FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 1 of 33 * PUBLIC *

Agency decision

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

HIWU v. Childers - Notice of Appeal

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

HIWU v. VANCE CHILDERS

JAMS Case No. 1501001139

NOTICE OF APPEAL AND APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

OF FINAL DECISION

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 3058(b) and 16 C.F.R. § 1.146, Respondent Vance Childers

appeals the Final Decision dated April 28, 2026, issued by Arbitrator Bernard Taylor Sr., which

imposed three (3) years and ten (10) months of ineligibility and a $30,000 fine for three AntiDoping Rule Violations. This Appeal is timely filed within 30 days of the Decision. The Decision

should be reversed, modified, or remanded on the following grounds.

I. THE ARBITRATOR'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH SOURCE FOR

CHILDERSATTACK IS IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE CONCURRENT McCROSKY

FINAL DECISION AND CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE ERROR

The Final Decision imposes a full two-year period of ineligibility for the Childersattack

Presence ADRV solely because Trainer Childers failed to establish source by a balance of

probabilities. That finding cannot survive de novo review. Arbitrator Fraser found, to the

comfortable satisfaction standard, in HIWU v. McCrosky, JAMS Case No. 1501001138 (Feb. 6,

2026) — expressly incorporated into this record — that Dr. McCrosky: fabricated the ridgling

explanation for Childersattack's Testosterone atypical finding and submitted false representations

to HIWU to conceal exogenous administration; removed Childersattack's testicle after the

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 2 of 33 * PUBLIC *

HIWU v. Childers - Notice of Appeal

November 2024 notice to spoliate evidence; and administered Testosterone to Tigger Attack, a

horse in the same stable owned by his wife and trained by Trainer Childers, without the trainer's

knowledge.

Arbitrator Taylor found source was established for Tigger Attack based on Dr. McCrosky's

admitted administration, then dismissed the inference that Dr. McCrosky administered

Testosterone to Childersattack as "mere speculation." That characterization is irreconcilable with

the McCrosky findings. When the only veterinarian with access to Childersattack is adjudicated to

have fabricated the specific scientific explanation offered for Childersattack's positive and

destroyed the physical evidence to prevent verification, the inference of administration is not

speculation — it is the only conclusion consistent with the adjudicated record. The ADMC

Program requires source by a balance of probabilities, not direct admission. Two co-equal

arbitrators applying identical rules to the same facts have reached irreconcilable conclusions. The

ALJ should find source established and remand for a fault analysis consistent with Trainer

Childers' established No Significant Fault on the Tigger Attack charge.

II. THE TWELVE-MONTH KAVA KAVA POSSESSION SANCTION IS

DISPROPORTIONATE AND INCONSISTENT WITH CONTEMPORANEOUS ADMC

PROGRAM JURISPRUDENCE

The Arbitrator imposed twelve months for the EasyWillow/Kava Kava Possession ADRV,

classifying Trainer Childers in the moderate fault range. Weeks later, Arbitrator Reeves imposed

four months for possession of the identical product, substance, and program framework. HIWU v.

Greiner, JAMS Case No. 1501001175 (May 2026). Arbitrator Reeves found Greiner at the very

lowest end of the fault spectrum, expressly because HIWU failed to alert trainers and owners when

it became aware EasyWillow — actively promoted and sold at HISA-jurisdiction racetracks as an

all-natural supplement — contained a banned substance, and because the HIWU substance lookup

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 3 of 33 * PUBLIC *

HIWU v. Childers - Notice of Appeal

tool returns confusing results for "Kava Kava." Those findings apply equally, and more

compellingly, to Trainer Childers: the EasyWillow was inherited with his grandfather's tack room,

never purchased or used, found unopened at the back of a shelf covered in dust, in its original state.

Trainer Childers' subjective circumstances are more favorable than Greiner's on every metric. The

three-to-one sanction disparity on identical facts under the identical program is an inconsistency

the ALJ should correct by placing Trainer Childers at the slight or insignificant end of the fault

spectrum.

III. THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCING STRUCTURE PRODUCES A

DISPROPORTIONATE GLOBAL SANCTION INCONSISTENT WITH ADMC

PROGRAM PRINCIPLES

The Decision imposes forty-six months of consecutive ineligibility on a young,

inexperienced trainer who inherited his barn from his grandfather, never administered prohibited

substances to any horse, was affirmatively misled by Dr. McCrosky about the substances being

administered to his Covered Horses, and whose horses tested positive solely because of a

veterinarian the ADMC Program has now banned for twenty-four years for intentionally deceiving

trainers and trafficking banned substances at the same racetrack. The Arbitrator reduced individual

sanctions based on mitigating factors yet imposed them entirely consecutively without meaningful

proportionality analysis. The FTC's own ALJ in HIWU v. Dr. Scott Shell identified proportionality

— including the effects of sanctions on the Covered Person's career relative to the severity of the

conduct — as a required analytical factor. Imposing consecutive sentences on the least culpable

party in this cluster of proceedings, without analysis of the global sanction's proportionality to

Trainer Childers' actual culpability, is inconsistent with the spirit and purpose of the ADMC

Program.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 4 of 33 * PUBLIC *

HIWU v. Childers - Notice of Appeal

RELIEF REQUESTED

Trainer Childers respectfully requests that the ALJ: (1) reverse the Childersattack Presence

ADRV or remand for a fault analysis with source established by operation of the McCrosky

findings; (2) reduce the Kava Kava Possession ineligibility to a period consistent with HIWU v.

Greiner and the slight or insignificant fault range; (3) modify the global sanction by imposing

concurrent or partially concurrent periods of ineligibility proportionate to Trainer Childers' actual

culpability; and (4) stay the Decision pending disposition of this Appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Lloyd M. Cueto

Lloyd M. Cueto, IL 6292629

Law Office of Lloyd M. Cueto, P.C.

7110 West Main Street

Belleville, Illinois 62223

(618) 277-1554

cuetolm@cuetolaw.com

Counsel for Respondent Vance Childers

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 28th day of May, 2026, a copy of the foregoing was served on

HIWU counsel and filed with the FTC Office of the Secretary at electronicfilings@ftc.gov.

Allison Farrell

afarrell@hiwu.org

Carlos Sayao

csayao@tyrllp.com

s/Lloyd M. Cueto_____________________

Lloyd M. Cueto

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 5 of 33 * PUBLIC *

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

ADMINISTERED BY JAMS, CASE NO. 1501001139

In the Matter of the Arbitration Between:

HORSERACING INTEGRITY & WELFARE UNIT (“HIWU” or “Agency”),

Claimant

VANCE CHILDERS (“Trainer Childers”),

Respondent.

FINAL DECISION

I, the undersigned arbitrator, having been designated, authorized, duly sworn, and

having duly heard and considered the allegations, arguments, submissions, proofs,

testimony, and evidence submitted by the Parties, and after a full evidentiary hearing

occurring by agreement of the Parties by a virtual Zoom presentation on January 28, 2026,

pursuant to the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 and its implementing

regulations, do hereby Find and Decide as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1.1

This case involves Trainer Vance Childers being charged with three separate AntiDoping Rule Violations (“ADRVs”) of the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program.

1.2

The first alleged ADRV, as explained in more detail below, involves the possession

of a banned substance, in violation of Rule 3214(a) of the Anti-Doping and Medication

Control Program. This charge is referred to herein as the “Possession ADRV.”

1.3

The second and third alleged ADRVs, as explained in more detail below, involve

the presence of a banned substance in Covered Horses, in violation of Rule 3212 of the

Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program. These charges are referred to herein as the

“Presence ADRVs.”

1.4

HIWU is the United States government-recognized agency responsible for sample

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

in the United States, pursuant to the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, 15

U.S.C. §§ 3051-3060. During these proceedings, HIWU was represented by Allison

Farrell, Esq., Senior Litigation Counsel of HIWU and Carlos Sayao, Esq., of Tyr LLP

based in Toronto, Canada.

