# FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 1 of 15 * PUBLIC *

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aftc%3Aed56a6712c368d02

## Record

- **Collection:** Agency decision
- **Document type:** Agency decision

## Text

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 1 of 15 * PUBLIC *

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
FTC DOCKET NO. D-9443
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE:

HON. JAY L. HIMES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

IN THE MATTER OF:
DR. LARRY OVERLY, DVM

APPELLANT

APPELLANT’S REPLY TO HISA’S FINDINGS OF FACT AND PROPOSED
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Howard L. Jacobs
Katlin N. Freeman
Law Offices of Howard L. Jacobs
31111 Agoura Rd., Suite 225
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone (805) 418-9892
Fax (805) 418-9899
howard.jacobs@athleteslawyer.com
katy.freeman@athleteslawyer.com
George M. Wallace
Attorney at Law
215 North Marengo Avenue, Third Floor
Pasadena, California 91101-1504
Telephone (626) 844-677
Fax (626) 795-0353
gwallace@wbslaw.com
Counsel for Appellant

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 2 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC
Dr. Larry Overly (“Appellant”) submits the following Reply to HISA’s Proposed Findings
of Fact (“PFF”) and Proposed Conclusions of Law.
I.

Background to the Charges

1. On July 23, 2024, HIWU Investigators conducted a search of Appellant’s veterinary
truck (the “Search”) at Los Alamitos Race Course (“Los Alamitos”).
Response:
Agree.
2. During the Search, HIWU Investigators discovered and seized the following Banned
Substances:
a.

Four injectable vials of Testosterone, which is a Category S1 Banned Substance.
The vials of Testosterone lacked any prescription information.

Response:
Agree.
b.

One jar of Isoxsuprine Powder, which is a Category S0 Banned Substance.
There was an Equine Sports Medicine prescription label affixed to the jar;
however, the label lacked any date prescribed, horse, or Trainer information. The
label also listed a use-by date of 07/09/2023.

Response:
Agree.
3. On October 17, 2024, HIWU sent an Equine Anti-Doping Notice letter to Appellant,
informing him that he had been found in Possession of two (2) Banned Substances, and
this may result in Anti-Doping Rule Violations (“ADRVs”). A Provisional Suspension was
imposed on Appellant, effective October 17, 2024, which was subsequently lifted on
November 4, 2024.
Response:
Agree.
4. On November 4, 2024, HIWU charged Dr. Overly with two ADRVs for Possession of
Testosterone and Isoxsuprine under ADMC Program Rule 3214(a) (the “Possession
Rule”).
Response:
Agree.

2

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 3 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC
II.

Evidence on Testosterone

5. Appellant produced no records to show that he had ever administered Testosterone to
a non-Covered Horse at Los Alamitos.
Response:
Agree.
6. HIWU’s veterinary expert, Dr. Dionne Benson, opined that it was unlikely Appellant
would treat any non-Covered Horses with Testosterone at Los Alamitos because such
treatment would result in the horse being placed on a “Vets’ List” and precluded from
racing for six months under California Horse Racing Board (“CHRB”) Regulations.
Response:
Agree.
7. When asked why he possessed Testosterone during the Search, Appellant did not tell
Investigator Bennett that Testosterone was needed for his non-Covered practice. Instead,
Appellant told Investigators that the Testosterone was for personal use.
Response:
Agree.
8. At the hearing, Appellant changed his story and testified that he used Testosterone in
his off-track practice for a horse named Cosmo. Cosmo is owned by Appellant’s veterinary
technician, Jessica Ingram, with whom Appellant has a previously undisclosed romantic
relationship.
Response:
Agree that Appellant testified at the hearing that he used Testosterone in his off-track
practice for a horse named Cosmo; and agree that Cosmo is owned by Appellant’s veterinary
technician, Jessica Ingram. Deny that Appellant “changed his story,” as his comment to
Investigator Bennett was made in nervous jest, as he was embarrassed, shocked and upset with the
search, and in response HIWU investigators laughed and made one sexual innuendo toward
Ingram. AB p. 6518(355):8 to 6518(356):6;6518 (365):6 to 6518(366):11 (Overly).
9. To substantiate Appellant’s treatment of Cosmo, Appellant produced: (i) three deficient
DEA treatment logs (together, the “Treatment Logs”), which documented Testosterone
administrations on 7/23/23, 9/20/23, 3/1/24 and 7/30/24; and (ii) pharmacy invoices that
failed to match the lot numbers recorded in the Treatment Logs or provide a complete
account as to when the seized Testosterone was ordered.
3

