FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 1 of 18 * PUBLIC *
Agency decision
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 1 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
In the Matter of
)
)
JASON SCOTT, DVM,
)
Appellant,
)
vs.
)
)
THE HORSERACING INTEGRITY & )
SAFETY
AUTHORITY,
a
federal )
administrative agency.
)
Appellee.
)
Docket No. 9449
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
APPELLANT’S REPLY FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Appellant Dr. Jason Scott, pursuant to this Court’s Order Directing Briefing on the Review,
respectfully submits his Reply to the Authority’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Order.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joseph C. DeAngelis
BREWSTER & DEANGELIS, PLLC
Clark O. Brewster, OBA #1114
Joseph C. DeAngelis, OBA #34142
2617 East 21st Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114
(918) 742-2021, Fax (918) 742-2197
Attorneys for Dr. Jason Scott
Dated: June 22, 2026
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 2 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
ABBREVIATIONS
Record Citations
AB_____
Appeal Book. Full pages are abbreviated as, e.g., AB5750. Specific
line numbers on transcript pages are abbreviated as, e.g., AB5751:1
(being line 1 of AB5751)
JSBrief, ¶__
Jason Scott’s Brief in Support of Proposed Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, Rulings on Objections, and Order.
JSFoF, ¶__
Jason Scott’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
Rulings on Objections, and Order.
JSReplyBr, ¶___.
Jason Scott’s Reply Brief
AuBr
The Authority’s Legal Brief
AuFoF, ¶__
The Authority’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Order
Pickard, ¶__
Stipulation as to the Testimony of Tony Pickard, DVM, attached as
“Exhibit A” to the parties’ Joint Status Report (May 14, 2026).
Trejo Letter
HISA Exhibit E; see AB6509
Entities and Case Terms
AMP
Adenosine Monophosphate
ARCI
The Association of Racing Commissioners International
Authority
The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority and HIWU,
collectively.
GFI#256
FDA Guidance for Industry No.256
HIWU
The Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit
NMRC
New Mexico Racing Commission
Sarapin
Pitcher Plant Extract
i
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 3 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
Legal Authorities
Act
The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3051 et seq.
ADMC Protocol
The HISA Anti-Doping and Medication Control Protocol,
collectively referencing HISA Rule Series 1000, 3000, 4000, 5000,
and 7000.
NMAC
New Mexico Administrative Code
NMSA
New Mexico Statutes Annotated
Witnesses
Bennett
Brian Bennett, HIWU investigator.
Benson
Dr. Dionne Benson, DVM
Fenger
Dr. Clara Fenger, DVM
Pickard
Dr. Tony Pickard, DVM
Scott
Dr. Jason Scott, DVM
Trejo
Ismael Trejo, Executive Director, NMRC
ii
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 4 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
REPLY FINDINGS OF FACT
A. FTC Approval of the ADMC Program
1.
The Anti-Doping and Medication Control (“ADMC”) Program Rules were published
in the Federal Register for public comment on January 26, 2023.
•
Admit.
2.
After considering public comments, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)
approved the Rules on March 27, 2023.
•
Admit.
3.
The FTC found that the Rules were “consistent with the Horseracing Integrity and
Safety Act of 2020 (as amended) and the Commission’s procedural rule governing submissions
by the Authority.”
•
Denied. JSBrief, ¶¶35–47.
B. Jurisdiction over Appellant
4.
Dr. Jason Scott is a veterinarian who treats both Covered and non-Covered Horses at
racetracks in New Mexico, including Sunland Park.
•
Admit.
5.
Sunland Park is a racetrack in New Mexico regulated by the New Mexico Racing
Commission and is a Covered Racetrack under the ADMC Program.
•
6.
Admit.
Both Covered Horses and non-Covered Horses race at Sunland Park.
•
Admit.
7.
HISA and the Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit (“HIWU”) have jurisdiction over
Covered Persons and Covered Horses at Sunland Park.
•
Objection: Legal Opinion.
•
Partially Denied. JSReplyBr, ¶¶1–2. Accord JSBrief, ¶¶3–5, 14, 15.
1
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 5 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
C. The Search of Dr. Scott on February 13, 2025.
8.
On February 13, 2025, HIWU Investigators Brian Bennett, Lane Ruddick, and Bret
Smith searched Dr. Scott’s veterinary truck at Sunland Park.
•
9.
Admit
Only Covered Horses raced at Sunland Park on February 13, 2025.