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 6 of 33 * PUBLIC *

1.5

Trainer Childers is a trainer of Thoroughbred racehorses. It is undisputed that

Trainer Childers is a “Covered Person” under the law and rules applicable to this

Arbitration. Trainer Childers is charged with the above-referenced ADRVs and has been

represented in these proceedings by Lloyd Cueto, Esq., of the Law Office of Lloyd M.

Cueto, P.C. based in Belleville, Illinois.

1.6

Throughout this Final Decision, HIWU and Trainer Childers shall be referred to

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

II.

THE FACTS

2.1

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

written submissions, pleadings, evidence, and testimony presented during the hearings.

Additional facts and allegations found in the Parties’ written submissions, pleadings, and

evidence may be addressed where relevant in connection with the discussion elsewhere in

this Final Decision. Although the Arbitrator has considered all of the facts, allegations,

legal arguments, evidence, and testimony submitted by the Parties in these proceedings,

the Arbitrator refers, in this Final Decision, only to the arguments, facts, submissions,

evidence, and testimony the Arbitrator considers necessary in explaining the reasoning

supporting this decision. As noted below, the Parties have conferred and agreed to a list of

stipulated facts. In addition to the stipulated facts, additional facts, and the legal effect of

many facts, remain in dispute.

The Stipulated Facts

2.2

On January 23, 2026, the Parties submitted an Uncontested Stipulation of Fact

stating as follows:

1. Trainer Childers is a Covered Person under the Anti-Doping and Medication

Control Program (“ADMC Program”) pursuant to ADMC Program Rule 3020, and

a Responsible Person pursuant to Rule 3030.

Facts Relevant to Possession Charges

2. On November 12, 2024, HIWU Investigator Matthew Meyer (“Investigator

Meyer”) and HIWU Director of Investigative Operations Shawn Loehr

(collectively, the “Investigators”), conducted a search of Trainer Childers’ tack

room, feed room, office, and barn area (the “Search”) at the Fairmount Park

Racetrack in Collinsville, Illinois (“Fairmount Park”). Trainer Childers was not

present for the search. Hunter Childers identified and led the Investigators to the

spaces for which Trainer Childers was responsible.

3. During the Search, the Investigators found and seized one tub labeled

“Easywillow,” located on a shelf in Trainer Childers’ tack room.

4. The Banned Substance Kava Kava was listed on the label of the tub.

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 7 of 33 * PUBLIC *

5. Kava Kava can also be known as “Kava” or Piper Methysticum, which is a category

S0 Banned Substance under the ADMC Program.

6. Following the Search, a sample of the “Easywillow” product was sent for forensic

analysis to Industrial Laboratories (“Industrial”). Industrial’s results confirmed the

presence of the primary active compound found in Kava Kava, Methysticin.

7. On April 3, 2025, Trainer Childers was served with an Equine Anti-Doping

(“EAD”) Notice Letter. This Notice Letter informed Trainer Childers that he was

found to be in Possession of the Banned Substance located by the Investigators

during the November 12, 2024 Search of his tack room (among other areas).

8. On April 21, 2025, HIWU charged Trainer Childers with one Possession ADRV.

9. Trainer Childers did not submit a responding Pre-Hearing Brief on the Possession

charge and did not file any evidence or submissions pertaining to the Possession

charge before the merits hearing.

Facts Relevant to Presence Charges

10. Childersattack and Tigger Attack are both Covered Horses trained by Trainer

Childers and medically cared for by Dr. Donald McCrosky (“Dr. McCrosky”).

Childersattack- Sample #B100526490

11. Childersattack had a negative result (i.e., no presence of Testosterone) from a Vet’s

List Sample collected on September 24, 2024, Sample #B100525575, as analyzed

by Industrial.

12. On October 16, 2024, Sample Collection Personnel collected an Out-ofCompetition blood Sample from Childersattack at Fairmount Park, Sample

#B100526490. Childersattack was identified as a gelding on the Sample Collection

Form for this test.

13. Analytical testing on Childersattack’s Out-of-Competition blood A Sample was

conducted by Industrial. Industrial’s testing returned an Atypical Finding (“AF”)

for Testosterone at a concentration of 579 pg/mL.

14. On November 12, 2024, HIWU notified Trainer Childers of an AF for Testosterone

in the Sample collected from Childersattack.

15. On November 12, 2024, Dr. McCrosky sent a handwritten note to HIWU in

response to the November 2024 Notice Letter. In the note, Dr. McCrosky states that

he performed a castration on Childersattack in March 2022, but the horse had one

Testosterone-producing undescended testicle left intact after the castration.

16. On December 10, 2024, HIWU sent a Demand for Business Records (“DBR”) to

Dr. McCrosky that requested that he disclose Childersattack’s medical records and

subsequently requested that Childersattack be made available for examination. Dr.

McCrosky did not respond to those requests.

17. On March 12, 2025, Trainer Childers was served with an EAD Notice Letter for

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 8 of 33 * PUBLIC *

the Adverse Analytical Finding (“AAF”) resulting from Childersattack’s Sample

collected on October 16, 2024.

18. On April 2, 2025, Dr. McCrosky sent a second handwritten note to HIWU stating

that he had removed the remaining testicle from Childersattack on December 2,

2024.

19. On June 5, 2025, Trainer Childers was served with a Charge Letter resulting from

the AAF for Childersattack. The Charge Letter enclosed the analysis of the B

Sample that was conducted by the Pennsylvania Equine Toxicology and Research

Laboratory (“PETRL”), which confirmed the AAF for Testosterone in the Sample

at a concentration of 496.0 pg/mL.

20. Industrial subsequently confirmed that Childersattack’s Sample was negative for

Nandrolone.

Tigger Attack-Sample #B100527217

21. On October 29, 2024, Sample Collection Personnel collected a Post-Race Sample

from Tigger Attack after Race 2 at Fairmount Park, with Sample #B100527217.

The Sample Collection Form identified Tigger Attack as a gelding.

22. Analytical testing on Tigger Attack’s Post-Race blood A Sample was conducted by

Industrial. Industrial’s testing returned an AF for Testosterone at a concentration of

374 pg/mL.

23. On November 20, 2024, HIWU notified Trainer Childers of an AF for Testosterone

in the Sample collected from Tigger Attack.

24. On February 14, 2025, Trainer Childers was served with an EAD Notice Letter for

the AAF resulting from Tigger Attack’s Sample collected on October 29, 2024.

25. On March 5, 2025, Trainer Childers was served with a Charge Letter resulting from

the AAF for Tigger Attack. The Charge Letter enclosed the analysis of the B

Sample that was conducted by PETRL, which confirmed the Presence of

Testosterone in the Sample at a concentration of 363.5 pg/mL.

26. On April 22, 2025, Investigator Meyer and fellow HIWU Investigator Montey

Chappel conducted an interview of Dr. McCrosky at Fairmount Park. During the

interview, Dr. McCrosky discussed the AAF for Testosterone in Tigger Attack and

admitted to administering Testosterone to Tigger Attack as he was advised by a

groom that the horse was not eating well. Dr. McCrosky further stated that he tries

to make sure that he administers Testosterone no fewer than seven to ten days out

from a race and that he does not regularly use Testosterone. Instead, he described

his use of Testosterone as only every once in a while and only if a horse is not

eating.

27. Dr. McCrosky testified under oath in a separate ADMC Program arbitration hearing

that: (i) he generally administers 1 cc of Testosterone to Covered Horses at least 56 days before a race if the horse is not eating or “off-feed”, in order to stimulate

their appetites; (ii) he administered Testosterone to Tigger Attack 5 days before his

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 9 of 33 * PUBLIC *

October 29, 2024, race because he was off-feed; (iii) and that Trainer Childers was

not involved in and did not know anything about the administration of Testosterone

to Tigger Attack.

