FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 1 of 14 * PUBLIC *

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 1 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

__________________________________________

)

In the Matter of

)

)

Vance Childers,

)

)

Appellant.

)

__________________________________________)

Docket No. 9452

ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW AND STAY OF SANCTIONS

This case arises from sanctions imposed against Vance Childers, a trainer,

after an Arbitrator found he committed three violations of the Rules adopted to

implement the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (“HISA”). 1 One of the

violations was for Possession of a Banned Substance. The remaining two were for

Presence of a Banned Substance. Mr. Childers, a Covered Person under HISA, has

filed a Notice of Appeal and Application for Review (the “Review App.”), which also

includes a request to stay the sanctions imposed. The Horseracing Integrity and

Safety Authority (the “Authority”) filed a response to Mr. Childers’s review

application and stay request (the Authority’s “Review Resp.”).

This Order addresses both matters.

See generally 15 U.S.C. §§ 3051-60. Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this Order, are

from HISA Rule 1020 of the General Provisions and the Rules adopted under HISA, unless

otherwise identified.

1

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 2 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

I.

Summary of the Regulatory Structure and the Relevant Rules.

The Authority has adopted, and the FTC has approved, various rules to

implement HISA, including those comprising the statutorily-required Anti-Doping

and Medication Control (“ADMC”) Program. 2 The Horseracing Integrity & Welfare

Unit (“HIWU”) enforces these rules on behalf of the Authority. 3 Violations of

various Rules implementing the ADMC Program provide for sanctions, which can

include a period of Ineligibility to participate in HISA-governed thoroughbred

racing, a fine, payment of adjudication costs, and publication of the violation. 4

The HISA and ADMC Program rules address, among other subjects: (1) the

substances that are banned outright or subject to threshold presence

requirements, or are regulated as controlled medications; (2) the conduct that

constitutes violations; and (3) the sanctions that may be imposed for Rule

violations. The more serious violations are Anti-Doping Rule Violations (“ADRVs”),

which include Banned Substances that “should never be in a horse’s system.” 5 To

implement the Program, the Authority has issued a Prohibited List of Banned

Substances. 6

See generally ADMC Rule 3000 Series; 88 Fed. Reg. 27894 (Mar.

27, 2023) (FTC Notice of Final Rule, effective May 22, 2023), https://hisaus.org/regulations?modalshown=true#equine-anti-doping-and-controlled-medication-protocol-rules.

2 15 U.S.C. §§ 3053, 3055, 3057.

3 Rule 3010(e)(1).

4 See, e.g., Rule 3212. HISA Rule 1020 defines “the penalties resulting from the occurrence of one or

more [Rule] violations” as “Consequences,” which parties often refer to as “sanctions,” a term also

used, but not defined, in the Rules. For simplicity, I use the term “sanctions.”

5 Rule 3010(c).

See also Rules 1020 (definition of ADRV), 3111(a) (Prohibited Substances).

6 See Rules 1020 (definition of Prohibited List), 3111(a), 4010-4117 (Banned Substances), Appendix

1 to Rule Series 4000 (Technical Document—Prohibited Substances).

2

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 3 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

II.

Summary of the Underlying Facts.

A.

The Three ADRV Charges Against Mr. Childers.

1.

Presence of a Banned Substance: Childersattack.

Childersattack is a Covered Horse trained by Mr. Childers and under the

veterinary care of Dr. Donald McCrosky. 7 Following the collection of an out-ofcompetition blood sample for Childersattack at Fairmount Park Racetrack in

Collinsville, Illinois in October 2024, the horse’s A Sample tested positive for

testosterone, a Banned Substance. 8 At the time, Childersattack was registered as

a gelding (a fully castrated male horse). 9

In November 2024, HIWU notified Mr. Childers of the Atypical Finding of

testosterone, and Dr. McCrosky sent a handwritten note to HIWU, stating that he

performed a castration on Childersattack in March 2022, but a testosteroneproducing undescended testicle was left intact after the surgery. 10 In December

2024, HIWU served a business records demand on Dr. McCrosky requesting

Childersattack’s medical records and later requested that Childersattack be made

available for examination. 11 Dr. McCrosky did not respond to those requests. 12 In

April 2025, after HIWU notified Mr. Childers that it believed the testosterone

finding constituted a Presence ADRV, Dr. McCrosky sent HIWU another hand

7 AB 2150, at ¶ 10 (Uncontested Stipulation of Fact).

8

Id. at ¶¶ 12-13.

9

Id. at ¶ 12.

10

Id. at ¶¶ 14-15.

11

Id. at ¶ 16.

12

Id.

