FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 1 of 40 *PUBLIC *
Agency decision
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 1 of 40 *PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
In the Matter of
)
)
)
JASON SCOTT, DVM,
Appellant,
)
)
vs.
)
THE HORSERACING INTEGRITY & )
SAFETY
AUTHORITY,
a
federal )
administrative agency.
)
)
Appellee.
Matter No. ________.
APPELLANT’S APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
Appellant Jason Scott, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §3058(b) and 16 C.F.R. 1.146, requests
review of civil sanction (attached as Exhibit A) imposed against him by the Horseracing Integrity
and Safety Authority (“Authority”). The sanctions include a $25,000 fine, $5,000 in costs, and
(effectively) a five-month suspension.
Dr. Scott exclusively seeks review of whether the undisputed facts constitute a violation of
the Authority’s anti-doping and medication control protocol (hereinafter, “Protocol”) under 15
U.S.C. § 3058(b)(2)(A)(ii) and, if so, whether the rules allegedly violated are valid. Dr. Scott does
not appeal the computation of the length or dates of the penalty.
“The basic facts are not in dispute.” (Ex. A at 35; see Scott JAMS Closing FINAL, “Closing
Demo” at 10-15.) Dr. Scott possessed two medications as part of a pre-race protocol that was
considered standard-of-care for New Mexico’s (Non-Covered) Quarter Horses. He intended
exclusively to treat eight Quarter Horses at the racetrack on the day of the search. The record is
adequate for review with the exception of Dr. Tony Pickard’s testimony (substantially summarized
in Dr. Scott’s Proposed Findings of Fact (¶¶ 79–84)), which was erroneously not recorded and
requires inclusion by affidavit, stipulation, or a hearing to reflect his testimony.
1
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 2 of 40 *PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
Issue 1: Does the Authority have subject matter jurisdiction?
Preservation: Rule 7090 Notice of Objections (10-17-25); Motion for Summary
Disposition (10-24-2025); Respondent’s Pre-Hearing Brief at ¶¶ 20–58; Respondent’s Proposed
Conclusions of Law (Proposed Disposition A, B).
Argument: The Authority is a creature of statute and has no power except what a statute
gives it. Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Dep’t of Lab., Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 595
U.S. 109, 117 (2022). The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (“Act”) creates a regulatory regime
to regulate the care, treatment, training, and racing of Covered Horses. 15 U.S.C. § 3054(a)(B).
By its terms, the Act does not apply to conduct pertaining to the care, treatment, training, or racing
of Non-Covered Horses. 15 U.S.C. § 3054(l). Because there was no genuine dispute that the
conduct at issue exclusively involved the care, treatment, training, and racing of Non-Covered
Horses at the time and place where the medications were found, the Authority lacked jurisdiction.
Issue 2: Do the undisputed facts show a compelling justification?
Preservation: Same as “Point 1.”
Argument: Unlike other veterinarian cases like Perez, Shell, and Overly, here a Covered
Veterinarian possessed medication for standard-of-care use in Non-Covered Horses at the
racetrack on the day of the search. (Closing Demo at 3–9.) The “compelling justification” test
applied there has no basis in the statute or rules. When the term “justification” is defined by
reference to a legal defense, it means that a person “has acted in a way that the law does not seek
to prevent.” JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). The Authority
has no jurisdiction to regulate Dr. Scott’s medical decisions as to Quarter Horses in New Mexico.
15 U.S.C. § 3054(l). Because “what cannot be done directly from defect of power, cannot be done
indirectly,” the Authority cannot circumvent that jurisdictional limitation under the guise of
2
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 3 of 40 *PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
“compelling justification” analysis. Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1, 50 (1825). (See “Closing
Demo” at 19-22.)
Point 3: Are Rules 3214(a), 4111, and 4117(e) void (i) for non-compliance with rulemaking
procedures, (ii) as arbitrary and capricious, and/or (iii) as to Rule 3214(a) only, for vagueness?
Preservation: Rule 7090 Notice of Objections (10-17-25); Briefs in Support of Objection
Rule 7090 Objections (10-17-25). Brief in Support of Objection to Rule 4117(e) (10-17-25);
Respondent’s Pre-Hearing Brief, ¶¶ 63–75.
Argument: If a violation is found, the sanction is nevertheless void. Any rule promulgated
by the Authority lacks legal effect unless and until it is lawfully approved by the FTC. 15 U.S.C.
§ 3053(b)(2). The Authority must “submit” proposed rules to the FTC “in accordance with” FTC
regulations and provide an opportunity for notice and comment. 15 U.S.C. §§ 3053(a), (b);
3055(a)(1); 3057(a)(1). That submission (which takes the form of a notice in the Federal Register)
must contain a “statement of purpose” with detailed answered to numerous prompts. 16 C.F.R.
§ 1.142(a). Conclusory statements and mere assertions are “insufficient.” 16 C.F.R. § 1.142(e).
This regulation effectively codifies the common-law obligation of an administrative body to show,
on the contemporaneous record produced when taking the action in the first instance, that it
“examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for its action including a
‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” 1 The submissions for Rules
3214(a) (possession) and 4111 and 4117 (defining prohibited substances at issue) met none of
Section 1.142(a)’s requirements. (“Closing Demo” at 2, 23-26.)
1
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (citation omitted)
3
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 4 of 40 *PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
Point 4: Does the Act unconstitutionally delegate legislative power as to the “anti-doping
program” as a whole or, alternatively, as to “Possession” of “Prohibited Substances” in
violation of the legislative/public non-delegation doctrine?
Preservation: Rule 7090 Notice of Objections (10-17-25) and Brief in Support of
Constitutional Objections (10-17-2025).
Argument: The Act unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to the FTC and the
Authority to develop an “anti-doping program” for an entire industry with virtually no guidance.
See Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Consumers' Rsch., 606 U.S. 656, 673 (2025). In the Authority’s
words, the legislative scheme permits “countless alternatives.” 2 The FTC and the Authority have
unbridled discretion to determine what the “anti-doping” law for Thoroughbred racing will be,
especially in the context of “possession.”
Point 5: Do the Act and the Protocol unconstitutionally vest with the Authority and HIWU with
executive powers in violation of the private non-delegation doctrine?
Preservation: Same as “Point 4.”
Argument: The Act and Protocol vest HIWU and the Authority with executive powers to
investigate violations and initiate enforcement action. Because these private entities are not
“merely giving advice” but are exercising government power, the Act and Protocol are
unconstitutional. Consumers' Rsch., 606 U.S. at 698.
2
Rulemaking App’x Ex. 2, Fed. Reg. Vol. 88, No.17 (Jan. 26, 2023) at 5071.