Additional Facts According to HIWU

2.3 During the November 12, 2024 search, “Hunter Childers told the Investigators that

the ‘Easywillow’ had never been used.” (HIWU Possession Br. ¶ 13.)

2.4 On April 21, 2025, Dr. Mary Scollay “performed a search of the InCompass database,

a Jockey Club platform that serves as a repository of identifying and descriptive data

concerning Covered Horses. The InCompass search result showed that Childersattack’s

owner, Dr. McCrosky’s wife, reported the horse as a ‘gelding’ with a castration date of

November 23, 2020. There was no indication anywhere in the InCompass search results

that the horse had a remaining testicle.” (HIWU Presence Br. ¶ 27.)

2.5 HIWU’s Presence brief also states that “A search of HIWU records performed by

Investigator Meyer also showed no record of castration in December 2022.” (Id.) A

review of Exhibit G, p. 214 of HIWU’s Supplemental Book of Evidence and Exhibits,

Investigator Meyer’s Second Witness Statement (“Second Meyer Statement”), dated

December 31, 2025 at para. 7, however, reveals Meyers’ actual statement that upon

review of the HISA Portal search records he found no record of the performance of

castration in December 2024. Accordingly, the Arbitrator assumes the December 2022

date in HIWU’s brief is a typographical error.

Additional Facts According to Trainer Childers

2.6 Trainer Childers inherited his barn, including the tack room, from his grandfather. He

took over as Trainer in 2020 when his grandfather passed away.

2.7 Trainer Childers’ grandfather used Dr. McCrosky as his vet.

2.8 After taking over the barn from his grandfather, Trainer Childers threw away thyroid

powder that he found, but did not conduct a thorough search of all items in the barn or

review the ingredient lists of all products in the barn.

2.9 Trainer Childers never purchased the Easywillow product nor did he ever use it.

III.

2.10

Trainer Childers never administered Testosterone to his horses.

2.11

No Testosterone was found in Trainer Childers’ barn during the search.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3.1 On February 14, 2025, HIWU served Trainer Childers with an EAD notice stating that

the October 29, 2024 blood Sample, designated as Sample #B100527217, from Tigger

Attack after Race 2 at FanDuel Sportsbook and Horseracing in Collinsville, Illinois,

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 10 of 33 * PUBLIC *

had returned an AAF for Testosterone following analysis of the B Sample.

3.2 On March 5, 2025, HIWU notified Trainer Childers that it was charging him with a

violation of Rule 3212 for the Presence of Testosterone in Tigger Attack’s Sample

#B100527217.

3.3 On March 12, 2025, HIWU served Trainer Childers with an EAD notice stating that

the October 16, 2024 out-of-competition blood Sample, designated as Sample

#B100526490, from Childersattack at FanDuel Sportsbooks and Horseracing in

Collinsville, Illinois, had returned an AAF following analysis of the B Sample.

3.4 On April 3, 2025, HIWU served Trainer Childers with an EAD notice stating that on

November 12, 2024, he was found in possession of a Banned Substance, specifically

that a tub labeled “Easywillow” contained the listed and active ingredient Kava Kava,

a category S0 Banned Substance.

3.5 On April 21, 2025, HIWU notified Trainer Childers that it was charging him with a

violation of Rule 3214(a) for the Possession of the Banned Substance Kava Kava.

3.6 On June 5, 2025, HIWU notified Trainer Childers that it was charging him with a

violation of Rule 3212 for the Presence of Testosterone in Childersattack’s Sample

#B100526490.

3.7 On August 18, 2025, HIWU initiated this arbitration against Trainer Childers pursuant

to Rule 7060(a).

3.8 On September 2, 2025, the Arbitrator held a preliminary conference hearing.

3.9 On October 3, 2025, HIWU submitted a proposed procedural order.

3.10 On October 16, 2025, the Parties submitted an updated proposed procedural order.

3.11 As memorialized in Procedural Order #1, dated October 16, 2025, the Arbitrator

confirmed the hearing date of January 28, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. local time at JAMS

Chicago, 71 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2400, Chicago, Illinois 60606, and set a prehearing briefing schedule consistent with the nature of the charges: (1) Claimant’s prehearing brief on possession and Respondent’s pre-hearing brief on presence were due

by December 17, 2025; (2) Claimant’s response brief on presence and Respondent’s

response brief on possession were due by January 7, 2026; and (3) Claimant’s reply

brief on possession was due by January 14, 2026.

3.12 On October 27, 2025, JAMS served the Parties with a Notice of Hearing confirming

the hearing date, time, and location set forth in Procedural Order #1.

3.13 On December 17, 2025, HIWU filed its pre-hearing brief on possession, book of

evidence and exhibits, and book of authorities.

3.14 On December 22, 2025, Respondent filed his pre-hearing brief on presence and

witness list.

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 11 of 33 * PUBLIC *

3.15 On January 2, 2026, Respondent filed a motion for leave to appear virtually for the

hearing. Respondent requested permission that both Respondent and witness Dr.

McCrosky be permitted to appear by video.

3.16 The same day, HIWU informed the Arbitrator that it did not object to Respondent and

Dr. McCrosky appearing by video conference for the hearing.

3.17 On January 6, 2026, the Arbitrator issued an order granting Respondent’s request that

both Respondent and Dr. McCrosky be allowed to participate in the January 28, 2026

arbitration hearing by Zoom video conference.

3.18 On January 7, 2026, HIWU filed its pre-hearing brief on presence and global sanction,

along with a supplemental book of evidence and exhibits, and a supplemental book of

authorities.

3.19 Respondent failed to submit a response brief on possession by the January 7, 2026

deadline, or at any time thereafter.

3.20 On January 20, 2026, the Arbitrator held a pre-hearing conference. At the pre-hearing

conference, the Parties agreed that, by the end of the week, they would submit a

stipulation of any undisputed facts and an arbitration hearing day schedule, and that

HIWU would provide a list of witnesses to testify during the hearing. The Parties

further agreed that the hearing would be held entirely by video conference and would

commence at 10:00 a.m. eastern on January 28, 2026.

3.21 On January 23, 2026, HIWU submitted its witness list.

3.22 Also on January 23, 2026, the Parties submitted a proposed, agreed upon hearing

schedule and an Uncontested Stipulation of Facts.

3.23 The Arbitrator and Parties convened for the scheduled hearing in this matter on

January 28, 2026, at approximately 10:00 a.m., with the Arbitrator, counsel for

Claimant, Respondent and his counsel all appearing virtually.

3.24 At the hearing, the Arbitrator admitted all of the submitted exhibits and heard the

testimony of three (3) witnesses: Matthew Meyer, an investigator employed by HIWU;

Dr. Mary Scollay, formerly employed by HIWU as Chief of Science; and Trainer

Childers. In addition, Trainer Childers waived his cross-examination of the following

two witnesses put forward by HIWU and their witness statements were admitted: Petra

Hartmann, Director of Drug Testing at Industrial, and Dr. Mary Robinson, Acting

Director of PETRL.

3.25 At the conclusion of the hearing, the Parties agreed to meet and confer following the

issuance of the final decision in the matter of HIWU v. McCrosky, and determine if they

would like to submit additional briefing in light of the decision.

3.26 On February 4, 2026, the Parties informed the Arbitrator that they were expecting the

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 12 of 33 * PUBLIC *

final decision in the McCrosky case within the next couple of days and would file it

upon receipt, and that “[n]either party requests to supplement their respective closing

arguments with further briefing, but will of course do so if you wish to have additional

briefing before closing the hearing . . . .”

3.27 On February 11, 2026, HIWU submitted the Final Decision in HIWU v. McCrosky.

3.28 On February 17, 2026, the Arbitrator informed the parties that “after reviewing the

decision, I will provide the parties with any questions impacting the Childers matter.”

