FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 1 of 18 * PUBLIC *

Agency decision

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

PUBLIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

FTC DOCKET NO. D-9453

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE:

HON. DANIA L. AYOUBI

IN THE MATTER OF:

ERIN THOMPSON

APPELLANT

THE AUTHORITY’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,

ORDER, AND SUPPORTING LEGAL BRIEF

Comes now the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, Inc. (“HISA” or the

“Authority”) pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge’s Order Setting Briefing Schedule, dated

July 27, 2026, and submits the following Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order,

and Supporting Legal Brief.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 2 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Federal Trade Commission Rules of Practice 4.2(c) and 4.4(b), a copy of the

Authority’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order and Supporting Legal Brief is

being served on August 10, 2026, via Administrative E-File System and by emailing a copy to the

below listed. I further certify that no portion of the filing was drafted by generative artificial

intelligence (“AI”) and 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.

Hon. Dania L. Ayoubi

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Law Judges

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington DC 20580

via e-mail to Oalj@ftc.gov

and electronicfilings@ftc.gov

John Mac Hayes

1601 S. Victor Avenue

Tulsa, OK 74104

Via email: johnmachayeslaw@aol.com

Counsel for the Appellant

Hardcopies to be sent to:

FTC OALJ

Mail Stop HQ-144

c/o Brightkey Inc.

9050 Junction Drive

Annapolis Junction, MD 20701

April Tabor

Office of the Secretary

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20580

via e-mail to electronicfilings@ftc.gov

/s/ Bryan Beauman

Enforcement Counsel

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 3 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

Background to the Charge

On June 5, 2025, Appellant Erin Thompson was the Trainer of Record and Responsible

Person for the Covered Horse, Motion to Adjourn.1

On June 5, 2025, Motion to Adjourn competed in Race 7 at Belterra Park in Cincinnati,

Ohio.2 Sample Collection Personnel then collected a Post-Race urine Sample, designated

#U200014219, from Motion to Adjourn.3

Motion to Adjourn’s Sample was submitted to the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s

Analytical Toxicology Laboratory (the “Ohio Lab”) in Reynoldsburg, Ohio for analysis.4

The Ohio Lab analyzed Motion to Adjourn’s Sample in accordance with the Laboratory

Standards and reported an Adverse Analytical Finding (“AAF”) for the presence of the Banned

Substance Clenbuterol.5

Unless Clenbuterol is prescribed to a Covered Horse by a Veterinarian in the context of a

valid veterinarian-patient-client relationship for a duration not to exceed 30 days in a 6-month

period and other regulatory requirements are met, Clenbuterol is a category S3 Banned Substance

and beta-2 agonist-bronchodilator pursuant to Rule 4114.6

Based on the Ohio Lab’s finding, on July 8, 2025, the Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit

(“HIWU” or the “Agency”) served Appellant with an Equine Anti-Doping (“EAD”) Notice.7

Appeal Book (“AB”) 418 (Tab 25 HIWU Book of Exhibits (“BOE”), Equibase Chart).

AB 418 (Tab 25 HIWU BOE, Equibase Chart).

AB 412 (Tab 25 HIWU BOE, Sample Collection Form).

AB 429 (Tab 25 HIWU BOE, Tracking ID).

AB 411 (Tab 25 HIWU BOE, Ohio Lab COA).

AMDC Program Rule 4114(b).

AB 405-410 (Tab 25 HIWU BOE, EAD Notice).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 4 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

The EAD Notice contained both an invitation to provide a written explanation regarding

the AAF and outlined her right to request analysis of Motion to Adjourn’s B Sample.8 On July 14,

2025, Appellant requested analysis of Motion to Adjourn’s B Sample.9

Motion to Adjourn’s B Sample was then analyzed by the Kenneth L. Maddy Equine

Analytical Chemistry Laboratory (“UC Davis”) in Davis, California, in accordance with the

Laboratory Standards, and on August 28, 2025, UC Davis confirmed Motion to Adjourn’s B

Sample contained Clenbuterol.10

On September 4, 2025, HIWU served Appellant with a Charge letter for an Anti-Doping

Rule Violation (“EAD Charge”) pursuant to ADMC Program Rule 3212.11

10.