3

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 4 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

note, stating that he had removed the remaining testicle from Childersattack in

December 2024. 13 Subsequently, HIWU charged Mr. Childers with violating Rule

3212(a) for the Presence of a Banned Substance in Childersattack. 14

2.

Presence of a Banned Substance: Tigger Attack.

Tigger Attack is a Covered Horse trained by Mr. Childers and also under

the veterinary care of Donald McCrosky. 15 In October 2024 a blood sample from

Tigger Attack, collected after the horse raced at Fairmount Park, tested positive

for Testosterone. 16 In March 2025, HIWU charged Mr. Childers with violating

Rule 3212(a), for the Presence of a Banned Substance in Tigger Attack. 17

Thereafter, during an interview with HIWU investigators, Dr. McCrosky

admitted administering testosterone to Tigger Attack prior to the horse’s October

2024 race after learning that the horse was not eating well. 18

3.

Possession of a Banned Substance.

In November 2024, HIWU investigators searched Mr. Childers’s tack room,

feed room, office, and barn area at Fairmount Park. 19 They discovered a tub

labeled “Easywillow,” which listed Kava Kava, a Banned Substance on the label. 20

13

Id. at ¶ 18.

14

Id. at ¶ 19.

15

Id. at ¶ 10.

16

Id. at ¶¶ 21-22.

17

Id. at ¶ 25.

18

Id. at ¶ 26.

19

Id. at ¶ 2.

20

Id. at ¶¶ 3-5; Appendix 1 to Rule Series 4000.

4

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 5 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

Laboratory analysis confirmed the presence of the primary active compound in

Kava Kava. 21

Rule 3214(a) prohibits “Possession of a Banned Substance . . . unless there

is compelling justification for such Possession.” The Rule imposes strict liability,

regardless of knowledge or intent, absent an exception that is inapplicable here. 22

HIWU subsequently charged Mr. Childers with a violation of the ADMC Program’s

Possession rule. 23

B.

The Arbitrator’s Final Decision.

After receiving witness testimony and other evidence, the Arbitrator ruled

that HIWU proved the two Rule 3212(a) Presence violations, as well as the Rule

3214(a) Possession violation. The Arbitrator awarded the following sanctions:

1. A three-year and ten-month period of Ineligibility for Mr. Childers;

2. A fine of $30,000 USD;

3. Disqualification of Childersattack’s and Tigger Attack’s Race Results in

their two October 2024 races, and forfeiture of all purse and other

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

surrender (as applicable);

4. A 14-month period of Ineligibility for Childersattack;

5. A 14-month period of Ineligibility for Tigger Attack;

6. Public disclosure of the disposition. 24

21

Id. 2149, at ¶ 6 (Uncontested Stipulation of Fact).

22 Rule 1020 (definition of Possession). See Matter of Shell, No. 9439, 2025 WL 1784696, at *11,

n.16 (FTC ALJ Mar. 6, 2025); HIWU v. Poole, JAMS Case No. 1501000576, at ¶¶ 7.7-.8 (Aug. 8,

2023), aff’d sub nom. Matter of Poole, No. 9417, 2023 WL 8435860, at *5 (FTC ALJ Nov. 13, 2023).

23 AB 2149, at ¶ 8 (Uncontested Stipulation of Fact).

24

Id. 2434, at ¶ 8.1 (Final Decision).

5

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 6 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

C.

The Issues on this Review.

On this review, Mr. Childers asserts multiple grounds for overturning the

Arbitrator’s decision and the sanctions. In summary, he contends that:

(1) the Arbitrator erroneously failed to find that Dr. McCrosky was the

source of Childersattack’s Presence finding, contrary to another arbitrator’s

finding in HIWU v. McCrosky, JAMS Case No. 1501001138 (Feb. 6, 2026), based

on the same facts. Accordingly, Mr. Childers should have been entitled to reduced

sanctions under a No Significant Fault or Negligence finding;

(2) The 12-month Kava Kava Possession sanction is disproportionate and

inconsistent with ADMC Program jurisprudence;

(3) The consecutive sentencing structure imposed on Mr. Childers is

disproportionate and inconsistent with ADMC Program principles. 25

In its response, the Authority asserts that:

(1) The Ineligibility period imposed for the Childersattack Presence charge

should be reduced to 10 months—comparable to the period imposed by the

Arbitrator for the Presence violation for Tigger Attack— based on Dr. McCrosky

being found liable for Tampering in the Matter of McCrosky. 26

(2) The 12-month Ineligibility period for the Possession charge is consistent

with ALJ jurisprudence and a proper consideration of Mr. Childers’s objective and

subjective level of fault.