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 4 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC

Response:
Agree that Appellant produced three DEA treatment logs and pharmacy records. Deny
the Treatment Logs were “deficient”. Agree that HIWU argued that the lot numbers for
Testosterone did not match lot numbers for Testosterone administered to Cosmo.
10. Dr. Benson critiqued Dr. Overly’s records, noting that he failed to produce any
veterinary medical records that provide a diagnosis or medical rationale for treating Cosmo
with Testosterone. During cross-examination, Appellant stated for the first time that such
records exist, but he failed to explain this omission or introduce the records into evidence.
Response:
Agree.
11.
Even if accepted as authentic records, the Treatment Logs show that Appellant was
not scheduled to treat Cosmo on the day of the Search, but a week later, on July 30, 2024
At the hearing, Appellant admitted that: (i) it was his practice to always go back to his
clinic after completing his treatments at Los Alamitos; (ii) his truck was unloaded and
reloaded as necessary before going out to see his other, off-track patients; and (iii) his truck
was typically loaded and unloaded/reloaded twice a day, five days a week. In light of these
admissions, the Arbitrator concluded that there was no need for Testosterone to be loaded
onto Appellant’s truck a week before his next purported appointment with Cosmo.
Response:
Agree that that Appellant was not scheduled to treat Cosmo on the day of the Search;
and agree that Appellant admitted that: (i) it was his practice to always go back to his clinic after
completing his treatments at Los Alamitos; and (ii) his truck was unloaded and reloaded as
necessary before going out to see his other, off-track patients. Disagree that Appellant “admitted”
that his truck was typically loaded and unloaded/reloaded twice a day, as Appellant did not state
that they unpack the entire truck. Rather, “usually [they] go back through the truck and try to load
whatever has been used through the course of treatments that day. AB p. 6547(75):17-24;
6547(76):1-2 (Overly).
III.

Evidence on Isoxsuprine

12. Appellant produced no records to show that he had ever administered Isoxsuprine to a
4

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 5 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC
non-Covered Horse, at Los Alamitos or off-track.
Response:
Agree.
13. Dr. Benson testified that Isoxsuprine is a non-FDA approved drug that is banned at Los
Alamitos. Appellant also admitted that the Isoxsuprine could not be used on non-Covered
Horses at Los Alamitos.
Response:
Agree.
14. When asked why he possessed Isoxsuprine during the Search, Appellant did not tell
Investigator Bennett that he needed it for his Non-Covered practice. Instead, Appellant told
Investigators that the Isoxsuprine was old, and he did not know why it was on the truck.
Response:
Agree.
15. At the hearing, Appellant again changed his story. Appellant and Ms. Ingram testified
that Ms. Ingram loaded Isoxsuprine onto his truck because a client requested that Appellant
bring Isoxsuprine to a July 17, 2024 appointment for a non-Covered Horse named
“Brownie.” Appellant and Ms. Ingram testified that they attended this appointment with
another veterinarian, Dr. Cecilia Chapparo.
Response:
Agree that that Ms. Ingram loaded Isoxsuprine onto his truck because a client requested
that Appellant bring Isoxsuprine to a July 17, 2024 appointment for a non-Covered Horse named
“Brownie.” Agree that Appellant and Ms. Ingram testified that they attended this appointment with
another veterinarian, Dr. Cecilia Chapparo. Disagree that Appellant “changed his story” as the
Isoxsuprine was placed on Appellant’s truck by Ingram in good faith for purposes of supporting
Non-Covered practice, and Appellant testified that he had no knowledge that Isoxsuprine was on
his truck on the date of the search. PFF 18.
16. Appellant did not produce any veterinary medical records documenting Brownie’s July
17, 2024 appointment. During cross-examination, Appellant stated for the first time that
such records exist, but once again failed to explain why they had not been produced.
Appellant also failed to call Dr. Chapparo or Brownie’s owner as witnesses.
Response:
Agree that Appellant did not produce any veterinary medical records documenting