The EAD Charge contained both an opportunity to admit and accept consequences for the

violation or request a hearing before the Arbitral Body.12 On September 11, 2025, Appellant,

through counsel, requested a hearing before the Arbitral Body.13

II.

11.

Procedural History

HIWU initiated a hearing before the Arbitral Body, administered by JAMS, on September

12, 2025,14 and Hon. Hugh L. Fraser was appointed as Arbitrator on September 18, 2025.15 A

preliminary case management hearing was held on October 2, 2025, and was attended by the

parties.16

12.

After certain procedural matters and delays occurred, on March 31, 2025, Arbitrator Fraser

signed Procedural Order No. 3, which outlined the procedural history of Appellant’s case, and

AB 405-410 (Tab 25 HIWU BOE, EAD Notice).

AB 1070 (Tab 32, Final Decision).

AB 495 (Tab 25 HIWU BOE, UC Davis COA).

AB 420-425 (Tab 25 HIWU BOE, EAD Charge).

AB 1070 (Tab 32, Final Decision).

AB 1071 (Tab 32, Final Decision).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 5 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

further set forth certain dates: Appellant’s Pre-Hearing Brief was due on May 11, 2026; and

HIWU’s Response Brief was due on May 25, 2026.17 A merits hearing was set for June 16, 2026,

via Zoom.18

III.

13.

Evidence Presented to the Arbitral Body

Appellant, the only witness who testified at the merits hearing, denied administering

Clenbuterol to Motion to Adjourn19 and stated that she could not fathom how the AAF occurred.20

Appellant denied that Motion to Adjourn had ever been prescribed Clenbuterol and further stated

none of her other horses had been prescribed Clenbuterol.21 Appellant was certain there could not

have been an accidental administration of Clenbuterol by herself of her staff.22

14.

Appellant testified that Motion to Adjourn did not display any characteristics or symptoms

of Clenbuterol exposure during the forty-eight hours prior to its race.23 Appellant stated Motion to

Adjourn was housed in Appellant’s shed row, which was equipped with cameras, and Appellant

shipped Motion to Adjourn to Belterra Park the same morning of its race. Appellant explained that

the only other individual who would have had contact with Motion to Adjourn prior to its race was

her partner, Brian.24

15.

Appellant testified she was familiar with Clenbuterol through her previous work with

quarter horses.25 She recalled the withdrawal time for Clenbuterol was typically three weeks for

AB 1072 (Tab 32, Final Decision).

AB 1105 Lines 14-18 (Hayes and Thompson) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1105 Line 32 (Thompson) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1121 Line 30-32 (Heath and Thompson) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1122 Lines 1-3 (Heath and Thompson) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1106 Lines 10-23 (Hayes and Thompson) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1106 Lines 24-31 (Hayes and Thompson) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1111 Lines 21-24 (Hayes and Thompson) (Tab 33, Transcript).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 6 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

blood and urine tests; however, she expressed her belief that the amount of time Clenbuterol could

stay with a horse seemed very unpredictable.26

16.

Appellant stated the stall conditions at Belterra Park were substandard compared to other

facilities.27 Yet, Appellant acknowledged that she did not request a different stall28 and that she did

not clean the stall Motion to Adjourn was assigned to.29 Appellant further acknowledged that

Motion to Adjourn was only in the stall for approximately four hours prior to its race.30

17.

Appellant speculated the Clenbuterol detected in Motion to Adjourn’s Post-Race Sample

came from Belterra Park. However, Appellant acknowledged that she could not say for sure how

Clenbuterol came to be present in Motion to Adjourn’s body. Appellant confirmed that she was not

aware of any other horses testing positive for Clenbuterol at Belterra Park in 2025.

IV.

18.

Final Decision

On June 30, 2026, the Arbitrator issued a Final Decision which concluded that Appellant

committed a first-offense Rule 3212 Presence Anti-Doping Rule Violation and that Appellant had

failed to prove the source of Clenbuterol by a preponderance of the evidence, which obviated the

need to consider the other requirements of either No Fault or No Significant Fault.31

19.