25 Review App. at 1-3.

26 No. 9448, 2026 WL 1633298 (FTC ALJ June 2, 2026).

6

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 7 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

(3) Mr. Childers is barred from raising consecutive sanctioning or

proportionality, having not done so before the Arbitrator. Even if he were not,

consecutive ineligibility is authorized under Rule 3228(c)(1), and the principle of

proportionality does not provide a basis to reduce the sanction here. 27

Besides seeking review of the Arbitrator’s decision and the sanctions

imposed, Mr. Childers also seeks a stay of the sanctions. I will consider the stay

relief first. After that, I address the review application and the further proceedings

in this case.

III.

Stay Request.

Under FTC Rule 1.148(c) & (d), an application for a stay of the sanctions

imposed “must provide the reasons a stay is . . . warranted by addressing the

[following] factors . . . and the facts relied upon”:

(1) The likelihood of the applicant’s success on review;

(2) Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not

granted;

(3) The degree of injury to other parties or third parties if a stay is granted;

and

(4) Whether the stay is in the public interest. 28

27 Review Resp. at 1-3.

28 87 Fed. Reg. 60083. See generally Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (adopting comparable

factors).

7

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 8 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

Importantly, “[a] stay pending appeal is an intrusion into the ordinary

processes of administration and judicial review, so this extraordinary relief is

never granted as a matter of right.” 29

Mr. Childers’s stay request consists of a single conclusory statement and

provides no argument addressing the required factors, nor any factual support for

the requested relief. 30 Accordingly, he has not met the burden set forth in FTC

Rule 1.148 to grant a stay during the pendency of this review proceeding. His stay

request is DENIED.

IV.

Application for Review.

FTC Rule 1.146(c)(2) provides that:

In reviewing the final civil sanction and decision of the Authority, the

Administrative Law Judge may rely in full or in part on the factual record

developed before the Authority through the disciplinary process under 15

U.S.C. 3057(c) and disciplinary hearings under Authority Rule Series 8300.

The record may be supplemented by an evidentiary hearing conducted by

the Administrative Law Judge to ensure each party receives a fair and

impartial hearing. Within 20 days of the filing of an application for review,

based on the application submitted by the aggrieved party or by the

Commission and on any response by the Authority, the Administrative Law

Judge will assess whether:

(i) The parties do not request to supplement or contest the facts found

by the Authority;

Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, No. 25-2089, 2025 WL 3135862, at **5 (1st

Cir. 2025) (cleaned up), admin. stay extended, No. 25A539, 2025 WL 3145875 (mem.) (U.S. Nov. 11,

2025). See also Media Matters for Am. v. FTC, No. 25-5302, 2025 WL 2988966, at *3 (D.C. Cir. Oct.

23, 2025) (A stay “pending appeal is an extraordinary form of relief.”) (cleaned up).

29

30 Review App. at 4.

8

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 9 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

(ii) The parties do not seek to contest any facts found by the

Authority, but at least one party requests to supplement the factual

record;

(iii) At least one party seeks to contest any facts found by the

Authority;

(iv) The Commission, if it filed the application for review, seeks

supplementation of the record; or

(v) In the Administrative Law Judge’s view, the factual record is

insufficient to adjudicate the merits of the review proceeding. 31

Neither Mr. Childers nor the Authority has requested an evidentiary

hearing. Consequently, I hereby determine under Rule 1.146(c)(2) that the parties

do not seek to supplement the facts found by the Authority. Accordingly, I will

decide this proceeding on the arbitration record and the parties’ briefs on this

review.

As a preliminary matter, I wish to hold an on-the-record videoconference on

June 22 or 23 to discuss guidance on the opening briefing. The parties are

DIRECTED to confer and, by June 18, 2026, to advise me which date they prefer. I

am setting the conference for 11 a.m. ET, but if the parties prefer another time on

the selected day, I will consider their suggestion.

The parties are further DIRECTED to concurrently file with the FTC’s

Office of the Secretary:

31 On review of cases arising under the ADMC Program, the references in Rule 1.146 to “facts found

by the Authority” are sensibly understood to refer to those found by the “Arbitral Body,” which is

the fact finder and which may, as here, consist of a single arbitrator. See Rules 3261, 7020, 7060;

Matter of Juarez-Rufino, No. 9444, 2025 FTC LEXIS 122, at *28-29 & n.120 (ALJ Dec. 2, 2025).

9

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 10 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

1. By July 8, 2026, “proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a

proposed order, together with a supporting legal brief providing the party’s

reasoning. Such filings, limited to 7,500 words, must be

[contemporaneously] served on the other party and contain references to the

record and authorities on which they rely.” See FTC Rule 1.146(c)(3).