4
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 5 of 40 *PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
Dated: March 10, 2026.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joseph C. DeAngelis
BREWSTER & DEANGELIS, PLLC
Clark O. Brewster, OBA #1114
Joseph C. DeAngelis, OBA #34142
2617 East 21st Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114
(918) 742-2021, Fax (918) 742-2197
Attorneys for Dr. Jason Scott
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to 16 CFR 1.146(a) and 16 CFR 4.4(b), a copy of the foregoing is being served this 10th
day of March, 2026, via First Class mail, e-filing, and/or email upon the following:
Office of the Secretary
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610
Washington. DC 20580
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Hon. D. Michael Chappell
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580
(Via e-mail to oalj@ftc.gov and electronicfilings@ftc.gov)
Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority
Samuel Reinhardt (email samuel.reinhardt@hisus.org)
Michelle Pujals, HIWU General Counsel (email mpujals@hiwu.org)
Allison Farrell, HIWU Litigation Counsel (email afarrell@hiwu.org)
401 West Main Street, Suite 222
Lexington, KY 40507
/s/ Joseph C. DeAngelis
5
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 6 of 40 *PUBLIC *
BEFORE THE HORSERACING INTEGRITY AND SAFETY AUTHORITY'S ANTIDOPING
AND MEDICATION CONTROL PROGRAM ARBITRATION PANEL
ADMINISTERED BY JAMS, CASE NO. 1501001099
In the Matter of the Arbitration Between:
HORSE RACING INTEGRITY WELFARE UNIT,
Claimant,
v.
DR. JASON SCOTT,
Respondent.
FINAL DECISION
I, the undersigned Arbitrator, having been designated, and having been
sworn, and having duly heard the allegations, arguments, submissions, proofs, and
evidence submitted by the Parties, and after a full evidentiary hearing occurring in
person and via Zoom in Dallas, Texas, on November 19 and 20, 2025, pursuant to
the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 and its implementing regulations,
do here FIND and DECIDE as follows:
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This case involves allegations of the presence of Prohibited Substances
in a van owned and occupied by Respondent, Dr. Jason Scott.
1.2
Claimant, the Horse Racing Integrity Welfare Unit ("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
1
PUBLIC
Exhibit
A
exhibitsticker.com
United States, pursuant to the Horseracing Integrity Act of 2020, 15 U.S.C. Secs.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 7 of 40 *PUBLIC *
3051-3060. HIWU is represented by Allison J. Farrell, Paul J. Greene, and Ryan Lipes
of Global Sports Advocates.
1.3 Dr. Scott is a veterinarian who treats thoroughbred and quarter horse
racehorses in New Mexico and Texas, and who resides in the State of Texas.
2. THE FACTS ACCORDING TO HIWU
A. Jurisdiction
2.1 Dr. Jason Scott is a veterinarian who treats both Covered and non
Covered Horses at racetracks in New Mexico, including Sunland Park.
2.2 Sunland Park is a racetrack in New Mexico regulated by the New Mexico
Racing Commission ("NMRC"). Both Covered Horses and non-Covered Horses race
at Sunland Park.
2.3 Sunland Park is a Covered Racetrack, and HIWU has jurisdiction over
Covered Persons and Covered Horses at Sunland Park.
2.4 The parties have stipulated and agreed that the seat of this arbitration is
Sunland Park, New Mexico.
B. The Search of Dr. Scott's Vehicle on February 13, 2025
2.5
On February 13, 2025, HIWU Investigators Brian Bennett, Lane
Ruddick, and Bret Smith conducted a search of Dr. Scott's veterinary truck at
Sunland Park.
2.6
Only Covered Horses were racing at Sunland Park on February 13,
2025.
2
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 8 of 40 *PUBLIC *
2.7
The search began at approximately 7:30 AM, as HIWU investigators
did not want to delay veterinarians like Dr. Scott on a race day.
2.8
According to Investigator Bennett, Dr. Scott was reluctant to provide
access to his veterinary truck, saying that he had to give Lasix to a horse that was
racing that day.
2.9
When Investigator Bennett mentioned that no horse was racing until
12:20 PM {and thus the earliest Lasix could be given was 8:20 AM), Dr. Scott stated
that the horse needing Lasix was housed at the Frontera Training Center.
2.10 Investigator Benne tt became suspicious of this reasoning because
Lasix administration for a horse racing at Sunland Park is not permit ted off-trac k at
Frontera; however, Investigator Bennett assured Dr. Scott that the search should
only take 15-20 minutes.
2.11 During the search, Investigator Bennett found two bottles clearly
labeled as Pitcher Plant, also known as Sarapin, and placed them in evidence as BB1 and BB-2.
a. BB-1 was found in the top left drawer of Dr. Scott' s veterinary cabinet.
b. BB-2 was found inside a blue plastic tote, which also included
hypodermic needles and other medications.
2.12 Dr. Scott admitte d possessing and using the Pitcher Plant, but he
stated to Investigator Benne tt that he only used it on non-Covered Quarter Horses
for the treatm ent of "sacroi liac issues."
2.13 Investigator
Bennett
also
found
two
bottles
of Adenosine
Monophosphate, also known as AMP, in the top middle drawer of Dr. Scott's
3
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 9 of 40 *PUBLIC *
veterinary cabinet, and placed them in evidence as 88-3 and 88-4.
2.14 Each AMP bottle stated : "Each ml contains: 200 mg of Adensoine-5Monop hospho ric acid in Benzyl Alcohol 1.5% as preservative."
2.15
Dr. Scott admitt ed possessing and using the AMP, but he told
Investigator Bennett that he used AMP only on Quarter Horses for treatm ent of
issues associated with "tying up."
2.16 Dr. Dionne Benson, an expert in veterinary medication regulations and
an experienced regulatory veterinarian, testifie d that Pitcher Plant and AMP must
be controlled by possession rules because neithe r substance can be successfully
identifi ed in post-race anti-doping testing.
C. Pitcher Plant is a Banned Substance
2.17 Pitcher Plant is explicitly Banned at all times under ADMC Program Rule
4117.
D. AMP is a Banned Substance
2.18 AMP, although not explicitly named in the ADMC Program Rules, is
prohib ited under Rule 4111 as an SO Non-Approved Substance.
2.19 A substance is Banned under Rule 4111 when it is (i) not otherwise
listed in Rules 4112 through 4117, (ii) not approved by any governmental regulatory
health author ity for veterin ary or human use, and (iii) the substance is not
universally recognized by a veterin ary regulatory organization as a valid veterinary
use.
4
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 10 of 40 *PUBLIC *
2.20 Dr. Benson testified that the FDA withdrew any approval for AMP in
1973, and no other governmental authority in the United States has approved AMP
for veterinary or human use
2.21 Dr. Scott's expert, Dr. Clara Fenger, agreed that AMP is not FDA
approved in the United States, but asserted that Australia has approved a
medication containing AMP.
2.22 But as Dr. Benson testified, the FDA bans the importation of
medications not approved in the United States.
2.23 Additionally, the bulk drug application for AMP-which was ultimately
rejected by the FDA-explicitly states that the Australian version of AMP is "not
available in the United States."
2.24
AMP is also not universally recognized by veterinary regulatory
authorities as having a valid veterinary use.
2.25 In 2015, the FDA reiterated that AMP is "neither safe nor effective for
its intended uses as a vasodilator and an anti-inflammatory."
2.26 Additionally, Dr. Benson opined that there is no scientific literature
that supports the use of AMP to treat "tying up" (also referred to as
"rhabdomyolysis").
2.27 Rule 4111 also has two exceptions: if the drug is compliant with the
Animal Med icinal Drug Use Clarification Act ("AMDUCA"), and if the drug is
compliant with the FDA's Guidance for Industry ("GFI") #256.
5
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 11 of 40 *PUBLIC *
2.28 AMP is not compliant with the AMDUCA because only FDA-approved .
medications can be compliant with the AM DUCA.