The Arbitrator imposed the following Consequences: (i) period of Ineligibility of 24

months; (ii) a fine of $25,000; (iii) a period of Ineligibility of 60 days for the Covered Horse,

Motion to Adjourn, whose return to participation was subject to a negative finding in a Re-Entry

Test; (iv) automatic Disqualification of the results of Motion to Adjourn obtained June 5, 2025, in

Race 7 at Belterra Park Racing in Cincinnati, Ohio; and forfeiture of all purses and other

AB 1111-1112 Lines 36-14 (Hayes and Thompson) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1123-1124 Lines 3-6 (Heath and Thompson) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1125 Lines 3-8 (Heath and Thompson) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1124-1125 Lines 7-7 (Heath and Thompson) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1125 Lines 9-13 (Heath and Thompson) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1068-1093 (Tab 32, Final Decision).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 7 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

compensation, prizes, trophies, points, and ranking and repayment or surrender (as applicable) to

the Race Organizer; and (v) automatic Public Disclosure.32

20.

On July 9, 2026, Appellant filed an Application for Review of Final Civil Sanctions and a

Motion for Stay of Enforcement of the Consequences borne out of the Final Decision.33 The

Authority filed its Response to Appellant’s Application for Review34 and its Response to

Appellant’s Application for Stay of Final Civil Sanctions on July 20, 2026.35

21.

On July 27, 2026 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Ayoubi issued an Order on

Appellant’s Application for Review and Application for Stay of Enforcement.36 The Order limits

the appeal to briefing by the parties and denied Appellant’s request for a Stay of Enforcement.37

PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Clenbuterol is a category S3 Banned Substance and beta-2 agonist-bronchodilator pursuant

to Rule 4114 when not prescribed in the context of a valid Veterinarian-Patient relationship.

Appellant is strictly liable for any Clenbuterol found to be present in a Sample collected

from her Covered Horse pursuant to Rule 3212(a).

Appellant failed to prove the source of Clenbuterol as required by Rules 3224 and 3225 for

a Rule 3212 Presence Violation.

Appellant failed to establish she was entitled to a finding of No Fault or Negligence or No

Significant Fault or Negligence under Rules 3224 and 3225.

The Arbitrator clearly considered, applied, and followed all applicable rules of the Anti-

Doping and Medication Control Program.

AB 1092-1093 (Tab 32, Final Decision).

See Appellant’s Application for Review and Motion for Stay.

See Authority’s Response to Appellant’s Application for Review.

See Authority’s Response to Appellant’s Application for Stay of Final Civil Sanctions.

See ALJ’s Order on Application for Review and Stay.

Id.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 8 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

The Arbitrator’s assessment of Fault was correct and the Consequences he imposed should

be affirmed.

The Consequences are not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law. They are supported by and rationally connected to the evidence.

Appellant’s appeal contesting liability and the Civil Sanction is rejected and the Sanctions

ordered by the Arbitrator in the Final Decision are affirmed.

PROPOSED ORDER

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, incorporated herein, the

undersigned ALJ ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:

a. Appellant violated Rule 3212, Presence of a Banned Substance.

b. Appellant is not entitled to a finding of No Fault or No Significant Fault, and she

should receive no reduction of the default 24-months (i.e., two years) period of

Ineligibility.

c. The 24-months period of Ineligibility imposed by the Arbitrator on Appellant is

affirmed.

d. The 60-day period of Ineligibility and Re-Entry Test imposed by the Arbitrator on

the Covered Horse is affirmed.

e. The $25,000 fine imposed by the Arbitrator on Appellant is affirmed.

f. The Disqualification of Motion to Adjourn’s June 5, 2025, race results imposed by

the Arbitrator is affirmed.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 9 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

SUPPORTING LEGAL BRIEF

Introduction

This proceeding concerns a review initiated by Appellant challenging the Arbitrator’s Final

Decision and the resulting civil sanctions. Specifically, Appellant seeks to have the ALJ review the

weight given to the evidence by the Arbitrator, as well as the appropriateness of the Consequences.