•
Objection. Relevance. Quarter Horses were stabled at the racetrack.
10.
The search began at approximately 7:30 AM, as HIWU Investigators did not want to
delay veterinarians like Dr. Scott on a race day.
•
No position.
11.
Dr. Scott was reluctant to provide access to his veterinary truck, saying that he had to
give Lasix to a horse that was racing that day.
•
Partially Admit. Dr. Scott acted with the knowledge that he had
medications intended exclusively for Quarter Horses during a time of
regulatory uncertainty.
12.
When Investigator Bennett mentioned that no horse was racing until 12:20 PM (and thus
the earliest Lasix could be given was 8:20 AM), Dr. Scott stated that the horse needing Lasix
was housed at Frontera Training Center.
•
Denied. Brian Bennett wrongly assumed it was a Covered Horse. See
AB5684–87(Bennett). Dr. Scott told Mr. Bennett the horse was to
“work.”
AB6279(Scott).
The
horse
was
a
Quarter
Horse.
AB6279(Scott).
13.
Investigator Bennett found this reason suspect because administering Lasix to a horse
racing at Sunland Park is not permitted off-track at Frontera; however, Investigator Bennett
assured Dr. Scott that the search should only take 15-20 minutes.
•
Implication denied. Dr. Scott notes that this is further proof that Bennett
conducted no thorough investigation and lacked credibility. See
AB5662 (Bennett admitting that he interviewed no one besides Dr.
2
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 6 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
Scott).
14.
During the search, Investigator Bennett found two bottles clearly labeled as Pitcher
Plant, also known as Sarapin, and placed them in evidence as BB-1 and BB-2. BB-1 was found
in the top left drawer of Dr. Scott’s veterinary cabinet. BB-2 was found inside a blue plastic
tote, which also included hypodermic needles, alcohol swabs, and other medications.
•
15.
Admit.
The blue plastic tote appeared to be a “go tote.”
•
Bennett’s characterization is denied.
16.
Dr. Scott likely took the blue tote to treat Covered Horses, and he had already treated
a Covered Horse before the search.
•
Denied. HIWU asked Dr. Scott to speculate, and Dr. Scott denied using
AMP/Sarapin on any Covered Horse. AB6312–14(Scott).
17.
Dr. Scott admitted possessing the Pitcher Plant, but he stated to HIWU Investigators that
he only used it on non-Covered Quarter Horses for the treatment of “sacroiliac issues.”
•
Admit, except deny that Dr. Scott said “only.” See AB7390 (“It is used
alone or in combination with other drugs and may be used for both soft
tissue and osseous problems.”).
18.
Investigator Bennett also found two bottles of Adenosine Monophosphate (“AMP”) in
the top middle drawer of Dr. Scott’s veterinary cabinet and placed them in evidence as BB-3
and BB-4.
•
Admit.
19.
Each AMP bottle stated: “Each ml contains: 200 mg of Adenosine-5-Monophosphoric
acid in Benzyl Alcohol 1.5% as preservative.”
•
Admit.
20.
Dr. Scott admitted possessing the AMP, but he stated to HIWU Investigators that he
used AMP only on Quarter Horses for treatment of issues associated with “tying up.”
•
Admit.
3
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 7 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
D. Pitcher Plant and AMP are Banned Substances
21.
Pitcher Plant and AMP must be controlled by possession rules because neither
substance can be detected in Post-Race Testing.
•
Objection. Legal opinion; unsupported by legal citation or briefing.
•
Denied. Pitcher Plant and AMP are not ARCI “prohibited substances”
subject to regulation. See JSFoF, ¶¶12–14; JSBrief, ¶25.
22.
Pitcher Plant is explicitly Banned at all times under ADMC Program Rule 4117.
•
Admit as to Covered Horses only.
23.
AMP, although not explicitly named in the ADMC Program Rules, is prohibited under
Rule 4111 as an S0 Non-Approved Substance.
•
Denied. HIWU’s argument was that Dr. Scott’s AMP was Banned, not
that AMP was categorically Banned.
24.
A substance is a Banned Substance under ADMC Program Rule 4111 when it is (i) not
otherwise listed in Rules 4112 through 4117, (ii) not approved by any governmental regulatory
health authority for veterinary or human use, and (iii) the substance is not universally
recognized by a veterinary regulatory organization as a valid veterinary use.