2.29 The AMP here did not comply with GFI #256 because:
a. GFI #256 only applies in narrow circumstances when no other
medically appropriate treatment option exists; however, there are
recognized, FDA-approved treatments for tying-up that include FDA
approved tranquilizers and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories combined
with fluid therapy.
b. Additionally, FDA-approved preventative medications are available for
tying up, including phenytoin and dantrolene.
c. The bottles did not comply with GFI #256's labeling requirements by
failing to state (i) the species of the patient(s) and the indication(s) for
which it will be used, (ii) contact information for the manufacturer, (iii)
name and contact information for the veterinarian ordering office stock,
(iv) an FDA-required statement about reporting suspected adverse
reactions, (v) an FDA-required statement that it is a compounded drug,
(vi) an FDA-required statement that the drug cannot be used in food
producing animals, and (vii) an FDA-required warning that restricts the
drug to use by or on order of a veterinarian.
2.30 Dr. Benson testified that, for these reasons, AMP is a Banned
Substance under ADMC Program Rule 4111.
2.31 On the other hand, Dr. Scott' s expert, Dr. Clara Fenger, asserted that
the labeling information is sometimes included on the packaging or an insert,
although she indicated she had not seen compliant packaging in this case.
2.32 Nor did Dr. Scott produce an insert or packaging compliant with GFI
#256 during the hearing.
6
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 12 of 40 *PUBLIC *
2.33 Based only on the possibility that a label with the correct information
might exist, Dr. Fenger opined that there was insufficient evidence to find that AMP
was possessed in violation in Rule 4111.
2.34 Other panels, however, have repeatedly found that Dr. Fenger is not
credible, including:
a. In HIWU v. Mario Dominguez, where the arbitrator found that "Dr.
Fenger does not have the degree of independence required of an
impartial expert offering expert opinions on the pertinent issues in this
case."
b. In HIWU v. Natalia Lynch, where the arbitrator found that "Dr. Fenger
has a long-standing and ongoing relationship with the Horsemen, which
substantially detracts from her impartiality, and thus, the persuasive
value of any substantive testimony she might otherwise offer."
c. In Per Engblom (Trainer) v. New Jersey Racing Commission, where the
Commission found that her conclusion was "flawed," her theory was
"conjecture," and rejected a state Administrative Law Judge's finding that
her testimony and expert report were "credible."
2.35 As AMP did not meet any of the exceptions in Rule 4111, it is a Banned
Substance.
E. HIWU's Notice and Dr. Scott's Explanation to HIWU
2.36 On April 30, 2025, HIWU sent Dr. Scott a Notice of Alleged Anti-Doping
Rule Violations for the Possession of Pitcher Plant and AMP at Sunland Park.
2.37 On May 21, 2025, Dr. Scott responded by letter to HIWU.
2.38 In his letter, Dr. Scott asserted that he was "clearly aware that Sarapin
[Pitcher Plant] is not to be administered to covered thoroughbred horses," and that
7
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 13 of 40 *PUBLIC *
he only used it to treat non-Covered Quarter Horses.
2.39 Likewise, Dr. Scott asserted that in "deference to HISA rules relating to
treatmen t of covered thorough breds" he did not treat Covered Horses with AMP.
2.40 Rather, Dr. Scott indicated that he used AMP only in Quarter Horses
"who exhibit acute exertion with rhabdomyolysis," and that he kept AMP on his
veterinary truck "for exigency treatmen t of quarter horses."
2.41 On June 5, 2025, HIWU charged Dr. Scott with two Anti-Doping Rule
Violations for Possession of the Banned Substances Pitcher Plant and AMP.
2.42 Dr. Scott requested arbitratio n, and the hearing was held on November
19-20, 2025.
F. Dr. Scott's Asserted Compelling Justification at the Hearing
2.43
ADMC Program Rule 3214(a) prohibits possession of Banned
Substances like Pitcher Plant or AMP unless a Covered Veterinarian establishes a
compelling justification for the possession by a preponderance of the evidence.
2.44 At the hearing, Dr. Scott asserted that he had a compelling justificati on
to possess Pitcher Plant and AMP because he used these two substances to treat
non-Covered Quarter Horses at Sunland Park.
2.45 Specifically, Dr. Scott testified that he gave Pitcher Plant and AMP to
non-Covered Horses as part of a pre-race routine that involved giving Pitcher Plant
two days before a race, and AMP one day before a race, as a prophylactic measure
to prevent tying-up.
8
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 14 of 40 *PUBLIC *
2.46
Before the hearing, Dr. Scott produced redacted billing records
purport edly of Quarter Horses showing the adminis tration of Pitcher Plant and
AMP to the Quarter Horses before races:
Doctor
Date
Oescnption
Scott. J
211125
Silrapil tnJ
Scott. J
218125
AMP 200/Adcnosme MonopllOsphal tnJ
Pltkanl. J
219125
Oral Eleciroly1es-Posl Race
-- --
Quantity
Amount
Tax 11.-43~:o,:;
.___~ = ==:----'ll.
Total:_l
---~--
2.47 Additionally, the billing records showed that Horse 47 appears to have
been administered Sarapin [Pitcher Plant] and AMP twice on the same day, with no
apparen t justification.
2.48 The bil ling records did not contain any medical impressions, diagnoses,
or treatme nt records, and Dr. Scott did not provide any additiona l medical records.
2.49 At the hearing, Dr. Scott produced unredacted billing records, which
are under a confide ntiality order.
2.50 The unredacted billing records showed 17 times (on differen t dates and
two differen t invoices) when Dr. Scott administered phenylbutazone, commonly
known as "Bute," to Quarter Horses on the day before a race, in violation of the
New Mexico
Racing Commission
Rules
and the Association
of Racing
Commissioners International Guidelines.
2.51 Dr. Scott testified that the dates of the Bute adminis tration must be a
clerical error.
9
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 15 of 40 *PUBLIC *
G. The New Mexico Racing Commission Rules on Compounded
Medications
2.52 Dr. Scott testified to his belief that the New Mexico Racing Commission
permits the use of Pitcher Plant and AMP in Quarter Horses, and that other
veterinarians use these substances.
2.53
He also relied on a text message from the New Mexico Racing
Commission's Equine Health and Safety Advisor, Dr. Joan D'Alonzo, who told Dr.
Scott after he was searched that she did not "see anything in the New Mexico rules
about there being any banned substances for vets to have in their trucks," while
also advising him that "you have to follow federal guidelines regarding controlled
substances and compounded products."
2.54 In a letter, New Mexico Racing Commission Executive Director Ismael
Trejo indicated that both compounded substances violate the New Mexico Racing
Commission's Compounded Medications Rule, N.M.R.C. Rule 15.2.6.8(8)(10).
2.55 Additionally, under New Mexico Racing Commission Rule 15.2.6.9(3),
veterinarians must submit to the New Mexico Racing Commission the name of any
medication not listed in the Uniform Classification Guidelines, as maintained by the
Association of Racing Commissioners International ("ARCI"), if they want to use it
on the backside of a racetrack so that it may be submitted to the ARCI for
consideration of classification .
2.56 During the hearing, Mr. Trejo testified that he did not believe there had
been any enforcem ent of the compounding rule against veterinarians in New
Mexico, primarily due to resource constra ints on his office and the lack of routine
vet searches by the Racing Commission.