On June 30, 2026, the Arbitrator issued a Final Decision which concluded Appellant violated

ADMC Program Rule 3212.38 Pursuant to that ruling, the Arbitrator determined that the Agency

had established that Motion to Adjourn’s A Sample was reported as an AAF by the Ohio Lab for

the Presence of Clenbuterol,39 and that, subsequently the presence of Clenbuterol was confirmed

in Motion to Adjourn’s B Sample by UC Davis.40

The Arbitrator found that Appellant had failed to prove the source of Clenbuterol.41 Thus,

the Arbitrator was not required to enter into an analysis of the other requirements of either No Fault

or No Significant Fault.42 Accordingly, with Appellant having failed to prove either No Fault or

No Significant Fault, the Arbitrator imposed the resulting default Consequences: (1) a period of

Ineligibility of twenty-four (24) months for Appellant; (2) a period of Ineligibility of sixty (60)

days beginning on June 5, 2025, and a Re-Entry test for Motion to Adjourn; (3) a fine of $25,000

for Appellant; and (4) Disqualification of Motion to Adjourn’s June 5, 2025 race results.43

On July 9, 2026, Appellant filed an Application for Review of the Final Decision and an

Application to Stay Enforcement of the Consequences imposed under the Arbitrator’s Final

Decision.44 On July 27, 2026, Appellant’s application for a Stay was denied.45 Thus, this review

Proposed Findings of Fact (“PFF”) #18.

PFF #3.

PFF #8.

PFF #18.

PFF #19.

PFF #20.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 10 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

proceeds based upon the existing factual record and only concerns whether Appellant can establish

that she was improperly found to have breached Rule 3212 or that the Consequences imposed upon

her are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Based upon the existing factual record, it is evident that Appellant violated ADMC Program

Rule 3212. Appellant has not submitted any evidence to reduce her degree of Fault, let alone any

evidence establishing that the Final Decision of the Arbitrator was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse

of discretion, prejudicial, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. Further, the Consequences

imposed were in accordance with ADMC Program Rules 3221-3223 and 3231 and are rationally

connected to the relevant evidence. Therefore, the Final Decision should be affirmed.

II.

Procedural and Factual History

On June 5, 2025, Motion to Adjourn participated in Race 7 at Belterra Park in Cincinnati,

Ohio.46 Following the Race, Sample Collection Personnel collected a Post-Race urine Sample,

designated #U200014219, from Motion to Adjourn.47 Motion to Adjourn’s A Sample was

submitted to the Ohio Lab.48 The Ohio Lab analyzed the A Sample in accordance with the Equine

Standards for Laboratories and Accreditation and detected Clenbuterol. 49 Pursuant to ADMC

Program Rule 4114, Clenbuterol is a beta-2 agonist bronchodilator and is a category S3 Banned

Substance when not prescribed to a Covered Horse by a Veterinarian in the context of a valid

veterinarian-patient-client relationship for a duration not to exceed thirty (30) days in a six (6)

month period.50 Following the Ohio Lab’s finding, on July 8, 2025, Appellant was served with an

EAD Notice.51

PFF #2.

PFF #3.

PFF #4.

PFF #5.

PFF #6.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 11 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

Appellant requested analysis of Motion to Adjourn’s B Sample.52 In accordance with the

Equine Standards for Laboratories and Accreditation, UC Davis confirmed the presence of

Clenbuterol in Motion to Adjourn’s B Sample.53 On September 4, 2025, Appellant was served with

an EAD Charge for the presence of Clenbuterol in Motion to Adjourn’s Sample.54 In the EAD

Charge, Appellant was given an option to admit the EAD Rule Violation or to request a hearing

before the Arbitral Body.55 On September 11, 2025, Appellant, through counsel, requested a

hearing before the Arbitral Body.56 Following Appellant’s request for a hearing, HIWU initiated

proceedings with the Arbitral Body, administered by JAMS.57 Hon. Hugh L. Fraser was appointed

as Arbitrator.58 After certain procedural delays, Procedural Order No. 3 provided that (1)

Appellant’s Pre-Hearing Brief was due on May 11; 2026; (2) HIWU’s Response Brief was due on

May 25, 2026; and (3) a merits hearing was set for June 16, 2026 via Zoom.59

The evidentiary hearing was held, as scheduled, and Appellant testified on her own behalf

as the only witness.60 Appellant testified that she could not fathom how the AAF had occurred and

that neither Motion to Adjourn nor any of her horses had never been prescribed Clenbuterol.61

Appellant explained that Motion to Adjourn was shipped to Belterra Park the morning of the race

and was housed in a stall in her shed row, which was equipped with cameras.62 Motion to Adjourn

was only located in the stall for approximately four hours prior to the race according to Appellant.63

PFF #7.