5

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 6 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC
Brownie’s July 17, 2024 appointment; and agree that Appellant failed to call Dr. Chapparo or
Brownie’s owner as witnesses. Disagree that Appellant “failed to explain why they had not been
produced,” as Appellant testified that Dr. Chapparo did the July 17 exam and Appellant provided
education, thus Appellant did not prepare his own record and only produced his own records. PFF
19.
17. The Arbitrator concluded that, even if she accepted Appellant’s and Ms. Ingram’s
testimony, there was no explanation as to why expired Isoxsuprine was still on Appellant’s
truck six days after Brownie’s alleged appointment.
Response:
Agree.
18. Appellant also had no explanation for why a tub of expired Isoxsuprine “fell through
the cracks” in his office and was still in a bin on site.
Response:
Agree.
IV.

Dr. Scollay’s Public Guidance

19. Prior to the ADMC Program coming into effect, HIWU’s Chief of Science, Dr. Mary
Scollay, gave educational seminars on the ADMC Program. During her seminars, Dr.
Scollay consistently reminded horsemen that possessing Banned Substances is prohibited
at all times.
Response:
Agree.
20. At the hearing, Dr. Scollay testified about the guidance she would provide in response
to questions from Covered Persons about their ability to “justify” Possession of Banned
Substances during her education seminars. At one particular seminar at Will Rogers Downs
in Claremore, OK, one of the attendees posed a question about veterinarians whose practice
includes farm work or non-Covered Horses, and whether the Possession rules similarly
applied to them. A discussion followed during which Dr. Scollay provided the following
explanation (“Will Rogers Comments”):
If the veterinarians are practicing also on a population of non-Covered Horses,
they’re taking care of quarter horses or they’ve got a country practice part-time
they are able to possess Banned Substance because we don’t have control over
those horses, and so to the extent that they want to use bisphosphonates on a nonCovered Horse, we can’t ban them from possessing them… we can’t penalize
people for something that we don’t have control over so, you know, let’s just say
because we have the ability to investigate, if the story starts to get a little weird

6

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 7 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC
or a little extreme, you’re going to get more than a raised eyebrow. But at the
end of the day if someone is practicing out in the country, we don’t have the
authority to control the medications they administer or carry for non-Covered
Horses… the regulation addresses if there is justification for them to be in
Possession of a Banned Substance and certainly a practice that incorporates
non-Covered Horses. [Emphasis added]
Response:
Agree.
21. In all of Dr. Scollay’s seminars explanations to veterinarians, including the abovereferenced quote, she never stated that a veterinarian has a general or blanket exception to
possess Banned Substances at a Covered Racetrack if they claim to treat non-Covered
Horses, or that a Covered Person’s proffered justification will not be subject to further
investigation if they have a non-Covered practice.
Response:
Agree.
22. When asked about her prior testimony in the Shell case – where she discussed the
potential confusion that could arise if there were a blanket definition of “justification” –
Dr. Scollay reiterated that there is no proportion of non-Covered practice that, standing
alone, can establish a compelling justification.
Response:
Agree.
23. Dr. Scollay further testified that the specific intended use of Banned Substances must
be considered in every context to determine if there is a need to have it at the racetrack, and
how that Possession can be addressed.
Response:
Agree.
24. At the Hearing, Appellant testified that he first read the Will Rogers Comments in a blog.
Appellant’s counsel, Andrew Mollica, later made Appellant aware that the Will Rogers
Comments were referenced in HIWU v. Perez, a prior Possession decision under the
ADMC Program.
Response:
Agree.
25. During cross-examination, Appellant admitted that he could not recall when he read
the Will Rogers Comments or which blog he read them in. Appellant also admitted that he:
(i) was not present for Dr. Scollay’s presentation at Will Rogers Downs; (ii) had never
watched an online recording of the presentation, which had been posted online by an
attendee; and (iii) had never reviewed the slides from Dr. Scollay’s presentation.
Response:
7

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 8 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC
Agree.
V.