•
Denied. Same as AuFOF ¶23.
25.
The FDA withdrew any approval for AMP in 1973, and no other governmental
authority in the United States has approved AMP for veterinary or human use.
•
Denied. AMP could be legally compounded under GFI#256. AB5990–
92(Benson).
26.
The FDA bans the importation of medications not approved in the United States.
•
Objection. Legal opinion. JSBrief, ¶¶32–34.
•
Denied. AB6187(Fenger) (“there is no such rule”).
27.
AMP is also not universally recognized by veterinary regulatory authorities as having
a valid veterinary use.
•
Admit.
4
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 8 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
28.
In 2015, the FDA reiterated that AMP is “neither safe nor effective for its intended uses
as a vasodilator and an anti-inflammatory.”
•
Objection. Relevance. FDA later permitted the compounding of AMP.
•
Admit.
29.
Additionally, no scientific literature supports the use of AMP to treat “tying up” (also
known as rhabdomyolysis).
•
Objection. Relevance. JSBrief, ¶¶32–34. Further, an unqualified person
does not become an expert simply by reading articles or conducting a
Google search. See United States v. Paul, 175 F.3d 906, 912 (11th Cir.
1999).
30.
Rule 4111 has two exceptions: if the drug is compliant with the Animal Medicinal Drug
Use Clarification Act (“AMDUCA”); and if the drug is compliant with the FDA’s Guidance for
Industry (“GFI”) #256.
•
Admit.
31.
AMP is not compliant with AMDUCA because only FDA-approved medications can
be compliant with AMDUCA.
•
32.
Admit.
Nor did the AMP here comply with GFI #256 because
a. GFI #256 only applies in narrow circumstances when no other medically
appropriate treatment option exists; however, there are recognized, FDA-approved
treatments for tying up that includes FDA-approved tranquilizers and non-steroidal
anti-inflammatories combined with fluid therapy.
•
Denied. No preventive (pre-race) alternative exists that would not
trigger an anti-doping violation. JSFoF, ¶7.
b. Additionally, FDA-approved preventative medications are available for tying up,
including phenytoin and dantrolene.
•
Denied. JSFoF, ¶7.
c. The bottles did not comply with GFI #256’s labeling requirements because they
failed to state (i) the species of the patient(s) and the indication(s) for which it will
5
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 9 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
be used, (ii) contact information for the manufacturer, (iii) name and contact
information for the veterinarian ordering office stock, (iv) an FDA-required
statement about reporting suspected adverse reactions, (v) an FDA-required
statement that it is a compounded drug, (vi) an FDA-required statement that the
drug cannot be used in food-producing animals, and (vii) an FDA-required warning
that restricts the drug to use by or on order of a veterinarian.
•
Objection. Legal opinion. JSBrief, ¶¶32–34.
•
Denied. Benson expressly withdrew this opinion. AB6012(Benson) (“I
can’t make that determination without seeing the rest of the label.”).
Further, the cited requirements are written to apply pharmacies who
dispense the medication, not to veterinarians who use the medication.
AB6104–05(Fenger).
33.
For these reasons, AMP is a Banned Substance under ADMC Program Rule 4111
•
Denied.
34.
Dr. Scott understood that both substances were Banned Substances under the ADMC
Program and could not be administered to Covered Horses.
•
Dr. Scott admits only that he understood the Authority held the belief
that neither substance could be administered to Covered Horses. The
implication is denied.
E. HIWU’s Notice and Dr. Scott’s Explanation to HIWU
35.
On April 30, 2025, HIWU sent Dr. Scott a Notice of Alleged Anti-Doping Rule
Violations for the Possession of Pitcher Plant and AMP at Sunland Park.
•
36.
Admit.
On May 21, 2025, Dr. Scott responded by letter to HIWU.
•
Admit.
6
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 10 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
37.
In his letter, Dr. Scott wrote that he was “clearly aware that Sarapin [Pitcher Plant] is
not to be administered to covered thoroughbred horses” and that he only used it to treat nonCovered Quarter Horses.
•
Admit.
38.
Likewise, Dr. Scott wrote that in “deference to HISA rules relating to treatment of
covered thoroughbreds” he did not treat Covered Horses with AMP. Rather, Dr. Scott wrote
that he used AMP only in Quarter Horses “who exhibit acute exertion with rhabdomyolysis”
and that he kept AMP on his veterinary truck “for exigency treatment of quarter horses.”