PFF #8.

PFF #9.

PFF #10.

PFF #11.

PFF #12.

PFF #13.

PFF #14.

PFF #16.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 12 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

Appellant testified that apart from herself, her partner Brian was the only other person who would

have had contact with Motion to Adjourn prior to the race.64

Appellant expressed that she believed the stall conditions at Belterra Park were substandard

compared to other facilities.65 Yet, she acknowledged that she did not clean the stall assigned to

Motion to Adjourn and did not request that Motion to Adjourn be assigned a different stall.66 While

appellant speculated that the Clenbuterol detected in Motion to Adjourn’s Sample came from

Belterra Park, she acknowledged that she could not say for sure where the Clenbuterol came

from.67 Appellant further admitted that she was not aware of any other horses testing positive for

Clenbuterol at Belterra Park in 2025.68

The Arbitrator issued a Final Decision on June 30, 2026, concluding that Appellant had

committed a violation of ADMC Program Rule 3212 for the Presence of Clenbuterol in Motion to

Adjourn’s Sample.69 The Arbitrator’s Final Decision found that Appellant failed to prove the

source of Clenbuterol by a preponderance of the evidence and the consideration of No Fault or No

Significant Fault was thus obviated.70

On July 9, 2026, Appellant filed her Application for Review of Final Civil Sanctions and

Motion for Stay of Enforcement of the Consequences set forth in the Final Decision.71 The

Authority filed its Response to Appellant’s Application for Review and its Response to Appellant’s

Application for Stay of Final Civil Sanctions on July 20, 2026.72

PFF #14.

PFF #16.

PFF #17.

PFF #18.

PFF #20.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 13 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

On July 27, 2026, ALJ Ayoubi issued an Order on Appellant’s Application for Review and

Application for Stay of Final Civil Sanctions. The Order limits the appeal to briefing by the parties

and rejected Appellant’s request for a Stay.73

III.

Applicable ADMC Program Rules and Jurisprudence

The Authority was created pursuant to the federal Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of

2020, as amended (the “Act”),74 to implement a national, uniform set of integrity and safety rules

that are applied consistently to every Thoroughbred racing participant and racetrack facility in the

United States.75 Appellant trains horses defined as Covered Horses that participate in Covered

Horseraces.76 As such, she is both a Covered Person and a Responsible Person who is bound by,

and subject to, ADMC Program Rules.77 It is not disputed that Motion to Adjourn is a Covered

Horse or that Appellant was the Trainer of Record and Responsible Person for Motion to Adjourn

on June 5, 2025.78

Under AMDC Program Rule 3070(b), the ADMC Program “shall be interpreted as an

independent and autonomous text and not by reference to existing law or statutes.” However, under

ADMC Program Rule 3070(d), the World Anti-Doping Code (“WADC”), the comments

annotating provisions of the WADC, and any case law interpreting the WADC may be considered.

The WADC contains very similar provisions to the ADMC Program with respect to No Fault and

No Significant Fault. Jurisprudence interpreting those provisions is therefore useful. As noted in

the Preamble to the ADMC Program, international doping standards “provide a robust anti-doping

PFF #21.

15 U.S.C. 3051-3060.

ADMC Program Rule 3010(a).

See PFF #1.

ADMC Program Rules 3030-3040.