3.29 On March 11, 2026, the Arbitrator requested that the Parties “submit briefs to answer

the following question: What impact, if any, does the content, analysis, and conclusions

of the McCrosky decision have upon HIWU’s requested relief based upon the alleged

HISA and ADMC program violations pending against Trainer Vance Childers in this

matter.”

3.30 On March 16, 2026, the Parties informed the Arbitrator that they proposed to submit

the additional requested briefing by simultaneous exchange on March 31, 2026, and

further agreed to extend the time for the delivery of the final decision to 30 days from

the close of the hearing.

3.31 On March 16, 2026, the Arbitrator issued a Post Hearing Briefing Order confirming

the agreed upon schedule for the requested post-hearing briefs and that the timing for

the submission of the final decision in this matter was extended until 30 days after the

filing of the Parties’ briefs.

3.32 On March 31, 2026, the Parties submitted their post-hearing briefs regarding the

impact of the McCrosky decision.

3.33 Upon the closing of the record, the Arbitrator commenced writing this Final Decision,

which was timely issued.

IV.

JURISDICTION

4.1

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

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

enforcement mechanisms of the 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 provides that the anti-doping rules

set out in the ADMC Program apply to and are binding on Covered Persons:

“(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

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 13 of 33 * PUBLIC *

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 Horses.”

4.2

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

Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (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

Trainer Childers is a trainer who is required to be and is registered with the

Authority. 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

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 14 of 33 * PUBLIC *

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.”

4.7

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

arbitration provider. Trainer Childers had notice of the charges against him. The Parties

have fully participated in this Arbitration without any objection to the Arbitrator’s

jurisdiction or the arbitrability of any issues raised in this arbitration, including all issues

related to the charged Possession ADRV and Presence ADRVs.

4.8

The Arbitrator concludes, without objection, that the Arbitrator has jurisdiction

over the charges at issue in this matter. See Rule 7090 (arbitrator has authority to rule on

his jurisdiction; party must object to challenge jurisdiction).

RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS

5.1

It is undisputed that under the ADMC Program, Trainer Childers as a trainer is a

Covered Person and a Responsible Person, and that Tigger Attack and Childersattack are

each a Covered Horse. What follows is a summary of the relevant legal standards.

Additional authority may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion

elsewhere in this Final Decision.

5.2

The burden of proof depends on the nature of the alleged ADRV. Rule 3121

provides as follows:

“Rule 3121. Burden and Standard of Proof

(a) The Agency shall have the burden of establishing that a violation of the

Protocol has occurred to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel,

bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation that is made. This standard

of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability (i.e., a

preponderance of the evidence) but less than clear and convincing evidence

or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

(b) Where the Protocol places the burden of proof on a Covered Person to

rebut a presumption or to establish specified facts or circumstances, the

standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability (i.e., a preponderance

of the evidence), except as provided in Rules 3122(c) and 3122(d).”

5.3

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

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 15 of 33 * PUBLIC *

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.”

5.4

ADMC Program Rule 3040 sets out certain obligations of a trainer such as Trainer

Childers, 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

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;

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 16 of 33 * PUBLIC *

(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; . . .”

5.5

Pursuant to ADMC Program Rule 3223, the consequences for a first anti-doping

violation related to Rule 3212 (presence) or Rule 3214(a) (possession) are:

Two (2) years of Ineligibility, and

b. A “[f]ine of up to $25,000 or 25% of the total purse (whichever is

greater); and Payment of some or all of the adjudication costs and the

Agency’s legal costs.”

5.6

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. In Rule 1020, 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

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 17 of 33 * PUBLIC *

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 factors to be considered in

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

5.7

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). When the violation is of Rule 3212

(presence of a Banned Substance), the Covered Person must also establish

how the Banned Substance entered the Covered Horse’s system as a precondition to application of this Rule 3224(a). . . .

(b)

Rule 3224 only applies in exceptional circumstances. In particular,

it will not apply where the Banned Substance found to be present in a

Sample: (1) came from a mislabeled or contaminated supplement; or (2)

was administered to the Covered Horse by veterinary or other support

personnel without the knowledge of the Responsible Person. . . .”

5.8

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 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.”

5.9

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

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 18 of 33 * PUBLIC *

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.”

5.10

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.”

Possession ADRV Charge

5.11 It is alleged that Trainer Childers violated ADMC Program Rule 3214(a) regarding

the possession of a Prohibited Substance.

5.12 Rule 3214 provides as follows: “The following acts and omissions constitute AntiDoping Rule Violations by the Covered Person(s) in question: (a) Possession of a Banned

Substance or a Banned Method, unless there is a compelling justification for such

Possession . . . .”

5.13

Under ADMC Program Rule 1020:

“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

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 19 of 33 * PUBLIC *

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.”

5.14 Put another way, under the Rules, 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

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.

5.15 The Rule’s definition of possession in the ADMC Program is materially identical

to the definition of possession in the WADC. (See WADC Article 2.6.)

Presence ADRV Charges

5.16 It is alleged that Trainer Childers violated ADMC Program Rule 3212 regarding

the presence of a Prohibited Substance in two Covered Horses.

5.17

ADMC Program Rule 3212 states:

“(a) It is the personal and non-delegable duty of the Responsible Person to

ensure that no Banned Substance is present in the body of his or her Covered

Horse(s). The Responsible Person is therefore strictly liable for any Banned

Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in a Sample

collected from his or her Covered Horse(s). Accordingly, it is not necessary

to demonstrate intent, Fault, negligence, or knowing Use on the part of the

Responsible Person in order to establish that the Responsible Person has

committed a Rule 3212 Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

(b) Sufficient proof of a Rule 3212 Anti-Doping Rule Violation is

established by any of the following:

(1) the presence of a Banned Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in

the Covered Horse’s A Sample where the Responsible Person waives

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 20 of 33 * PUBLIC *

analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed;

(2) the Covered Horse’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the B

Sample confirms the presence of the Banned Substance or its Metabolites

or Markers found in the A Sample; or

(3) where, in exceptional circumstances, the Laboratory (on instruction

from the Agency) further splits the A or B Sample into two parts in

accordance with the Laboratory Standards, the analysis of the second part

of the resulting split Sample confirms the presence of the same Banned

Substance or its Metabolites or Markers as were found in the first part of

the split Sample, or the Responsible Person waives analysis of the second

part of the split Sample.

Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Sample collected from a

Covered Horse constitutes an Anti-Doping Rule Violation by the

Responsible Person of that Covered Horse.

(d) As an exception to the general rule of Rule 3212(c), the Prohibited List,

Standards, or Technical Documents may establish special criteria for the

reporting or the evaluation of certain Banned Substances, including a

Minimum Reporting Level, Screening Limit, Threshold, or Decision

Limit.”

VI.

THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS AND CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

6.1

In their pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs and during the hearing, the Parties

presented various arguments regarding their respective positions in this case, including

testimony concerning the likely source of the Testosterone in the Samples of Tigger Attack

and Childersattack. The below summarizes the Parties’ basic positions.

HIWU’s Contentions

6.2

In summary, HIWU asserts that Trainer Childers committed three ADRVs: one

ADRV for possession of the Banned Substance Kava Kava, as contained in a tub labelled

“Easywillow” found in Trainer Childers’ tack room; one ADRV for the presence of

Testosterone in the Covered Horse Tigger Attack; and one ADRV for the presence of

Testosterone in the Covered Horse Childersattack.

6.3

Trainer Childers is strictly liable for the Kava Kava contained in the Easywillow

tub found in his tack room. Trainer Childers had exclusive control over the tack room, and

it is irrelevant whether he was aware of the existence of the Kava Kava in his tack room

for purposes of the definition of possession. Trainer Childers has not proffered any reliable

evidence to establish a compelling justification for his possession of the Banned Substance.