•
Denied as misleading. Quarter Horses, as a breed, are susceptible to
acute exertion with rhabdomyolysis. Dr. Scott explained that day that
he needed the medication to complete pre-race treatments (JSFoF, ¶20),
and continued providing additional details when asked (AB7222–24).
Accord response to ¶46, below.
39.
On June 5, 2025, HIWU charged Dr. Scott with two Anti-Doping Rule Violations for
Possession of the Banned Substances Pitcher Plant and AMP.
•
Admit.
F. HIWU’s Notice and Dr. Scott’s Explanation to HIWU
40.
Dr. Scott requested a hearing before the Arbitral Body
•
Admit.
41.
Before the arbitration hearing, Dr. Scott filed a federal lawsuit and sought a preliminary
injunction, which was denied.
•
Admit.
42.
Dr. Scott engaged in voluminous motion practice to challenge HIWU’s jurisdiction and
constitutionality, all of which were denied.
•
Dr. Scott admits that he preserved his arguments, which the arbitrator
summarily rejected without a noticed hearing or opinion.
43.
The arbitration hearing was held November 19-20, 2025.
•
Admit.
7
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 11 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
44.
The seat of arbitration was Sunland Park, New Mexico.
•
Admit.
G. Dr. Scott’s Asserted Compelling Justification at the Hearing
45.
At the hearing, Dr. Scott stated that he gave Pitcher Plant and AMP to non-Covered
Horses as part of a pre-race routine that involved giving Pitcher Plant two days before a race
and AMP one day before a race as a prophylactic measure to prevent tying up.
•
Admit.
46.
Dr. Scott’s prophylactic explanation at the hearing differed from his pre-hearing
explanation that he used it for “exigency treatment.”
•
Denied. Preventing a horse from exhibiting an acute condition is treating
that condition. AB6187-88(Fenger); AB6317–18(Scott). Accord
Response to ¶38, above.
47.
Dr. Scott implemented a different pre-race routine that does not involve the use of
Banned Substances after the search.
•
48.
Admit.
Effective non-Banned medications exist to prevent and treat tying up.
•
Denied as to prophylactic treatment only.
49.
In contrast to Dr. Scott, Dr. Clara Fenger, Dr. Scott’s expert witness, removed
Pitcher Plant from her veterinary truck after the HISA rules came into effect in May 2023
•
Objection. Relevance.
50.
Before the hearing, Dr. Scott produced redacted billing records purportedly showing
the administration of Pitcher Plant and AMP to Quarter Horses before races.
•
Admit.
51.
Additionally, the billing records showed that Horse 47 was administered Sarapin
(Pitcher Plant) and AMP twice on the same day, with no apparent justification.
•
Objection. Relevance. JSReplyBr, ¶6.
•
Denied. Clerical error. AB6157–59(Fenger); AB6338(Scott).
8
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 12 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
52.
The billing records contained no medical impressions, diagnoses, or treatment records,
and Dr. Scott did not provide any additional medical records.
•
Objection. Legal opinion. JSBrief, ¶¶32–34.
•
Denied. The record contains all applicable information. JSReplyBr,
¶¶8–9.
53.
The billing records reflect no medical justification for administering the Banned
Substances; the apparent justification for the administrations is that the horses were entered to
race.
•
Denied as to “no medical justification.” JSReplyBr, ¶¶8–9.
54.
At the hearing, Dr. Scott produced unredacted billing records, which were put under a
verbal confidentiality order at the arbitration.
•
Admit.
55.
The unredacted billing records showed 17 times when Dr. Scott administered
phenylbutazone, commonly known as “Bute,” to Quarter Horses on the day before a race, in
violation of New Mexico Racing Commission rules and in contravention of the Association of
Racing Commissioners International (“ARCI”) Guidelines.
•
Objection. Relevance. JSReplyBr, ¶6.
•
Denied. These were clerical errors by billing staff. AB66309–11;
AB6346–47(Scott). Dr. Scott corroborated his explanation with
circumstance: If phenylbutazone was given 24 hours pre-race, it would
have triggered a positive test. No horse did. AB6346(Scott).
56.
Dr. Scott tried to explain away the Bute administrations by stating the listed dates must
all be clerical errors.
•
Same as ¶55.
57.
Dr. Scott was familiar with the HISA rules and was involved in veterinarian advocacy
against the HISA rules, including as an active member of the North American Association of
Racetrack Veterinarians.
