16 

C.F.R. § 4.4(b) because service was not also made on the counsel who had appeared on behalf of 

Poole and because proof of service in the form of a statement of the date and manner of service, 

certified by the person who made service, was not affixed to the HISA Civil Sanction Notice. 

In its Opposition, which HISA supports with an affidavit by HISA counsel, John Forgy, 

HISA asserts that the HISA Civil Sanction Notice was sent via email on August 12, 2023 to the 

email address provided by Poole to HISA, which is the same email address that was used to send 

the August 11, 2023 HIWU Notice and other notices sent by HIWU to Poole. HISA further 

asserts that Forgy did not receive any notification of the email to Poole being returned back to 

him or being in any way undeliverable. In addition, HISA asserts that it was not required to serve 

the HISA Civil Sanction Notice on counsel who had appeared on behalf of Poole. HISA 

acknowledges that a certificate of service was not included with the HISA Civil Sanction Notice, 

but argues that such failure did not prejudice Appellant in any way.

III.

Rule 1.145(a) of the Procedures for Review of Final Civil Sanctions Imposed under the 

Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act requires that if HISA imposes a final civil sanction, the 

Authority must submit notice of the sanction to the FTC no later than two days after the sanction 

has been issued for the sanction to be enforceable. 16 C.F.R. § 1.145(a). Rule 1.145(b)(7) 

requires that the notice of civil sanctions must “[b]e served the same day upon the person 

aggrieved by the sanction in accordance with 16 CFR 4.4(b) as made applicable to review 

proceedings under this part.” 16 C.F.R. § 1.147(b)(7). The record demonstrates that HISA sent 

the HISA Civil Sanctions Notice to Poole on August 12, 2023. On its face, the HISA Civil 

Sanction Notice states that it was sent as a “cc:” to Jeffrey Poole on the same day that it was filed 

with the FTC. According to the Forgy Affidavit, HISA sent the HISA Civil Sanction Notice via 

email to the email address provided by Poole to HISA. Attached to the Forgy Affidavit is a copy 

of the email sent to the email address provided by Poole to HISA, attaching the HISA Civil 

Sanction Notice. The Forgy Affidavit also attests that the email sent to Poole did not “bounce 

back” to Forgy, i.e., was not returned to Forgy as undeliverable. Poole’s mere assertion in his 

affidavit that he did not receive a copy of the HISA Civil Sanction Notice does not outweigh the 

foregoing evidence that the Notice was in fact sent to Poole at a valid email address. Based on 

the foregoing, Appellant has failed to demonstrate that he was not properly served under Rule 

1.145(b)(7). Moreover, Poole acknowledges in his affidavit that he received the August 11, 2023 

HIWU notice, which was sent to the same email address as that used for the HISA Civil 

Sanctions Notice. Furthermore, it is apparent that Poole had actual notice of the HISA Civil 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/28/2023 OSCAR NO 608667 | PAGE Page 2 of 3 * -PUBLIC 
PUBLIC 

3 

Sanction Notice, as evidenced by his filing of a Notice of Appeal with the FTC on September 8, 

2023. 

Rule 4.4(b) of the FTC’s Rules of Practice, referenced in Rule 1.145(b)(7) above, states 

that “[i]f the party is an individual or partnership, delivery shall be to such individual or a 

member of the partnership.” 16 C.F.R. § 4.4(b)(ii). The provision in Rule 4.4(c) – stating that 

when counsel has appeared in a proceeding on behalf of a party, service upon such counsel shall 

be deemed service upon the party – does not require HISA to serve Poole’s counsel in addition to 

serving Poole. Thus, any failure to serve Poole’s counsel with the HISA Civil Sanctions Notice 

would not render the civil sanctions unenforceable. 

Finally, Rule 1.145(b)(7) requires that the notice of civil sanctions be served “in 

accordance with 16 CFR 4.4(b) . . .” The provision that “documents presented for filing shall 

contain proof of service in the form of a statement of the date and manner of service and of the 

names of the persons served, certified by the person who made service” is set forth in 16 C.F.R. 

§ 4.4(d), not § 4.4(b). Thus, while HISA failed to comply with this requirement, such failure

does not render the civil sanctions unenforceable. 

For the above stated reasons, Appellant’s Motion is DENIED.

ORDERED: 

 D. Michael Chappell

 Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: September 28, 2023 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/28/2023 OSCAR NO 608667 | PAGE Page 3 of 3 * -PUBLIC