10
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 16 of 40 *PUBLIC *
2.57
Mr. Trejo had no record that either substance was ever officially
submitted to the New Mexico Racing Commission for submission to the ARCI.
2.58 Dr. Benson credibly opined that neither Pitcher Plant nor AMP are
permitted under the New Mexico Racing Commission's compounded medication
rule.
New Mexico Racing Commission Rule 15.2.6.8(8)(10) permits
2.59
veterinarians who possess and dispense compounded medications at racetracks to
do so only if:
a. The medication is prescribed consistent with the AM DUCA;
b. The medication meets enumerated New Mexico Board of Pharmacy
Rules; and
c. The New Mexico Racing Commission's labelling rules are followed.
2.60 Pitcher Plant cannot meet these requirements because:
a. Pitcher Plant cannot be prescribed consistent with the AMDUCA
because it is not a new, FDA-approved medication;
b. Pitcher Plant cannot meet the enumerated New Mexico Board of
Pharmacy Rules because those rules do not allow for compound ing
of injectable drugs; and
c. The New Mexico Racing Comm ission's drug labeling rules were not
followed.
2.61 AMP cannot meet these requirements because:
a. AMP cannot be prescribed consistent with the AM DUCA because it
is not a new, FDA-approved medication;
11
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 17 of 40 *PUBLIC *
b. AMP cannot meet the enumerated New Mexico Board of Pharmacy
Rules because those rules do not allow for compounding of injectable
drugs; and
c. The New Mexico Racing Commission's drug labeling rules were not
followed.
2.62 Dr. Benson explained that the Pitcher Plant and AMP in Dr. Scott's
possession were necessarily compounded because neither substance is FDA
approved, and neither is available in a non-compounded form in the United States.
3. THE FACTS ACCORDING TO DR. SCOTT
3.1 Dr. Jason Scott has never used or intended to use Pitcher Plant (Sarapin)
or Adenosine Monophosphate (AMP) on a Covered Horse.
3.2 On February 13, 2025, Dr. Scott intended to treat eight Quarter Horses
stabled at the racetrack and scheduled to race on February 14 or 15, with a routine
pre-race protocol that included treatments of AMP or Sarapin, but was precluded
from doing so when HIWU investigators seized the medications.
3.3 Dr. Scott developed these pre-race treatment protocols based on his
clinical judgment, training, education, and experience after discussing the horses'
needs with each trainer.
3.4 The use of AMP by racetrack veterinarians as a prophylactic treatment
for exertional rhabdomyolysis in Quarter Horses is the uniform standard of care for
veterinary treatment in New Mexico, and has been so for decades.
3.5 The use of Sarapin as a substitute for or adjunct to chemical NSAIDS for
prophylactic treatment of Quarter Horses is the uniform standard of care for
veterinary treatment in New Mexico, and has been so for decades.
12
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 18 of 40 *PUBLIC *
3.6 Pitcher Plant Extract is a naturally occurring substance that cannot create
a change in the normal physiological performance of a racehorse.
3.7 AMP is an endogenous substance found in every racehorse (and every
living thing), and it cannot create a change in the normal physiological performance
of a racehorse.
3.8 Dr. Scott genuinely and reasonably believed that both medications were
permitte d for use in Quarter Horses in New Mexico and could be possessed at
racetracks.
3.9 Despite the widespread, open, and notorious use of compounded AMP
and Sarapin at racetracks in New Mexico, and several searches of veterinarians
carrying the medications, neither the NMRC nor any commissioner or agent of the
NMRC took any action prior to August 1, 2025, that would imply that the possession
or use of either substance was prohibited.
3.10 Dr. Scott asserts the following facts based on the testimony and the
evidence presented :
a. A billing record reflecting the dates and times of treatme nt. The
treatme nt records were reviewed unredacted at the hearing to
permit an inspection of the full pre-race treatme nt protocol for
Quarter Horses and to disclose the names of the Quarter Horses
treated, subject to a confide ntiality agreement.
b. His own testimony and witness statement explaining his pre-race
treatme nt protocols and his understanding of the rules.
c. Proof that his explanation remained consistent from the time of the
search through the completion of the arbitration.
d. The corroborating testimony of two practicing racetrack veterinarians
regarding:
13
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 19 of 40 *PUBLIC *
i. The standard of care for pre-race treatment of Quarter Horses
in training in New Mexico;
ii. The reasonableness of Dr. Scott's medical decision-making;
iii. The known uses of the medications and the historic regulatory
approaches to the medications;
iv. The medical need to treat conditions prophylactically and the
unavailability of alternatives;
v. The NMRC's historic tolerance regarding the use of these
substances, including details of NMRC searches of
veterinarians carrying these substances and the lack of
subsequent regulatory action; and
vi. Undisputed veterinary opinions that rhabdomyolysis is a
serious and preventable post-race condition that can result in
death if not treated.
e. Proof that was never contradicted, including:
i. The undisputed fact that eight Quarter Horses stabled at
Sunland Park Racetrack and under Dr. Scott's care were
scheduled to race over the next two days.
ii.
The undisputed fact that those Quarter Horses would have
been treated at the racetrack consistent with a pre-race
protocol that had been employed for at least 49 Quarter
Horses in the five weeks preceding the search .
iii. The protocol involved the use of AMP for the Quarter Horses
racing the next day, and Sara pin for the Quarter Horses racing
two days out.
iv. Dr. Scott requested the medications back specifically so that
he could treat Quarter Horses at the racetrack that day.
3.11 Undisputed Facts:
a. HIWU presented no witness testimony, documentary evidence, or
circumstantial facts tending to disprove any of Dr. Scott's
14
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 20 of 40 *PUBLIC *
explanations or points of fact.
b.
HIWU produced no document, treatmen t record, admission, or
testimony to contradict Dr. Scott's evidence that the possessed
medications had ever been used on a Covered Horse.
c. HIWU produced no document, treatmen t record, admission, or
testimony to contradict the existence of Dr. Scott's treatmen t
protocol.
d. HIWU produced no testimony on the standard of care, communi ty
practice, or historic understanding of veterinary treatmen t of
Quarter Horses in New Mexico.
e. HIWU produced no witness with any experience as a licensed
veterinarian in treating racehorses in training to contradict Dr. Scott's
evidence of the standard of care or historic understanding regarding
the use of either medication.
f. HIWU produced no evidence that the NMRC has taken any
enforcem ent action against a veterinarian for the possession or use
of compounded substances (including AMP or Sarapin) at a racetrack.
g. HIWU has not alleged Use, Administration, Attempted Use,
Attempte d Administration, or Trafficking of the medications, all of
which would have required proof that the medications were used or
intended for use on a Covered Horse.
3.12 HIWU attempte d only (1) to dispute the characterization of the
records as "medical records," (2) to dispute the credibility of the treatmen t record
itself, and {3} to establish that "accidents" or "mistakes" can happen. None of
these points create a genuine question of fact. Indeed, HIWU counsel
acknowledged on cross-examination of Dr. Scott that it "goes without saying'' that
the medications were used and intended for use on Quarter Horses.
3.13 The Arbitrato r accepts Dr. Scott's explanation that certain entries for
phenylbutazone 24 hours before a race were clerical errors by his billing staff. Dr.