•
Dr. Scott admits that he engaged in constitutionally protected activity.
He notes that he alone was subsequently targeted for search and
9
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 13 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
enforcement, that the arbitrator rightly questioned the Authority’s
motives, which appear retaliatory.
58.
Dr. Scott also submitted a comment to the FTC about the “HISA medication rules,”
writing, “thank you for your decision to NOT approve the HISA medication rules . . . Denying
the medication rules is the only responsible ruling the FTC should consider.”
•
Dr. Scott admits that he preserved his challenges.
H. The New Mexico Racing Commission Rules on Compounded Medications
59.
In addition to HISA, the New Mexico Racing Commission prohibits veterinarian
possession of Pitcher Plant and AMP at its racetracks.
•
Objection. Legal opinion. JSBrief, ¶¶27–34.
•
Denied. JSBrief, ¶¶24–26.
60.
New Mexico Racing Commission Rule 15.2.6.8(B)(10) permits veterinarians to
possess and dispense compounded medications only if:
a. The medication is prescribed consistent with AMDUCA
b. The medication meets enumerated New Mexico Board of Pharmacy Rules; and
c. The New Mexico Racing Commission’s labelling rules are followed.
•
Admit. Dr. Scott notes the compound term “possess and dispense.”
JSReplyBr, ¶¶13–19.
61.
Dr. Scott’s Pitcher Plant and AMP were necessarily compounded medications
because neither substance is available in non-compounded form in the United States.
•
62.
Admit.
Pitcher Plant cannot meet these requirements because:
a. Pitcher Plant cannot be prescribed consistent with AMDUCA because it is not a
new, FDA-approved medication;
b. Pitcher Plant cannot meet the enumerated New Mexico Board of Pharmacy Rules
because those rules do not allow for compounding of injectable drugs; and
c. The New Mexico Racing Commission’s drug labeling rules were not followed.
•
Denied in entirety. JSReplyBr, ¶¶13–19.
10
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 14 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
63.
AMP cannot meet these requirements because:
a. AMP cannot be prescribed consistent with AMDUCA because it is not a new, FDAapproved medication;
b. AMP cannot meet the enumerated New Mexico Board of Pharmacy Rules because
those rules do not allow for compounding of injectable drugs; and
c. The New Mexico Racing Commission’s drug labeling rules were not followed.
•
Denied in entirety. JSReplyBr, ¶¶13–19.
64.
On February 12, 2026, Arbitrator Hugh Hackney issued his decision, finding that Dr.
Scott possessed two “prohibited substances.” Without analyzing Dr. Scott’s proffered
“compelling justification” defense, he imposed an 18-month period of Ineligibility, a $25,000
fine, and payment of $5,000 in adjudication costs.
•
Admit.
65.
The Arbitrator backdated the period of Ineligibility to the date of the search
(February 13, 2025) but gave no reason and cited no ADMC Program Rule to justify backdating.
•
Admit.
PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
The FTC lawfully approved the ADMC Program Rules, including Rules 3214(a), 4111,
and 4117(e).
•
2.
Denied.
Rule 3214(a), the Possession rule, is not void for vagueness.
•
No position.
3.
The Authority’s final civil sanction is subject to de novo review by an Administrative
Law Judge.
•
Admit as to issues properly raised.
4.
The ALJ may “affirm, reverse, modify, set aside, or remand for further proceedings, in
whole or in part the final civil sanction of the Authority,” and “make any finding or conclusion
that, in the judgment of the [ALJ], is proper and based on the record.”
•
Admit.
11
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 15 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
5.
Pitcher Plant is an S6 Banned Substance under Rule 4117(e).
•
6.
Admit.
AMP is an S0 Banned Substance under Rule 4111.
•
Denied.
7.
Dr. Scott Possessed two Banned Substances—Pitcher Plant and AMP—found by
HIWU Investigators in his veterinary truck on February 13, 2025 at Sunland Park Racetrack
in New Mexico.
•
Admit that Dr. Scott Possessed AMP and Sarapin.
8.
Dr. Scott has the burden to establish a “compelling justification” for each of the two
charged Possession Anti-Doping Rule Violations (“ADRVs”) by a preponderance of the
evidence.
•
The Authority must first establish jurisdiction.
9.
A compelling justification cannot be established by the desire to use Banned
Substances for non-exigent, routine, pre-race administration in non-Covered Horses.