(HIWU Possession Br. at 9-10.) Trainer Childers bears significant fault as “HIWU

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 21 of 33 * PUBLIC *

presently has no reason to believe that Trainer Childers took any precautions to ensure that

premises under his control were free of Banned Substances.” (Id. at 15.)

6.4

Trainer Childers is strictly liable for the Testosterone above the 100 pg/mL in blood

threshold for geldings in Tigger Attack’s and Childersattack’s Samples. Additionally,

Trainer Childers is unable to establish by a balance of probabilities the pre-condition of

identifying how the Testosterone entered either horse’s system, and thus cannot pursue No

Fault or No Significant Fault defenses in regard to the violations. With respect to Tigger

Attack, while Dr. McCrosky admitted to administering Testosterone to that Covered Horse,

“there is no evidence of the precise timing or dosage of his administration to Tigger

Attack,” nor any “pharmokinetic evidence that the concentration of Testosterone detected

in the Samples . . . is consistent with the specific timing and dosage asserted.” (HIWU

Presence Br. at 15-16.) And with respect to Childersattack, HIWU contends that the horse

“was fully castrated at the time of the October 16, 2024 sample collection contrary to the

assertions of Trainer Childers or his veterinarian, Dr. McCrosky.” (Id. at 16.)

6.5

As a result of the alleged Possession ADRV and Presence ADRVs, HIWU requests

the following consequences be imposed upon Trainer Childers:

(i) A period of two years Ineligibility for each ADRV served consecutively, for a total

period of Ineligibility of six (6) years for Trainer Childers as Covered Person;

(ii) A fine of $25,000 for each ADRV, for a total fine of $75,000;

(iii)Disqualification of the results Childersattack obtained on October 17, 2024 in Race

2 at Fairmount Park and forfeiture of all purse and other compensation, prizes,

trophies, points, and rankings and repayment or surrender (as applicable) to the

Race Organizer;

(iv) Disqualification of the results Tigger Attack obtained on October 29, 2024 in Race

2 at Fairmount Park and forfeiture of all purse and other compensation, prizes,

trophies, points, and rankings and repayment or surrender (as applicable) to the

Race Organizer;

(v) A period of Ineligibility of fourteen months for Childersattack beginning October

16, 2024, which has now been served, such that reinstatement of Childersattack is

subject to a Negative Finding from a Re-Entry Test administered by HIWU;

(vi) A period of Ineligibility of fourteen months for Tigger Attack beginning October

29, 2024, which has now been served, such that reinstatement of Tigger Attack is

subject to a Negative Finding from a Re-Entry Test administered by HIWU;

(vii)

Payment of some or all of the costs of adjudication; and

(viii)

Public disclosure pursuant to ADMC Program Rules.

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 22 of 33 * PUBLIC *

Trainer Childers’ Contentions

6.6

Trainer Childers contends that he never purchased or used the Easywillow product

and did not know it was in his tack room. He further contends that since he inherited the

tack room from his grandfather, the Easywillow may have been in the tack room from that

prior time, and he just never threw it away.

6.7

Trainer Childers contends that he did not administer Testosterone to Tigger Attack

or Childersattack and bears No Fault or Negligence for the Presence ADRVs.

6.8

With respect to Tigger Attack, Trainer Childers contends that “Dr. McCrosky

personally and unilaterally administered Testosterone to the Covered Horse Tigger Attack

without the knowledge of Trainer Childers.” (Childers Post-Hearing Br. at 2.)

6.9

And with respect to Childersattack, while initially contending that Childersattack

was a ridgling, in his post-hearing brief Trainer Childers contends that “[t]he McCrosky

Decision confirms that Dr. McCrosky fabricated the ridgling explanation and that

Childersattack was in fact a gelding at the time of the October 16, 2024, sample. . . . The

only remaining scientific explanation for the Testosterone present in Childersattack’s

system is exogenous administration, and the only person with access to administer

veterinary substances to Childersattack was Dr. McCrosky. Source is therefore established

by logical and evidentiary inference: the substance was placed in the horse by the same

veterinarian who was simultaneously found to have used Testosterone on another horse in

the same owner’s stable, fabricated a fraudulent explanation to cover it up, and operated a

covert trafficking operation at the same racetrack.” (Id. at 4.)

6.10 Trainer Childers seeks the following relief: (a) find that no ADRV was committed;

(b) alternatively, find that Respondent acted with No Fault or Negligence and eliminate all

Consequences; (c) deny HIWU’s request for Ineligibility and fines. (Childers Pre-Hearing

Br. at 4-5.)

VII.

ANALYSIS

A. Possession ADRV

HIWU Has Established the Possession ADRV

7.1

In this matter, Trainer Childers is charged with an ADRV for possession of Kava,

a category S0 Banned Substance.

7.2

It is undisputed that the tub of Easywillow seized from Trainer Childers’ tack room

contained the Banned Substance Kava.

7.3

Trainer Childers contends that he “was not present when the supplement was found,

did not place it in the tack room, had no knowledge of its presence, and exercised no

singular exclusive control over a space that multiple individuals accessed.” (Childers PostHearing Br. at 9.)

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 23 of 33 * PUBLIC *

7.4

But whether Trainer Childers was present when the product was found, personally

placed it in the tack room, or was otherwise aware it was in his tack room “is of no legal

moment under the definition of Possession.” HIWU v. Poole, JAMS Case No.

15010000576, ¶ 7.9. Under the definition of possession, “constructive possession” is

sufficient and is established “if the Covered Person has exclusive control or intends to

exercise exclusive control over . . . the premises in which a Prohibited Substance” is found.

7.5

Despite Trainer Childers’ contention that he “exercised no singular exclusive

control over a space that multiple individuals accessed,” the record evidences that Trainer

Childers maintained exclusive control over the tack room where the Easywillow was found.

Trainer Childers testified that he took over the barn space, including the tack room, from

his grandfather in 2020. Trainer Childers further testified that the stalls and tack room were

his areas of the barn and he was responsible for those areas. He also testified that he

maintained a lock on his tack room door, though he did not always keep it locked. No one

used the tack room where the Easywillow was found other than those, like his brother

Hunter Childers, who worked under Trainer Childers’ direction. Accordingly, the

Arbitrator finds that Trainer Childers had exclusive control over the premises where the

Easywillow containing the Kava was found.

7.6

Trainer Childers has failed to assert any “compelling justification” for his

possession of the Banned Substance.

7.7

Accordingly, the Arbitrator finds that HIWU has established to the comfortable

satisfaction of the Arbitrator that Trainer Childers was in possession of the Banned

Substance Kava in violation of Rule 3214(a).

Term of Ineligibility

7.8

Having determined that Trainer Childers committed the act of possession under the

ADMC Program, the Arbitrator next considers whether the standard two (2) year period of

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

No Significant Fault or Negligence. For a charge of possession, unlike for charges of

presence, there is no predicate to reaching the No Fault or Negligence or No Significant

Fault or Negligence standard (such as having to show source). Accordingly, once the

elements of possession are found, the analysis proceeds directly to the fault analysis.

7.9

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

“[T]he 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. . . .”

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 24 of 33 * PUBLIC *

7.10

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

“[T]he 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.”

7.11 Trainer Childers admitted that upon inheriting the tack room from his grandfather,

he did not conduct a thorough search to inventory what was in the tack room or look at the

ingredient lists of all the products in the tack room. He also admitted that he did not attend

any of HIWU’s live educational seminars, and thus did not hear the advice that Covered

Persons should conduct a spring cleaning of their barns before the Act came into effect.

Trainer Childers acknowledged that he “didn’t go through all the stuff that [he] should

have,” and admitted he “should have been more diligent.” Trainer Childers’ conduct

reflects sufficient negligence to preclude the Arbitrator from finding No Fault or

Negligence.