15
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 21 of 40 *PUBLIC *
Scott explained that he knows them to be inaccurate because (1) they would have
triggered positive findings, and (2) his protocol requires phenylbutazone at least
48 hours before a race.
3.14 Dr. Scott is a licensed, practicing racetrack veterinarian with over two
decades of experience treating racehorses in training in New Mexico. Dr. Scott
treats Covered Horses (Thoroughbreds) and Non-Covered Horses (Quarter Horses)
that are stabled at New Mexico Racetracks.
3.15 Dr. Scott's only prior citation for a violation of any racing regulation
was self-reported when he inadvertently administered Lasix to a horse that was
not entered to race on Lasix, which resulted in a small fine.
3.16 On February 13, 2025, Dr. Scott intended to treat eight Quarter Horses
stabled at the Sunland Park Racetrack in accordance with a routine pre-race
treatment protocol that involved the use of Sarapin 48 hours, and AMP 24 hours,
before a race.
3.17 Those horses were identified to HIWU before the hearing to be the
Quarter Horses Chicks Comanchee, Chimes Effort, Kool Kue Blue, Prince of Fast,
Tren Ra, FS Stars and Stripes, Scoot Over Baby, and Jess A Bug ND Ocean, all of
which were scheduled to race on February 14 or 15, 2025.
3.18 Dr. Scott's protocols involvingSarapin and AMP are used exclusively for
Quarter Horses.
3.19 Dr. Scott has never used either medication on a Covered Horse.
16
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 22 of 40 *PUBLIC *
3.20 Dr. Scott has never "dispensed" injectable AMP or Sarapin for use by
a client.
3.21 Dr. Scott used these same protocols on at least 49 Quarter Horses who
raced at Sunland Park, most of which were stabled at the racetrack. Dr. Scott
communicated that use to his billing staff, who recorded that use in the billing
software.
3.22 Dr. Scott has used these medications in plain view of racetrack
security and regulators on Quarter Horses stabled at the racetrack for decades.
3.23 AMP is a naturally occurring substance in every living thing, and it has
no capacity to change the normal physiological performance of a racehorse. Both
parties' witnesses corroborated this fact:
a. Dr. Benson admitted that there was no evidence that AMP can create
a change in the normal physiological performance of a racehorse.
b. Dr. Benson further admitted that AMP is "obviously not" a substance
that is "prohibited in a horse on a race day" for purposes of the NMRC
possession rule.
3.24 Sarapin is a naturally occurring substance, and it has no capacity to
change the normal physiological performance of a racehorse. Both parties'
witnesses corroborated this fact:
Dr. Benson admitted that Sarapin is not a
substance t hat can affect the performance of a racehorse.
3.25 The Association of Racing Commissioners International intentionally
chose not to include Sarapin and AMP on their list of prohibited substances
because they have no capacity to influence racing performance.
17
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 23 of 40 *PUBLIC *
3.26 Both Sarapin and AMP have been in use as pre-race medications for
Quarter Horses in New Mexico for over four decades, and the medications are
used by virtually all racetrack veterinarians to treat Quarter Horses at racetracks
in New Mexico.
3.27 At the time of the search, Dr. Scott's use of AMP and Sarapin was
considered the standard of care for treating Quarter Horses before a race.
3.28 AMP and Sarapin are considered safe, prophylactic medications for
common post-race conditions, including rhabdomyolysis. Dr. Scott prefers the use
of these medications because they are naturally occurring substances that are
easier on the horse's body compared to chemical NSAIDs.
3.29 Rhabdomyolysis ("tying up") is a life-threatening condition that can
occur in response to intense physical exertion. Rhabdomyolysis causes the
muscles to tense and become "so hard, you couldn't drive a nail into them." It is
"absolutely" a life-threatening condition that causes severe pain and muscle death
and can progress to organ failure.
3.30 There is no way to predict which Quarter Horses will tie up during or
after a particular race. It is reasonable and consistent with the standard of care
to provide routine prophylactic treatment to prevent rhabdomyolysis. AMP is
commonly used in the Quarter Horse community for that purpose.
3.31 There are no FDA approved medications for the prophylactic treatment
of rhabdomyolysis in racehorses or alternatives to AMP that can be administered
with any efficacy prior to a race.
18
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 24 of 40 *PUBLIC *
3.32 In 2014, Dr. Scott submitted a list of compounded medications,
including AMP, to the New Mexico Racing Commission's Medication Committee
for classification in 2014.
3.33
The NMRC has conducted repeated searches of veterinarians at
racetracks while they were in the possession of compounded Sarapin and
compounded AMP. No search resulted in any regulatory action against the
veterinarian.
3.34
At no point prior to the search did the NMRC take any action
consistent with any belief by the NMRC that the substances could not be used for example, notices to veterinarians, investigators, or stewards, or regulatory
actions against veterinarians.
3.35 The New Mexico Board of Veterinary Medicine has twice informed the
NM RC that it has no jurisdiction to regulate which medications veterinarians carry,
and that nothing in the NMRC regulations prohibit the possession or use of
compounded substances.
3.36 Dr. Scott genuinely believes that licensed veterinarians in New Mexico
are permitted to possess and use AMP and Sara pin at racetracks in New Mexico.
3.37 In response to this action, Dr. Scott has since stopped the use of AMP
and Sarapin in pre-race treatment protocols for Quarter Horses. As a result, his
horses have suffered emergency and exigent conditions during or following a
race.
19
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 25 of 40 *PUBLIC *
A. HIWU's Search and Lack of Investigation
3.38 On February 13, 2025, HIWU Investigator Brian Bennett conducted a
targeted search of Dr. Jason Scott's mobile-practice vehicle at the Sunland Park
Racetrack, during which he discovered four bottles, two each labeled "Pitcher
Plant" and "Adenosine Monophosphate."
3.39
Mr. Bennett searched no other veterinarians at Sunland Park,
although several other mobile practice vehicles were present in the area where
Dr. Scott parked his vehicle . It is probable (a virtual certainty) that the six or more
other veterinarians at the racetrack that day would have been carrying Pitcher
Plant or Adenosine Monophosphate in their mobile practice vehicles.
3.40 Dr. Scott immediately informed Mr. Bennett that the medications
were intended exclusively for use on Quarter Horses.
3.41 Dr. Scott's explanation has remained consistent and unchanged from
the day of the search through the conclusion of this arbitration.
3.42 After the search, Dr. Scott treated a Quarter Horse with Lasix at the
Frontera Training Center. HIWU investigator Bennett mistakenly believed that the
horse was scheduled to race (which would make the treatment a violation). Dr.
Scott explained that the horse was scheduled to "work," not "race."
3.43 After completing the Lasix treatment, he called NMRC Equine Medical
Adviser, Dr. Joan D'Alonzo, who informed him that the NMRC had no rules
prohibiting the possession of substances by veterinarians.
3.44 Within hours, Dr. Scott confronted Mr. Bennett at the Sunland Park
Test Barn and requested he return the medication specifically so that he could
20
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 26 of 40 *PUBLIC *
render treatment to non-Covered Quarter Horses stabled at the racetrack.
3.45 Mr. Bennett refused to return the medications, thereby preventing
the treatments from occurring.