Factors Affecting the Proportionality Analysis

26. After the parties submitted their written briefs but before the Hearing, ALJ Himes
released his decision In the Matter of Dr. Scott Shell, DVM (“Shell Appeal”), a case which
similarly concerned a veterinarian who was found in Possession of multiple Banned
Substances during a search of his veterinary truck at a Covered racetrack.
Response:
Agree.
27. In the Shell Appeal, ALJ Himes confirmed that Rule 3228(d) of the ADMC Program
permits HIWU to charge a Covered Person with an ADRV for each Banned Substance
found in their Possession; however, the principle of proportionality can be considered to
determine whether individual sanctions should be imposed for each charged and
established ADRV, or whether a Covered Person’s sanctions should be combined to allow
for an overall reduction in penalty. ALJ Himes concluded that Dr. Shell should be subject
to one set of sanctions for his four Possession ADRVs based on the following factors:
Response:
Agree.
a.

Dr. Shell practiced veterinary medicine for more than 37 years and there was
no dispute that he had been previously sanctioned by a veterinary board or
racing authority.

Response:
Agree.
b.

The four ADRVs at issue in the Shell Appeal arose from Dr. Shell’s “professed
but mistaken belief” concerning his ability to possess Banned Substances for
his farm practice or use in West Virginia (where the ADMC Program is
currently subject to an injunction).

Response:
Agree.
c.

Imposing consecutive Ineligibility periods and cumulative fines on Dr. Shell
would be disproportionate to his misconduct, in circumstances where: (i) he was
close to retirement, and an 8-year period of Ineligibility would result in
permanent expulsion from practicing in the HISA-covered racing industry; and
(ii) a $100,000 fine would inflict undue financial burden.

Response:
Agree.
28.

HIWU distinguished the foregoing factors in its written closing submissions as follows:

8

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 9 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC
a.

First, Appellant did not come to the Arbitration with “clean hands” and his
testimony was impeached twice at the hearing regarding his history with
veterinary regulatory authorities. After initially affirming in his witness
statement that he had never been charged with a violation at Los Alamitos,
Appellant walked back his testimony at the Hearing and stated he had never been
charged with a “medication” violation, associated with Los Alamitos or CHRB.
During cross-examination, HIWU’s counsel, Allison Farrell, asked Appellant
about this testimony and took him to a 15-allegation Amended Accusation
pending before the California Veterinary Medical Board (“Amended
Accusation”). When confronted with the Amended Accusation’s allegations
that Appellant fraudulently administered the medication Ritalin to his exspouse’s horse, Appellant conceded that these charges arise from alleged
conduct at Los Alamitos. Appellant was again impeached when Ms. Farrell
brought Appellant to four Stewards’ Rulings documenting his four prior
violations of the CHRB Rules between 2009 and 2018.

Response:
Agree that HIWU distinguished the foregoing factors in its written closing submissions.
Disagree with conclusion that Appellant did not come to Arbitration with “clean hands,” as the
past violations were minor Los Alamitos violations, that were so trivial Appellant forgot, the
most recent of which was seven years ago in 2018. PFF 1.
b.

Second, Appellant did not simply have a mistaken belief concerning his ability
to possess Banned Substances for use in his non-Covered practice. Rather,
Appellant could not point to any regular, documented use of Testosterone or
Isoxsuprine in his non-Covered practice. He otherwise offered inconsistent and
poorly substantiated explanations for sporadically administering Testosterone
to Cosmo and carrying expired Isoxsuprine for an undocumented appointment
for Brownie. Much of his corroborating evidence came from his veterinary
technician Ms. Ingram, whom he failed to disclose as his girlfriend until
questioned on cross-examination.