7.12 Under a finding of No Significant Fault or Negligence, Trainer Childers could be

Ineligible for anywhere between three (3) months and twenty-four (24) months, depending

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

cases considering the issues across a similarly broad range have found it useful,

analytically, to break the range into three basic groupings: insignificant or slight fault;

moderate fault; significant fault. See CAS 2013/A/3327, Cilic v. International Tennis

Federation.

7.13 The CAS Panel analysis in Cilic considered 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 situation and determines into which category a

case falls; the subjective element describes what could have been expected from the

particular person, in light of his personal capacities, and typically moves the individual up

or down within a specific category.

7.14 Applying the Cilic ranges as a guide, the Arbitrator breaks down the twenty-one

months of possible periods of Ineligibility into roughly three seven-month ranges of

objective fault: slight or insignificant: three to ten months; moderate: ten to seventeen

months; significant: seventeen to twenty-four months.

7.15 The Arbitrator determines that Trainer Childers’ conduct demonstrates that he

objectively falls into the moderate or middle range of objective fault. Trainer Childers

failed to inventory the items in his tack room and their ingredients to ensure that no

products that had been left by his grandfather contained any banned substances. He also

failed to attend information sessions that would have advised him to conduct a spring

cleaning before the Act came into effect. On the other hand, while Trainer Childers did not

conduct a comprehensive search of all products in his tack room, he did undertake to

discard items he understood to be prohibited under the ADMC Program, including thyroid

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 25 of 33 * PUBLIC *

powder.

7.16 Subjective factors weigh in Trainer Childers’ favor. Trainer Childers is a young,

inexperienced trainer, and there is no evidence he ever purchased or used the Easywillow

product containing the Kava. Trainer Childers credibly testified that he did not even know

the product was in his tack room. During the November 12, 2024 search, Hunter Childers

advised Investigator Meyer that the Easywillow had never been used (while admitting that

another product that also was seized had been used). Consistent with Hunter Childers’

assertion, Investigator Meyer testified that the Easywillow was found at the back of a shelf

in Trainer Childers’ tack room behind other items and, according to his investigative report,

was “covered in dirt/dust, and the bag inside the tub appeared to be full and in its original

state.”

7.17 After consideration of the above factors, the Arbitrator determines that Trainer

Childers’ objective level of fault falls in the moderate range, and that he should receive a

reduction, due to the subjective factors, of five (5) months from what normally would have

been seventeen (17) months.

7.18

The Arbitrator thus imposes a period of Ineligibility of twelve (12) months.

B. Presence ADRVs

HIWU Has Proven the Presence ADRV with Respect to Tigger Attack

7.19 As noted at 5.17 above, Rule 3212(a) describes the strict liability duty of Trainer

Childers to ensure no Banned Substances are present in the body of his Covered Horse.

7.20 As further noted at 5.17 above, a Rule 3212 violation is established when “the

Covered Horse’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the B Sample confirms the

presence of the Banned Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the A Sample.”

7.21 Tigger Attack’s A Sample returned an AF for Testosterone at a concentration of

374 pg/mL, and the B Sample confirmed the presence of Testosterone at a concertation of

363.5 pg/mL, both above the threshold of 100 pg/mL in blood for geldings.

7.22 Under Rule 3122(c), “[l]aboratories are presumed to have conducted Sample

analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the Laboratory Standards. A Covered

Person who is alleged to have committed a violation may rebut this presumption by

establishing that a departure from the Laboratory Standards occurred that could reasonably

have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding or other factual basis for any other violation

asserted.” Here, Trainer Childers has not presented any evidence that a departure from the

Laboratory Standards occurred that could reasonably have caused the AAF.

7.23 Accordingly, HIWU has met its burden of establishing, to the Arbitrator’s

comfortable satisfaction, that Trainer Childers has committed a Rule 3212 violation.

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 26 of 33 * PUBLIC *

Term of Ineligibility

7.24 Pursuant to ADMC Program Rule 3223, the presumptive period of ineligibility for

a first ADRV under ADMC Program Rule 3212 (Presence) is two (2) years of Ineligibility.

Trainer Childers Has Met His Burden to Prove the Source of the Testosterone in Tigger

Attack’s Sample

7.25 Because HIWU has met its burden of establishing an ADRV under Rule 3212, the

Arbitrator next considers whether Trainer Childers is entitled to a reduction in sanctions

under Rule 3224 or 3225.

7.26 The Rules expressly place the burden on the Covered Person to establish, by a

balance of probabilities, how the Prohibited Substance entered the horse’s system. Trainer

Childers contends that he has met his burden of establishing that Dr. McCrosky

administered Testosterone to Tigger Attack. More specifically, Trainer Childers asserts

that “the McCrosky Decision confirms, through Dr. McCrosky’s own sworn testimony

credited by Arbitrator Fraser, that Dr. McCrosky administered one cc of Testosterone to

Tigger Attack after being told by a groom that the horse was not eating well. The

administration was admitted, unilateral, and conducted by the attending veterinarian

without Trainer Childers’ knowledge or involvement.” (Childers Post-Hearing Br. at 4.)

7.27 HIWU argues that Trainer Childers has failed to meet his burden of establishing

source because “Trainer Childers failed to submit scientific evidence that administration

of 1 cc of Testosterone to a Thoroughbred can result in blood concentration levels between

363.5 and 374 pg/mL seven to ten days after administration. As a result, mere speculation

links Dr. McCrosky’s admitted administration to the Presence ADRV. The Testosterone

found in Tigger Attack’s blood Sample could have been due to some other administration

or exposure of Testosterone to Tigger Attack separate and apart from Dr. McCrosky’s

admitted administration.” (HIWU Post-Hearing Br. at 4.)

7.28 I find that Trainer Childers has met his burden of proving, by a balance of

probabilities, the source of the Testosterone in Tigger Attack’s Sample. Contrary to

HIWU’s argument, there is no requirement that Trainer Childers “submit scientific

evidence that administration of 1 cc of Testosterone to a Thoroughbred can result in blood

concentration levels between 363.5 and 374 pg/mL seven to ten days after administration.”

7.29 The decision in HIWU v. VanMeter, JAMS Case 1501000594, does not hold

otherwise. While in that case, HIWU’s expert provided testimony confirming the volume

of substance that would have to be ingested to produce the concentration level found in the

horse’s sample, and the Arbitrator relied on that evidence in determining that source had

been established by the trainer, such evidence is not a mandatory prerequisite to proving

source. Instead, the ADMC Program simply requires that the Covered Person establish

source by a balance of probabilities.

7.30 In the McCrosky case, HIWU asserted that during an interview with HIWU

investigators, “Dr. McCrosky mentioned a prior Atypical Finding (“AF”) for Testosterone

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 27 of 33 * PUBLIC *

in Tigger Attack,” and “[w]hen discussing this AF during the Interview, Dr. McCrosky

admitted to administering one cc of Testosterone to Tigger Attack after being advised by a

groom that the horse was not eating well. Dr. McCrosky added that he tries to make sure

that he administers Testosterone no shorter than seven to ten days out from a race, and that

he does not regularly use Testosterone. He described his use of Testosterone as every once

in a while and only if a horse is not eating well.” (McCrosky Final Decision ¶¶ 2.6-2.7,

2.25.) The Arbitrator in that matter held that Dr. McCrosky had committed a Use ADRV

by administering Testosterone to Tigger Attack.

7.31 There is no evidence that Trainer Childers ever administered Testosterone to Tigger

Attack. To the contrary, Trainer Childers testified that not only did he never administer or

see anyone administering Testosterone to Tigger Attack, but also that he never

administered any medications to any of the horses owned by Dr. McCrosky or his wife. In

addition, no testosterone was found during the Investigators’ search of Trainer Childers’

barn on November 12, 2024.