3.46
HIWU investigator Bennett admitted that he conducted no
investigation whatsoever into the circumstances of Dr. Scott's use of the
medications and had no evidence that Dr. Scott ever used either medication on a
Covered Horse.
3.47 Dr. Benson admitted that the identity of compounded substances can
be proved only through testing. Even so, HIWU never confirmed the identity of
the seized medications through testing.
3.48 HIWU never confirmed, or attempted to confirm, the contents of the
bottles with the manufacturer.
3.49 The labels on the seized medications incorporate by reference an
"accompanying insert." As a matter of routine, Dr. Scott discarded the package
insert when he discarded the boxes in which the Sara pin or AMP were shipped to
him.
3.50 To this day, HIWU has never asked Dr. Scott to produce the package
insert.
3.51 HIWU did not raise an issue with labelling in either its "EAD Notice" or
the "EAD Charge Letter." The first time HIWU raised a labelling issue was in early
August 2025 when HIWU submitted its pre-hearing brief.
3.52 By that time, Dr. Scott had stopped using both medications and, thus,
21
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 27 of 40 *PUBLIC *
did not have the insert available.
3.53 HIWU interviewed no knowledgeable w itnesses, including trainers,
staff, owners, or practicing racetrack veterinarians who would be familiar w ith the
use of AMP or Sarapin in New Mexico or in Dr. Scott's practice.
3.54 HIWU's " investigation" was comprised solely of an ex parte phone call
with Ismael Trejo. Mr. Trejo originally took a position of non-involvement in this
matter, but he changed that position at HIWU's request because he and HIWU
have a "partnership."
3.55 Mr. Trejo's opinion was drafted by HIWU prosecutor Allison Farrell.
Making only typographical edits, he signed a letter drafted by HIWU attorney
Allison Farrell taking the position that AMP and Sarapin were prohibited in New
Mexico.
3.56 By Mr. Trejo's admission, he was only "somewhat familiar" with NMRC
regulations.
3.57 Mr. Trejo did not seek Dr. Scott's input adopting HIWU's opinion as to
the applicability of NMRC regulations to compounded AMP or Sarapin.
3.58 The NMRC has taken no action against veterinarians - including Dr.
Scott - for the possession or use of compounded, injectable Sarapin or AMP, a
fact Mr. Trejo confirmed.
B. HISA's Lack of Guidance for Possession for a Non-Covered
Practice at a Racetrack
3.59 The ADMC Protocol provides no specific guidance for the Possession
22
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 28 of 40 *PUBLIC *
of an allegedly Banned Substance intended for use on non-Covered Quarter
Horses stabled at a Covered Racetrack.
3.60
Prior to the Search on February 13, 2025, HIWU's former Chief
Scientist, Dr. Mary Scollay, had issued the following guidance for veterinarians:
" . . . {l]f the veterinarians are practicing also on a
population of[N]on-Covered Horses, they're taking care
of quarter horses or they've got a country practice part
time they are able to possess a Banned Substance
because we don't have control over those horses, and so
to the extent that they want to use bisphosphonates on
a Non-Covered Horse, we can't ban them from
possessing them... [W]e can't penalize people for
something that we don't have control over so, you know,
Jet's just say because we have the ability to investigate,
if the story starts to get a little weird or a little extreme,
you're going to get more than a raised eyebrow. But at
the end of the day if someone is practicing out in the
country, we don't have the authority to control the
medications they administer or carry for Non-Covered
Horses . . . [T]he regulation addresses if there is a
justification for them to be in Possession of a Banned
Substance and certainly a practice that incorporates
Non-Cov ered horses."
Hf WU v. Shell, JAMS Case No. 1501000653, ,i 2.23.
3.61 Prior to the Search on February 13, 2025, HISA's Regulatory Veterinarian
Handbook described the ADMC Protocol as a "horse-centric approach to
regulation" with "a set of rules that follow the Covered Horse," as opposed to a
set of rules that applies "to people and horses when they arrive[] at the racetrack
grounds."
23
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 29 of 40 *PUBLIC *
3.62 Prior to the Search on February 13, 2025, neither HISA nor HIWU had
issued any formal or informal guidance identifying specific actions a racetrack
veterinarian should take to comply with the Possession Rule if a Non-Covered
Practice at the racetrack includes the use of Banned Substances.
3.63 To this day, neither HISA nor HIWU has issued any formal or informal
guidance identifying specific actions a racetrack veterinarian should take to
comply with the Possession Rule if a Non-Covered Practice at the racetrack
includes the use of Banned Substances.
3.64 In July 2025, Dr. Scott was considering purchasing Sarapin for use in
Quarter Horses. Realizing that such act would constitute "Possession," he asked
for guidance from HIWU on the specific steps regarding how to conduct himself.
HIWU responded only that he would need to have a "compelling justification" for
possessing the substance.
C. Scope and Credibility of Witness Testimony
3.65 HIWU offered the following witnesses to give legal opinions:
a. HIWU offered the testimony of Ismael Trejo, Executive Director of the
NMRC, to speak to his understanding of NMRC regulations.
b. HIWU offered the testimony of Dr. Dionne Benson to speak to her
understanding of (1) the legal meaning of laws, including the ADMC
Protocol, AMDUCA, GFl#256, federal and state compounding
regulations, federal and state labelling regulations, NMRC's
"possession" regulations, federal and state "pharmacy" regulations,
and New Mexico's legal requirements for "medical records"; and (2)
whether Dr. Scott's conduct complied with these laws.
24
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 30 of 40 *PUBLIC *
3.66 A purported expert's legal opinion is not evidence and cannot be
considered as evidence of the correct meaning or the correct application of the
law.
3.67 Mr. Trejo's letter, though submitted on NMRC letterhead, was not the
product of an agency adjudication, rulemaking, or agency declaration under
NMAC 15.2.1.101.
3.68 Mr. Trejo's testimony is entitled to no weight.
3.69 Mr. Trejo demonstrated a complete lack of awareness about pertinent
facts.
3.70 Mr. Trejo ultimately testified to no factual issue in dispute, and he
expressly disclaimed any ability to do so.
3.71 The Arbitrato r finds that Dr. Benson did not testify as an independent
expert. Dr. Benson sat with HIWU's attorneys through the entire hearing, passed
notes to HIWU attorneys during examinations, and otherwise participated with
HIWU as part of their trial team througho ut the course of the hearing.
3.72 Dr. Benson openly admitted that she formed her opinions based on
incomplete facts and chose not to review relevant evidence, such as Dr. Scott's
detailed witness statement explaining his protocol.
3.73 Dr. Benson offered no testimony regarding the standard of care for
the pre-race treatmen t of Quarter Horses in New Mexico.
3.74 Dr. Benson agreed with Dr. Scott's experts on the following points:
25
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 31 of 40 *PUBLIC *
a. Dr. Benson admitted that "compou nding" a substance does not make
a substance a "prohibite d substance" as that term is defined by New
Mexico Racing Commission regulations.
b. Dr. Benson admitted that there was no evidence that AMP can create
a change in the normal physiological performance of a racehorse.
c. She further admitted that AMP is "obviously not" a substance that is
"prohibite d in a horse on a race day" for purposes of the possession
rule.
d. Dr. Benson admitted that Sara pin is not a substance that can affect the
performance of a racehorse.
e. Dr. Benson agreed that at the time of the search in this case, AMP was
a substance that could legally be compounded under GFI #256. Dr.