2. “Reply findings of fact, conclusions of law, and briefs, limited to 2,500

words, may be filed by each party within 10 days of service of the initial

filings.”—here, July 20, 2026, assuming initial filings are made on the July

8 date. 32

3. In this case, these word limits apply to all of the opening filings in the

aggregate, and to all of the reply filings in the aggregate. They do not apply

individually to each filing listed. The parties are reminded that any

individual filing must bear a consecutive page number.

4. All filings must also conform to the requirements in Attachment 1 to this

Order.

5. With the filing of their reply papers, either side may request a closing

statement, to be heard within 10 days of the date the reply papers are

filed. 33 Before making such a request, the parties must meet and confer to

determine a mutually convenient date and time for oral argument, together

with one or more alternatives.

32 FTC Rule 1.146(c)(3), 87 Fed. Reg. 60080 (bracketed matter added for avoidance of doubt).

33 FTC Rule 1.146(c)(4)(i)(C)(iii).

10

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 11 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

6. All filing and service dates in this case must be made by 5 p.m. ET on the

date specificized.

ORDERED:

Jay L. Himes

Jay L. Himes

Administrative Law Judge

Date: June 16, 2026

11

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 12 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

ATTACHMENT 1

FURTHER REVIEW FILING REQUIREMENTS

1. In addition to service with the Office of the Secretary, the parties must:

(a) transmit their review filings to the Office of Administrative Law

Judges (“OALJ”) electronically by email (OALJ@ftc.gov): and (b) deliver

by overnight mail one hard copy addressed as follows:

Jay L. Himes

Federal Trade Commission: Northeast Regional Office

1 Bowling Green

Room 318

New York, NY 10004

2. The certificate of service for each paper shall further certify either that:

a. No portion of the filing was drafted by generative artificial

intelligence (“AI”) (such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, Microsoft

Copilot, Harvey.AI, or Google Gemini), or

b. Any language in the filing that was drafted by generative AI was

checked for accuracy by human attorneys or paralegals using printed

legal reporters or online legal databases.

Any filing that fails to comply with these mandatory certification

requirements may be stricken.

3. The electronic files must be double-spaced in MS-Word (.doc/.docx)

format, using Times New Roman 12-point font, and in .pdf format.

4. Hard copies must be printed double-sided and must be spiral bound or

coil bound. Velo binding or comb binding must not be used.

5. All proposed findings of fact must be supported by specific references to

pages in the record, as contained in the Appeal Book (“AB”). Although

the filed AB has numbered Tab dividers, those Tab identifiers should not

12

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 13 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

be cited to, or included in the AB citations. Filings that rely on Tab

citations may be rejected.

6. All legal contentions must be supported by applicable authority.

7. All factual assertions made in a party’s brief must cite to a corresponding

proposed finding of fact. Citations to individual documents or items of

testimony that do not also reference a corresponding proposed finding of

fact may be disregarded.

8. When citing to pages in the arbitration hearing transcript, the parties

must also identify the witness or other speaker by last name.

9. Do not use “Id.” as a cite for proposed findings of fact or reply findings of

fact.

10. Do not cite to more than one copy of the same document. E.g., if identical

copies of the arbitrator’s decision appear, at pages 100 and 200 of the

AB, cite consistently to only one of the two copies.

11. Because the review here is de novo, parties should cite to evidence in the

record and not simply to parts of the arbitration decision.

12. Reply filings must be limited to refuting issues raised by the opposing

side and should not be used merely to bolster assertions or arguments

made in an opening filing, or to restate the proposition in language that

is believed to be more favorable to your position.

a. If you do not disagree with the opposing side’s proposed finding of

fact, set forth the opposing party’s proposed finding of fact in your

reply finding of fact, and then state that you do not disagree.

13

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 615687 -PAGE Page 14 of 14 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

b. If you disagree in part with the opposing side’s proposed finding of

fact, set forth specifically both (i) the part that you disagree with, and

(ii) the part you do not disagree with.

c. The absence of a response to the opposing side’s finding of fact, or a

response stating “No Specific Response” or similar language, will be

deemed acceptance of the finding of fact.

13. Reply briefs must reply to the arguments in the same order as the

arguments were presented by the opposing party in its opening brief.

14. Reply findings of fact must set forth the opposing party’s proposed

finding of fact in single space and then set forth the reply in double

space.

a. Reply findings of fact must be numbered to correspond to the

opposing party’s finding that the reply finding is refuting and must

use the same outline headings used by the opposing party in its

opening proposed findings of fact.

b. The opposing party’s findings of fact must not be included in the word

count applicable to reply findings of fact.

14