7.32 Considering the totality of the evidence, I find that Trainer Childers has met his

burden of proving, by a balance of probabilities, the source of the Testosterone in Tigger

Attack’s Sample.

Applicability of Rule 3224 or Rule 3225

7.33 The Arbitrator next considers whether Trainer Childers has established that he is

entitled to an elimination of the sanction under Rule 3224 because he bears “No Fault or

Negligence” or a reduction of the sanction under Rule 3225 because he bears “No

Significant Fault or Negligence.”

7.34 The “case law places the burden of proof very high to establish no fault or

negligence,” requiring the charged individual to “prove that he did not know or suspect or

could not reasonably have known or suspected, even with the utmost caution that he had”

committed an ADRV. CAS 2007/A/1446, WADA v. Qatar Football Association, ¶ 6.15. It

is well established that No Fault applies only in the most exceptional circumstances, as

acknowledged in CAS jurisprudence and in the commentary to the WADC itself: The No

Fault provision “will only apply in exceptional circumstances, for example, where an

Athlete could prove that, despite all due care, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor.”

7.35 Under Rule 3040(b)(5), Trainer Childers had an affirmative duty to adequately

supervise all Covered Persons involved in the care of his Covered Horses, including

veterinarians. And Rule 3224(b) makes clear that “Rule 3224 only applies in exceptional

circumstances,” and “[i]n particular, it will not apply where the Banned Substance found

to be present in a Sample . . . was administered to the Covered Horse by veterinary or other

support personnel without the knowledge of the Responsible Person.”

7.36 The Arbitrator accepts Trainer Childers’ testimony that he did not know that Dr.

McCrosky administered Testosterone to Tigger Attack until after he had been served with

the AF notice. Nonetheless, Trainer Childers was responsible to adequately supervise Dr.

McCrosky and has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he bears No Fault or

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 28 of 33 * PUBLIC *

Negligence for Dr. McCrosky administering Testosterone to Tigger Attack without his

knowledge.

7.37 The Arbitrator does find, however, that Trainer Childers has proven, by a balance

of probabilities, that his 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 ADRV.

7.38 To benefit from a reduction in sanction for No Significant Fault or Negligence, the

Respondent must have “taken at least all clear and obvious precautions which any human

being would have taken in the same set of circumstances.” CAS 2010/A/2245, Plotniy v.

ITF, ¶ 14. Here, contrary to HIWU’s assertion that Trainer Childers “took no precautions

whatsoever” (HIWU Post-Hearing Br. ¶ 15), Trainer Childers did make inquiries as to the

medications Dr. McCrosky was administering to his Covered Horses, and Dr. McCrosky

told Trainer Childers he was providing the horses “vitamins,” “buildup,” or other vaguely

described permissible substances. Further, at the hearing in response to a question from

HIWU whether Trainer Childers previously told Investigator Meyer that Dr. McCrosky

“was giving [his] horses, you know injections and medications, but [he] didn’t really know

the specifics about it,” Trainer Childers credibly testified that the difference in giving

Adequan or Bute to testosterone “is a big difference,” and he had “assumed it was one

way” when “it was not.” There is no evidence to suggest Dr. McCrosky or anyone else ever

informed Trainer Childers, or that Trainer Childers should have otherwise known, that Dr.

McCrosky was administering prohibited substances to Tigger Attack.

7.39 The cases relied upon by HIWU are readily distinguishable. HIWU cites to CAS

2007/A/1446, WADA v. Qatar Football Association, for the proposition that “athletes are

responsible for the choice of their medical personnel, and the possible failure of a doctor

to verify the compatibility of the prescribed substance does not exclude the personal

responsibility of the player in connection with the prohibited substances.” (HIWU Presence

Br. ¶ 63(a).) HIWU also cites to CAS 2012/A/2959, WADA v. Nilforushan and FEI, where

a CAS panel found that an equestrian athlete failed to establish No Significant Fault when

the athlete “accepted medication provided to him by Dr. Tachuk in unlabeled bottles,

without knowing the ingredients and without asking any questions about them or doublechecking in any other manner.” (HIWU Presence Br. ¶ 63(b).) Neither case involved

intentional wrongdoing by the medical personnel. Here, Dr. McCrosky intentionally

misrepresented and concealed the substances he was administering to Covered Horses,

telling Trainer Childers he was administering permissible substances when in fact he was

administering prohibited substances.

7.40 The Arbitrator determines that Trainer Childers’ conduct demonstrates that he

objectively falls into the moderate range of objective fault. It is understandable that Trainer

Childers did not perceive a significant degree of risk in allowing Dr. McCrosky to

administer what he was told were permissible substances to the Covered Horses, as Dr.

McCrosky was an extremely experienced veterinarian and one of only two veterinarians at

Fairmount Park. Furthermore, Dr. McCrosky had provided veterinary services to Trainer

Childers’ grandfather for many years without issue. On the other hand, Trainer Childers

acknowledged that he had a duty to adequately supervise Dr. McCrosky, yet he “deferred”

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 29 of 33 * PUBLIC *

to and “trusted” Dr. McCrosky regarding the administration of substances to Covered

Horses given Dr. McCrosky’s experience and expertise in the veterinary field. Considering

the totality of the circumstances, I find Trainer Childers falls into the moderate or middle

range of objective fault.

7.41 Subjective factors warrant a further reduction in sanction. As discussed above,

Trainer Childers is a young, inexperienced trainer. He candidly acknowledged that he was

“naive” in deferring to Dr. McCrosky. While Trainer Childers’ inquiries of Dr. McCrosky

could have been more thorough, the evidence reflects that Dr. McCrosky intentionally

misled Trainer Childers regarding the substances he provided to the Covered Horses.

Indeed, Dr. McCrosky testified that Trainer Childers was not involved and did not know

anything about the administration of Testosterone to Tigger Attack. Furthermore, because

Tigger Attack was owned by Dr. McCrosky’s wife, Dr. McCrosky had unfettered access

to the horse. Even with the exercise of utmost caution, I find it unlikely Trainer Childers

could have uncovered and prevented Dr. McCrosky’s misconduct.

7.42 After consideration of the above factors, the Arbitrator determines that Trainer

Childers’ objective level of fault falls in the moderate range, and that he should receive a

reduction, due to the subjective factors, of seven (7) months from what normally would

have been seventeen (17) months.

7.43 The Arbitrator thus concludes that Trainer Childers should suffer a period of

Ineligibility at the lowest end of the moderate range, ten (10) months.

HIWU Has Proven the Presence ADRV with Respect to Childersattack

7.44 Childersattack’s A Sample returned an Atypical Finding for Testosterone at a

concentration of 579 pg/mL, and the B Sample confirmed the presence of Testosterone at

a concentration of 496 pg/mL, both above the threshold of 100 pg/mL for geldings.

7.45 In his pre-hearing brief and at the hearing, Trainer Childers argued that

Childersattack was a ridgling, and “[t]he evidence demonstrates that the detected levels of

Testosterone in Childersattack were the result of endogenous production from a retained

testicle, rather than exogenous administration.” (Childers Pre-Hearing Br. at 2.) Trainer

Childers further argued that “HIWU has not established that the detected levels resulted

from exogenous administration. The discovery and surgical removal of the retained testicle

provide a clear, natural explanation for the presence of the substance.” (Id. at 4.) In his

post-hearing brief, however, Trainer Childers argues that “[t]he McCrosky Decision

confirms that Dr. McCrosky fabricated the ridgling explanation and that Childersattack

was in fact a gelding at the time of the October 16, 2024, sample.” (Childers Post-Hearing

Br. at 4.)

7.46 Under Rule 3212, “[s]ufficient proof of a Rule 3212” ADRV “is established by . .

. the Covered Horse’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the B Sample confirms the

presence of the Banned Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the A Sample.”