Benson agreed that the AMP formulati on Dr. Scott allegedly
possessed has regulatory approval in Australia.
3.75
Dr. Benson expressly withdrew the following opinions after cross
examination :
a. Dr. Benson conceded that the treatmen t records were reliable
evidence.
b. Dr. Benson conceded that she could discern from the billing records
that AMP and Sarapin were used as part of a routine, pre-race
treatmen t.
c. She withdrew her opinion that "dantrolene" could be an alternative
to AMP after she admitted that doing so would be an anti-doping
violation .
d. She also withdrew her opinion that the substances violated GFI #256
after she conceded that she could not form an opinion on that matter
without reviewing the entire label. "I can't make that determin ation
without seeing the rest of the label.").]
3.76
Dr. Benson admitted that her opinions were not based on any
26
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 32 of 40 *PUBLIC *
personal or professional experience or training; heronlybasisforinterpretingand
applying the rules was that she "just read them."
3.77 HIWU failed to demonstrate that Dr. Dionne Benson has the necessary
training, education, or experience to offer any opinions about the "regulatory
framework, terminology, purposes, and background" regarding any of the laws
for which she was called to testify. Tang Cap. Partners✓ LP v. BRC Inc., 757 F. Supp.
3d 363, 392 {S.D.N.Y. 2024).
a. HIWU called Dr. Benson to testify about medical alternatives. Yet at no
point when she was licensed by any racing commission has Dr.
Benson ever been an attending veterinarian for a racehorse. In her
entire career as a licensed veterinarian, she has never been asked to
develop and implement a prophylactic pre-race treatment protocol
for a racehorse in training. She has never provided prophylactic
treatment to a racehorse.
b. HIWU called Dr. Benson to testify to whether billing records qualify
as "medical records" under the New Mexico Veterinary Practice Act.
Yet Dr. Benson has never had a mobile practice and, thus, has no
experience generating records in a mobile practice. She has also
never billed a client for veterinary treatment and thus, has never
generated a billing record.
c. HIWU called Dr. Benson to testify about regulations applicable to
compounded medications. Dr. Benson has never compounded a
medication from bulk substances or labeled a medication
compounded from bulk substances. Dr. Benson has never been
retained by anyone to give legal advice about compliance with FDA
legal requirements. Benson has never given input to the FDA prior to
finalizing GFI #256. Dr. Benson has never been a member of any
committee that gave input to the FDA prior to finalizing GFI #256.
Her only experience in the field is comprised of authoring two, single
page opinion pieces that were neither peer reviewed nor
represented as guidance documents.
27
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 33 of 40 *PUBLIC *
3.78
Dr. Scott produced opinion evidence that not a single practicing
racetrack veterinarian would consult Dr. Benson for advice regarding how to treat
a racehorse in training. Dr. Fenger testified that she would not seek Dr. Benson's
advice regarding how to treat a racehorse in training. She knows of no practicing
racetrack veterinarian who would ever seek Dr. Benson's advice regarding how to
treat a racehorse in training. Dr. Pickard testified similarly.
3.79
Dr. Fenger recounted an event in which she "came very close to
submitting a complaint to the Vet Medical Board
11
against Dr. Benson.
She
recounted that Dr. Benson, while working as a regulatory veterinarian, and
without consulting the trainer, consulting the horse's nearby attending
veterinarian, doing a physical examination, or taking a history to determine
potential allergies to the medication, administered 11emergency 11 detomidine to
the horse intravenously because it was a hot day, all without any valid client
patient relationship. The medication is contraindicated in the absence of seizures
(there were none) because it reduces the horse's ability to dissipate heat, so its
use put the horse in unnecessary danger.
3.80 Dr. Scott's experts, Dr. Clara Fenger and Dr. Tony Pickard, both have
decades of experience as practicing racetrack veterinarians and must conduct
themselves, on a day-to-day basis, in a manner that comports with the laws
discussed in this case.
3.81 Dr. Fenger's qualifications are:
a. Dr. Fenger is a founding member of the North American Association
of Racetrack Veterinarians; is a member of the American Academy of
Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics; is a diplomate of the
American College of Veterinary Medicine, the AVMA, the KVMA and
28
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 34 of 40 *PUBLIC *
the KAEP; and is a board member of the Equine Health and Welfare
Alliance.
b. Dr. Fenger has been retained by Lisa Lazarus, now the CEO of HISA, as
an expert on two separate cases.
c. Dr. Fenger has published approximately 45 peer-reviewed scientific
articles and chapters in veterinary textbooks about the medical
treatment of active racehorses. These articles have appeared in the
Equine Veterinary Journal, the Journal of Comparative Exercise
Physiology, and others.
d. Unlike Dr. Benson, Dr. Fenger has extensive experience with
compounded medications and with ensuring compliance with
regulations governing compounded medications.
e. Unlike Dr. Benson, Dr. Fenger provided input to the FDA for the
development of GFI #256 in her personal capacity and as a member
of committees fo r industry organizations that put together
recommendations for the FDA.
f.
Un like Dr. Benson, Dr. Fenger has been received as an expert in state
and federal court in criminal cases and veterinary ma lpractice cases,
and in administrative cases before racing commissions.
g. Unlike Dr. Benson, Dr. Fenger has published several scientific papers
on rhabdomyolysis.
3.82 The Arbitrator finds Dr. Fenger's testimony to be cred ible. Of note,
every single one of the facts HIWU claimed demonstrated Dr. Fenger's bias was
equally true - if not more true - for Dr. Benson.
3.83 Dr. Tony Pickard has been a practicing, mobi le racetrack veterinarian
in New Mexico for over four decades. He explained that the community of
racetrack veterinarians in New Mexico was very small, with only a handful of
practicing veterinarians. He is fam iliar with the standard of care for treating
racehorses in training.
29
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 35 of 40 *PUBLIC *
3.84 Dr. Pickard testified that AMP and Sarapin have been used in Quarter
Horses in New Mexico since before he started practicing over forty years ago. Dr.
Pickard explained that over 99% of racetrack veterinarians in New Mexico would
have these medications on their truck for Quarter Horses, and that if the
Possession Rule was applied to possession of these medications for Quarter
Horses, there would be no practicing racetrack veterinarians in New Mexico and,
consequently, no racing.
3.85
Dr. Pickard testified that both medications are considered by
practicing veterinarians to be safe, prophylactic medications for common
conditions that occur during racing, including rhabdomyolysis. Their use before a
race is considered the standard of care in New Mexico. Dr. Pickard testified that
their use was well known to the New Mexico Racing Commission and has never
been considered illegal.
3.86 Dr. Pickard testified that he has been searched numerous times by
NMRC investigators while in possession of these medications at the racetrack, and
NMRC investigators never took the position that AMP or Sarapin were illegal to
possess. Mr. Trejo's letter was the first time anyone at the NMRC took the position
that the medications were illegal.
3.87
Dr. Pickard explained that HIWU's reading of NMRC rules was
nonsensical because it would ban every injectable compounded medication,
regardless whether it contained a prohibited substance. That reading would, for
example, ban the use of diluted vitamins and oral electrolytes, which are
compounded injectable substances that are routinely administered by every
veterinarian to horses in every barn, including at racetracks, and have never been
30
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 36 of 40 *PUBLIC *
considered "prohibited substances."