•
Objection. Lack of Jurisdiction.
•
Denied. JSReplyBr, ¶¶8–12.
10.
In any event, Dr. Scott failed to meet his burden to prove a compelling justification given
his conflicting explanations, the lack of reliability in his billing records that he produced, and
the New Mexico Racing Commission’s prohibition against veterinary possession of
compounded medications like the two at issue—AMP and Pitcher Plant.
•
Denied. The Authority does not dispute the underlying facts. JSBrief,
¶¶6–12. Questioning credibility, alone, does not support an opposing
inference. JSReplyBr, ¶4.
11.
Since Dr. Scott has no compelling justification for either of the Possession ADRVs
charged, he has committed two Possession ADRVs.
•
Denied.
________________________________________________________________
12
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 16 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
12.
Dr. Scott failed to establish No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or
Negligence for either of the ADRVs.
13.
The default sanction for each ADRV is 2-years Ineligibility and a $25,000 fine.
14.
The periods of Ineligibility for each ADRV run consecutively unless proportionality
applies.
15.
The proportionality principle should only be applied exceptionally and restrictively to
reduce the global Consequences that would otherwise apply pursuant to the ADMC Program;
it should not become the norm.
16.
A period of Ineligibility can be backdated only when there has been a “substantial delay
in the adjudication process or other aspects of Doping Control that go well beyond the
standard timeframes for Laboratory analyses and Results Management, and the Covered
Person can establish that such delays are not attributable to him[.]”
17.
Dr. Scott did not establish (or even attempt to establish) any period of “substantial
delay” that went “well beyond” standard timeframes that were not attributable to him. Thus,
there is no legal basis to backdate Dr. Scott’s period of Ineligibility.
18.
The Arbitrator therefore erred in finding that an 18-month period of Ineligibility,
backdated to the date of the search, was an appropriate sanction.
19.
The Arbitrator appropriately ordered Dr. Scott to pay some of the arbitration costs.
20.
More appropriately, the following Consequences should be imposed
a. 2-years Ineligibility for each ADRV, to be served consecutively and without
backdating
b. A $25,000 fine for each ADRV; and
c. A contribution of $5,000 toward the arbitration costs.
•
¶¶12-20 are denied as beyond the scope. JSReplyBr, ¶23.
13
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 17 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
Dated: June 22, 2026.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joseph C. DeAngelis
BREWSTER & DEANGELIS, PLLC
Clark O. Brewster, OBA #1114
Joseph C. DeAngelis, OBA #34142
2617 East 21st Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114
(918) 742-2021, Fax (918) 742-2197
Attorneys for Dr. Jason Scott
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that the foregoing contains 805 words, excluding the Authority’s findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and order. Together with the reply brief, which contains 1688 words, the
aggregate filings contain 2493 words. The wordcount was calculated using word processing
software.
I further certify that no portion of the filing was drafted by generative artificial intelligence
(“AI”) (such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot, Harvey.AI, or Google Gemini)
/s/ Joseph C. DeAngelis
14
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/22/2026 OSCAR NO. 615764 -PAGE Page 18 of 18 * PUBLIC *
PUBLIC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to 16 CFR 1.146(a) and 16 CFR 4.4(b), a copy of the foregoing is being served
this 22nd day of June, 2026, via First Class mail, e-filing, and/or email upon the following:
Office of the Secretary
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610
Washington. DC 20580
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Hon. D. Michael Chappell
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580
(Via e-mail to oalj@ftc.gov and electronicfilings@ftc.gov)
(April Tabor atabor@ftc.gov; Pablo Zylberglait PZYLBERGLAIT@ftc.gov)
(Eric Winker ewinker@ftc.gov; Dana Gross dgross@ftc.gov)
Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority
Samuel Reinhardt (email samuel.reinhardt@hisaus.org)
Michelle Pujals, HIWU General Counsel (email mpujals@hiwu.org)
Allison Farrell, HIWU Litigation Counsel (email afarrell@hiwu.org)
401 West Main Street, Suite 222
Lexington, KY 40507
Counsel for Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority
Bryan Beauman (bbeauman@sturgillturner.com)
Rebecca C. Price (rprice@sturgillturner.com)
Leigh Reed (lreed@sturgillturner.com)
Sturgill Turner
333 West Vine St., Ste. 1500
Lexington, KY 40507
/s/ Joseph C. DeAngelis
15
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.