PFF #1.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 14 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

framework that has been tested before arbitration tribunals for many years” and which “has

generated a well-developed body of precedent and guidance for interpreting the provisions.”79

The Final Decision below concerned Anti-Doping Rule Violation for the Presence of

Banned Substance Clenbuterol in violation of ADMC Program Rule 3312.80 ADMC Program Rule

3212 imposes strict liability on the Responsible Person for which the Agency does not need to

prove “intent, Fault, negligence, or knowing Use on the part of the Responsible Person.”

Appellant’s Application for Review is based upon her argument that the Arbitrator wrongly

decided her level of Fault based on the weight of the evidence in the record.

When the Agency establishes that a violation of ADMC Program Rule 3212 has occurred,

a Covered Person may be entitled to the potential reduction of the Consequences where she is able

to establish, by a balance of the probabilities that she acted with No Fault 81 or No Significant

Fault.82 In order to establish either No Fault or No Significant Fault, the Covered Person must first

establish the source of the Banned Substance.83 The ADMC Program provides that the assessment

of Fault is a specific and focused exercise, which is concerned only with the Covered Person’s

actions leading up to the Violation.84 A Covered Person has the evidentiary burden to “adduce

specific and competent evidence that is sufficient to persuade the Tribunal that the explanation

advanced is more likely than not to be correct.”85

IV.

The Final Decision

88 Fed. Reg. Vol. No. 17, 5073.

PFF ##18-19.

ADMC Program Rule 3224.

ADMC Program Rule 3225.

ADMC Program Rules 3224 and 3225.

This is established in the definition of Fault provided in ADMC Program Rule 1020.

BOA 8-9 (Tab 1, FEI v. Aleksandr Kovshov, FEI Tribunal Decision, Nov. 27, 2012, at para. 18); see also BOA 3536 (Tab 2, Khaled Abdullaziz Al Eid & Abdullah Waleed Sharbatly v. FEI, CAS 2012/A/3807 & 3808, May 23, 2012

at para. 10.8).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 15 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

The Arbitrator found that Appellant had committed a Presence violation under ADMC

Program Rule 3212.86 Appellant argued that while Appellant had no way of proving source, “it

could have only happened in the track”87 and that her contention was “enough”88 to support a

finding of reduced Consequences. The Agency argued that Appellant “failed to prove the source

of Clenbuterol, which is a precondition that must be met”89 for the application of either ADMC

Program Rule 3224 or 3225.

The Arbitrator found Appellant in violation of ADMC Program Rule 3212 based upon the

evidence provided and testimony presented.90 In rendering the Final Decision, the Arbitrator found

that the Agency established a violation of ADMC Program Rule 3212 and that Appellant “failed

to meet her burden to demonstrate by a balance of probabilities that she is entitled to a finding of

No Fault or No Significant Fault”91 and was “therefore not entitled to a reduction of Consequences

as outlined in ADMC Program Rules 3224 and 3225.”92

Standard of Review

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 3058(b)(1), whether Appellant violated ADMC Program Rule 3212

is a determination made de novo by the ALJ of the Commission. Where no facts are sought to be

supplemented or contested, such determination is made on the basis of the existing factual record.

A HISA civil sanction is also subject to de novo review by an ALJ. However, the review is limited

to a determination of whether “the final civil sanction of the Authority was arbitrary, capricious,

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”93

PFF #18.

AB 1134 line 40 (Hayes) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1134 line 41 (Hayes) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1131 lines 12-13 (Heath) (Tab 33, Transcript).

AB 1092 at para. 8.29 (Tab 32, Final Decision).

AB 1092 at para. 8.28 (Tab 32, Final Decision).

15 U.S.C. § 3058(b)(2)(A)(iii).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 16 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

Despite the fact that the ALJ conducts an independent review of the record,94 a decision or

sanction will not be considered arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law where (i) the decision abides by the applicable rules,95 and (ii) the sanction is

rationally connected to the facts.96 Similarly, to find an abuse of discretion, the record must reveal

a clear error of judgment.97 This standard of review has been confirmed in FTC appeals from HISA

civil sanctions, In Re Jeffrey Poole98and In Re Luis Jorge Perez.99

VI.

Appellant is Not Entitled to a Finding of No Fault or No Significant Fault

Appellant has failed to establish that the Consequences imposed in the Final Decision are

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. In order to

benefit from reduced sanctions, Appellant must show that she bears No Fault or No Significant

Fault, which she has not done.