3.88
He explained that the rule is more reasonably understood as
articulating the requirements for "dispensing" non-injectable substances (like an
oral medication or ointment) to trainers for later use on a racehorse. The rule does
not address dispensing injectable substances because, Dr. Pickard explained, only
a veterinarian can administer an injectable substance to a racehorse (i.e., a trainer
cannot possess an injectable substance). Dr. Pickard ultimately concluded that the
rule most likely clarified the procedure for dispensing non-injectable substances
to non-veterinarians, rather than proh ibited the use of all compounded injectable
substances.
4. EXHIBITS
HIWU submitted 16 exhibits which were admitted into evidence.
Dr. Scott submitted 25 exhibits which were also admitted into evidence
5. WITNESSES
HIWU called the following witnesses who testified concerning the facts and
the evidence: Brian Bennett, Ismael Trejo and Dr. Dionne Benson.
Dr. Scott called the following witnesses who testified concerning the facts and
the evidence: Dr. Clara Fenger, Dr. Tony Piccard and Dr. Jason Scott.
6. ANALYSIS
The facts in this case were thoroughly presented by both parties. On the
morning of February 13, 2025, HIWU Investigators Brian Bennett, Lane Ruddick and
Brett Smith conducted a search of Dr. Scott's veterinary truck at Sunland Park, New
Mexico. The search began at approximately 7:30 a.m ., as HIWU Investigators did
31
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 37 of 40 *PUBLIC *
not want to delay veterinarians like Dr. Scott on a race day.
On this day, only
Covered Horses were racing at Sunland Park.
Dr. Scott told Investigator Brian Bennett (''Bennett") that he had to give Lasix
to a horse that was racing that day. When Bennett mentioned that no horse was
racing until 12:20 p.m. (and thus the earliest Lasix could be given was 8:20 a.m.),
Dr. Scott stated that the horse needing Lasix was housed at the Frontera Training
Center. Bennett became suspicious of this reasoning, because Lasix administration
for a horse racing at Sunland Park is not permitted off-track at Frontera. Investigator
Bennett assured Dr. Scott that the search should only take 15 - 20 minutes.
Although there were at least seven other vans parked along the fence and
located in New Mexico or Texas, only one van was stopped and searched -- the one
belonging to Dr. Scott.
During the search of Dr. Scott's truck, Investigator Bennett found two bottles
clearly labeled as Pitcher Plant, also known as Sarapin, and placed them in evidence
as 88-1 and 88-2.
a.
88-1 was found in the top left drawer of Dr. Scott's veterinary cabinet.
b.
88-2 was found inside a blue plastic tote, which also included
hypodermic needles and other medications.
Dr. Scott admitted to possessing and using the Pitcher Plant, but stated to
Investigator Bennett that he only used it on non-Covered Quarter Horses for the
treatment of "sacroiliac issues."
Investigator Bennett also found two bottles of Adenosine Monophosphate,
also known as AMP, in the top middle drawer of Dr. Scott's veterinary cabinet and
placed them in evidence as BB-3 and B8-4. Each AMP bottle stated : "Each ml.
32
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 38 of 40 *PUBLIC *
contains: 200 mg of Adenosoine-5-Monophosphoric acid and Benzyl Alcohol 1.5%
as preservative." Dr. Scott admitted to possessing and using the AMP, but he told
Investigator Bennett that he used AMP only on Quarter Horses for treatment of
issues associated with tying-up.
Dr. Scott had previously sent a written request to HIWU for an interpretation
of the Rules and received a courteous reply. He had also testified as an expert
witness in a case where the HIWA sought to, and did, prove previous violations of
the code by a trainer who trained Thoroughbreds and Quarter Horses in Texas and
New Mexico.
Dr. Benson, HIWU's expert on veterinary medicine regulations, testified that
Pitcher Plant and AMP must be controlled by possession rules because neither
substance can be successfully identified in post-race anti-doping testing.
Pitcher Plant is explicitly banned at all times under ADMC Program Rule 4117.
Thus, Dr. Scott had two prohibited substances at a Covered Racetrack on a day
covered Thoroughbreds were running.
He also had inconsistencies in his billing records which he said were mistakes
made by his administrative staff. He testified that he had never knowingly violated
any rules of the HISA and had committed no known violations of the New Mexico
Racing Commission ("NMRC") rules and regulations.
The evidence also shows that Dr. Scott's van was selectively identified for a
search by Investigator Bennett out of the seven or eight vans parked along the fence
in either New Mexico or Texas that day. The evidence further demonstrates that
Dr. Scott had requested information from HISA's general counsel's office concerning
what substances were covered in the treatment of Quarter Horses. He testified he
33
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 39 of 40 *PUBLIC *
had previously served as an expert witness adverse to HIWU in at least one case
involving a New Mexico veterinarian.
In his more than two decades as a veterinarian treating Thoroughbreds and
Quarter Horses, Dr. Scott had only one reported violation, and that was a violation
he self-reported . He did not use Pitcher Plant or AMP on any Thoroughbreds on
the day of the inspection, and he stated that he only intended to use the substances
on Quarter Horses.
He followed the standard practices of the veternarians in New Mexico at that
time, and it was unclear, at best, if the NMRC was following the rules set out for
enforcement at HIWU. In fact, the commissioner of the NMRC was somewhat
confused about what was covered before the investigation of Dr. Scott's truck.
Dr. Scott admitted to having both AMP and Pitcher Plant in his van and was
generally cooperative throughout the investigation. He turned over his AMP and
Pitcher Plant bottles when requested to do so.
Dr. Scott is a widely recognized veterinarian who routinely treats horses
trained by noted, reputable trainers in New Mexico and Texas, and by many national
and international trainers as well.
He is recognized as a leader in veterinarian
organizations and has served on boards and committees at the local and national
levels as well.
The parties elicited both general and technical expertise from numerous
witnesses and produced exhibits, including correspondence, emails, scientific and
technical information from experts in the field of medication and treatment of
racehorses, test results, and various reports and selections of literature related to
this matter. They also cited relevant cases and statutes.
34
PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 03/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 615025 -PAGE Page 40 of 40 *PUBLIC *
The pleadings and briefs submitted and reviewed demonstrated outstanding
advocacy by the parties' respective counsel in their Pre-Hearing Briefs and Rebuttal
Briefs; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; Post-Hearing and Rebuttal Briefs,
and in their detailed analysis of the law and appropriate standards of conduct. The
parties agreed that the site of the arbitration was Sunland Park, New Mexico, to
avoid any jurisdictional disputes. Each and every fact in evidence, and the cases
cited, are analyzed and discussed in their extensive briefing and analysis.
The basic facts are not in dispute, but the basis for the selection of Dr. Scott's
van by Investigator Bennett remains questionable.
FINAL AWARD
Therefore, based upon everything previously discussed and presented in this
matter, I hereby Award and Rule as to Dr. Scott:
A period of ineligibility of eighteen (18} months from the date of the initial
inspection (February 13, 2025} for possession of two prohibited substances. The
18 month period of ineligibility will expire on August 13, 2026.
A fine of $25,000 and a payment of $5,000 in adjudication costs based upon
all of the facts and evidence presented.
No other remedies are appropriate.
Dated: February --1h._, 2026
35
PUBLIC
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.