7.47

Here, both the A and B Sample reported Testosterone concentration above the

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 30 of 33 * PUBLIC *

Threshold for geldings.

7.48 I find Trainer Childers’ argument that Childersattack was a ridgling, not a gelding,

at the time of Sample Collection unsupported by the evidence.

7.49 Dr. Mary Scollay, HIWU’s former Chief of Science, provided persuasive testimony

that the lack of Nandrolone in Childersattack’s blood Sample makes it highly unlikely that

Childersattack had functional testicular material at the time of sample collection on

October 16, 2024. As Dr. Scollay also explained, it is highly unlikely that a ridgling with

an undescended testicle would produce a sample on September 24, 2024, that was negative

for Testosterone, meaning with a concentration less than 100 pg/mL, and then test positive

three weeks later on October 16, 2024, at a concentration of 579 pg/mL, without having

been exogenously administered Testosterone in the time period between the two sample

collections. I find that, as Trainer Childers now concedes in his post-hearing brief,

Childersattack was not a ridgling with an undescended testicle in his body at the time of

Sample collection, and the excess Testosterone in his system was not endogenous.

7.50 Trainer Childers has not presented any evidence that a departure from the

Laboratory Standards occurred that could reasonably have caused the AAF.

7.51 Accordingly, the Agency has met its burden of establishing, to the Arbitrator’s

comfortable satisfaction, that Trainer Childers has committed a Rule 3212 violation with

respect to Childersattack.

Term of Ineligibility

7.52 Pursuant to ADMC Program Rule 3223, the presumptive period of ineligibility for

a first ADRV under ADMC Program Rule 3212 (Presence) is two (2) years of Ineligibility.

Trainer Childers Has Failed to Meet His Burden to Prove the Source of the Testosterone

in Childersattack’s Sample

7.53 As discussed above, the Rules expressly place the burden on the Covered Person to

establish, by a balance of probabilities, how the Prohibited Substance entered the horse’s

system.

7.54 In light of the clear evidence, discussed above, undermining his theory that

Childersattack was a ridgling at the time of Sample Collection, Trainer Childers changes

course in his post-hearing brief and asserts that “[t]he McCrosky Decision confirms that

Dr. McCrosky fabricated the ridgling explanation and that Childersattack was in fact a

gelding at the time of the October 16, 2024, sample.” (Childers Post-Hearing Br. at 4.)

Trainer Childers contends that “[t]he only remaining scientific explanation for the

Testosterone present in Childersattack’s system is exogenous administration, and the only

person with access to administer veterinary substances to Childersattack was Dr.

McCrosky.” Id. “Source is therefore established by logical and evidentiary inference: the

substance was placed in the horse by the same veterinarian who was simultaneously found

to have used Testosterone on another horse in the same owner’s stable, fabricated a

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 31 of 33 * PUBLIC *

fraudulent explanation to cover it up, and operated a covert trafficking operation at the

same racetrack.” (Id.)

7.55 Trainer Childers, however, has failed to present any evidence to support his

speculative assertion that Dr. McCrosky administered Testosterone to Childersattack and

was the source of the AAF. Unlike with respect to Tigger Attack, Dr. McCrosky did not

admit to administering Testosterone to Childersattack. While Dr. McCrosky’s actions with

respect to Tigger Attack raises suspicions that he may have administered Prohibited

Substances to other Covered Horses as well, this “logical and evidentiary inference” is

nothing more than mere speculation. Trainer Childers has “a stringent requirement to offer

persuasive evidence” of the source of the AAF. CAS 2017/A/4692, WADA v. CPA & Karim

Gharbi, ¶ 53. Here, Trainer Childers has failed to proffer any such persuasive evidence to

carry his burden of proving, by a balance of probabilities, source with respect to

Childersattack.

7.56 I thus conclude that Trainer Childers cannot benefit from mitigated consequences

since he has failed to prove, by a balance of probabilities, how the Testosterone entered

Childersattack’s system. Therefore, his sanction stands at two (2) years of Ineligibility.

C. The Periods of Ineligibility Will Be Served Consecutively

7.57 HIWU seeks to have sanctions imposed on Trainer Childers separately for each of

the three ADRVs committed and for those sanctions to run consecutively. (HIWU Presence

Br. ¶ 65.)

7.58 Under Rule 3223(c)(2), “[w]here a Covered Person is already serving a period of

Ineligibility for another violation of the Protocol, any new period of Ineligibility shall start

to run the day after the original period of Ineligibility ends.”

7.59 Under Rule 3223(c)(2), the periods of Ineligibility will be served consecutively,

with a total period of Ineligibility of three (3) years and ten (10) months.

D. Fine, Payment Toward Arbitration Costs

7.60 Under the ADMC Program, the punishment for a first offense ADRV includes, in

addition to a period of Ineligibility, a “Fine of up to $25,000 . . . and Payment of some

or all of the adjudication costs and the Agency’s legal costs.” Rule 3223(b).

7.61 HIWU requests that the Arbitrator impose a fine of $25,000 for each ADRV, for a

total fine of $75,000.

7.62 The Arbitrator determines based on the specific facts and circumstances of this case,

the substantial consequences imposed, and the purpose of the regulatory scheme as

applied here, the fine should be set at a total of $30,000 for all three ADRVs to be paid

by the end of the period of Ineligibility.

7.63 HIWU has not requested any payment towards its legal fees, and the Arbitrator

declines to require any such payment.

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 32 of 33 * PUBLIC *

7.64 HIWU does, however, request an order that Trainer Childers pay some or all of the

adjudication costs. The Arbitrator declines, in the Arbitrator’s discretion and

consistent with the intent and spirit of the ADMC Program, to engage in any costshifting. The Arbitrator concludes that the consequences so ordered are sufficient,

adequate and appropriate given the circumstances and nature of the ADRVs in this

case.

7.65 All other arguments by the Parties have been considered and rejected.

VIII.

AWARD

8.1 Based on the foregoing facts, legal analysis, and conclusions of fact, the Arbitrator

renders the following decision:

Trainer Childers is found to have committed one first-offense Rule 3214(a)

Possession ADRV and two first-offense Rule 3212 Presence ADRVs, as

described above. As a result:

Trainer Childers shall be suspended for a period of Ineligibility of three (3)

years and ten (10) months, commencing on the date consistent with the

language in the Notice of Sanctions;

ii.

Trainer Childers shall be fined $30,000 to be paid to HIWU by the end of the

period of Ineligibility described above;

iii.

The results of Childersattack obtained on October 17, 2024 in Race 2 at

Fairmount Park are disqualified, including forfeiture of all purse and other

compensation, prizes, trophies, points, and rankings and repayment or

surrender (as applicable) to the Race Organizer;

iv.

The results of Tigger Attack obtained on October 29, 2024 in Race 2 at

Fairmount Park are disqualified, including forfeiture of all purse and other

compensation, prizes, trophies, points, and rankings and repayment or

surrender (as applicable) to the Race Organizer;

A period of Ineligibility of fourteen (14) months is imposed for

Childersattack beginning October 16, 2024, which has now been served,

such that reinstatement of Childersattack is subject to a Negative Finding

from a Re-Entry Test administered by HIWU;

vi.

A period of Ineligibility of fourteen (14) months is imposed for Tigger

Attack beginning October 29, 2024, which has now been served, such that

reinstatement of Tigger Attack is subject to a Negative Finding from a ReEntry Test administered by HIWU; and

vii.

There will be public disclosure of these findings in accordance with the

ADMC Program Rules.

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.

Docusign Envelope ID: FE8F8E34-D5D6-4B71-A916-5EAF490FB53F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 05/28/2026 OSCAR NO. 615527 -PAGE Page 33 of 33 * PUBLIC *

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2026

________________________

Bernard Taylor Sr., Arbitrator

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.