In In the Matter of Philip Serpe, a case also involving a Presence violation, the ALJ found

the trainer’s No Fault and No Significant Fault arguments failed because each “require[] that he

prove the ‘source’ of the contamination.”100 The proof adduced at arbitration did not answer the

source question and the trainer himself acknowledged his own investigation did not enable him to

determine how the Prohibited Substance entered the body of his Covered Horse.101 The ALJ ruled

that “[m]erely eliminating possibilities is not enough.”102

BOA 52 (Tab 3, Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 2002)).

BOA 78 (Tab 4, Guier v. Teton County Hosp. Dist., 2011 WY 31, 34 248 P.3d 623, 635-636 (Wyo. 2011)).

BOA 96 (Tab 5, Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)); BOA 122123 (Tab 6, Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 413-414 (1971)).

BOA 142 (Tab 7, Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 422 F.3d 782, 798 (9th Cir. 2005)).

Docket No. 9417 (November 13, 2023).

Docket No. 9420 (August 8, 2024).

100

Docket No. 9331 (September 12, 2025).

101

Id. at p. 32.

102

Id. at p. 33.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 17 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

In HIWU v. Cano, the Arbitrator explained that “[t]he Rules expressly place the burden on

the Covered Person to establish how the Prohibited Substance entered the horse’s system.” 103 In

that case, the trainer suggested a Prohibited Substance must have entered his horses’ systems via

environmental contamination since he had never administered the Prohibited Substance to his

horses, and none of the horses had ever been prescribed the Prohibited Substance.104 After a review

of the evidence, the Arbitrator found the trainer failed to present any evidence supporting his theory

of contamination as the source of the Prohibited Substance in his Covered Horses and thus failed

to meet his burden of proving source by a balance of probabilities.105

Appellant has clearly failed to meet her burden of proving source, offering only conjecture

and vague theories involving contamination originating from the racetrack. Thus, the Arbitrator

properly concluded that she had failed to establish that she bears either No Fault or No Significant

Fault. Because she failed to establish that she was entitled to a reduction in Consequences, it was

incumbent upon the Arbitrator to impose civil sanctions. The Consequences are rationally

connected to the evidence and in accordance with ADMC Program Rules.

VII.

Conclusion

The Final Decision properly considered and applied the ADMC Program Rules in imposing

liability for the Presence of Banned Substance Clenbuterol, pursuant to ADMC Program Rule 3212

and the associated civil sanctions in accordance with ADMC Program Rules 3221-3223 and 3231.

The Arbitrator’s findings of liability and Consequences imposed are consistent with the statutory

framework, rationally connected to the evidence, and were made with adequate consideration of

the circumstances. The Final Decision should be affirmed, and the Consequences imposed upheld.

103

BOA 168 (Tab 8, HIWU v. Juan Cano, JAMS No. 1501001058 at para. 8.30 (Sep. 30, 2025)).

BOA 161-162 (Tab 8, HIWU v. Juan Cano, JAMS No. 1501001058 at para. 7.3(a)-(b) (Sep. 30, 2025)).

105

BOA 169 (Tab 8, HIWU v. Juan Cano, JAMS No. 1501001058 at para. 8.36 (Sep. 30, 2025).

104

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 08/10/2026 OSCAR NO. 616025 -PAGE Page 18 of 18 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 10th day of August 2026

/s/Bryan H. Beauman

BRYAN BEAUMAN

REBECCA PRICE

333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1500

Lexington, Kentucky 40507

Telephone: (859) 255-8581

bbeauman@sturgillturner.com

rprice@sturgillturner.com

HISA ENFORCEMENT COUNSEL

JANELLE L. WINSTON

CHRISTY HEATH

GENEVA N. GNAM

4801 Main Street, Suite 350

Kansas City, MO 64112

Telephone: (816) 814-4713

jwinston@hiwu.org

cheath@hiwu.org

ggnam@hiwu.org

HORSERACING INTEGRITY &

WELFARE UNIT, A DIVISION OF

DRUG FREE SPORT LLC

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.