Response:
Disagree. Appellant had a mistaken but understandable belief based on Dr. Scollay’s
statements regarding a “caveat” to Rule 3214(a), without further guidance or “anti-doping
education” about “compelling justification, no guidance saying the caveat requires an
emergency, no guidance mandating giving up Non-Covered practice, or as to how to comport
oneself at tracks like Los Alamitos, stabling a majority of Non-Covered equines outside
9

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 10 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC
HIWU/HISA’s jurisdiction. PFF 15. This lack of clarity was compounded as Testosterone is
legal at Los Alamitos, and Isoxsuprine was lawful to possess for years, and remained uncertain
under the rarely enforced 1867(b). PFF 17, 22.
29. Third, there was no evidence that Appellant was close to the end of his career such that
4 potential years of Ineligibility from working with Covered Horses would permanently
expel him from practicing in the HISA-covered racing industry, nor was there any
indication that Appellant would face an undue financial burden given the Arbitrator’s
discretion to set financial penalties. The Arbitrator affirmed that HIWU properly charged
Appellant with two ADRVs in accordance with ALJ Himes’ analysis in the Shell Appeal.
However, the Arbitrator ultimately determined that only one set of sanctions should be
imposed on the basis that both ADRVs: (i) arose from one search; and (ii) were related to
Appellant’s professed but mistaken belief that “because he had a majority of Non-Covered
horses in his practice, he was able to carry Banned Substances on his truck at Los Alamitos
which were intended for use in his Non-Covered practice without having to articulate or
establish a specific need to carry that Banned Substance at Los Alamitos for any particular
part of his Non- Covered practice.”
Response:
Agree.

VI.

Factors Affecting Dr. Overly’s Degree of Fault

30. Appellant was aware that the ADMC Program was new and that it regulated the use
and possession of certain substances that may have previously been permitted.
Response:
Agree.
31. There is no dispute Appellant knew Testosterone and Isoxsuprine are Banned Substances.
After reading the HISA Rules and taking inventory, Appellant only removed bisphosphonates
from his truck (and instructed his staff not to load bisphosphonates on his truck) because they
were banned by both CHRB and HISA rules.
Response:
Agree.
32. Appellant knew that he had Testosterone on his veterinary truck at Los Alamitos, and Ms.
Ingram knew she loaded Isoxsuprine onto his veterinary truck on July 17, 2024.
Response:
Agree.
33. Appellant testified that he read the rules, conducted due diligence, and claimed to have
10

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 11 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC
read and relied on Dr. Scollay’s Will Rogers Comments before July 23, 2024. However,
Appellant also admitted that he made no effort to reach out to Dr. Scollay or anyone else at
HIWU to discuss the mixed nature of his practice, his need to carry Testosterone (or
Isoxsuprine) at Los Alamitos, and whether he was at risk of violating the Possession Rule.
Response:
Agree.
34. Although he claimed to have read everything available to him, Appellant acknowledged
he had not read all the cases posted on the HIWU website and could not remember reading
any of the cases. Appellant also did not make any effort to review Dr. Scollay’s full
presentation on the ADMC Program.
Response:
Agree.
35. Appellant admitted his truck was loaded and unloaded twice a day, five days a week
(typically before going to Los Alamitos each morning and after returning from Los
Alamitos and going to see off-track patients) and that he delegated the responsibility of
packing his truck to his veterinary technicians, including Ms. Ingram.
Response:
Agree, but disagree on the same basis as response 11, above. AB p. 6547(75):17-24;
6547(76):1-2 (Overly).
VII. The Final Decision
36.
On August 21, 2025, the Arbitrator issued a Corrected Final Award (“Final
Decision”), which concluded that:
a.

Appellant failed to establish a compelling justification for possessing
Testosterone or Isoxsuprine;

Response:
Agree.
b.

Appellant was properly charged with two Possession ADRVs, but Appellant
should be subject to one set of sanctions; and

Response:
Agree.
c.

Appellant’s degree of Fault was Significant, but he should receive a modest
reduction of 1-month to the standard 24-months of Ineligibility.

Response:
Agree.
37.

The Final Decision imposed the following Consequences:

11

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 12 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC
a.

Appellant was to be suspended for 23-months from the date of Issuance of the
Final Decision, less 169 days credit for time served under the prior Period of
Ineligibility and subsequent Voluntary Provisional Suspension;

Response:
Agree.
b.

Appellant was fined $25,000 USD; and

Response:
Agree.
c.

Appellant was required to pay $15,000 USD towards HIWU’s share of the
Arbitration costs.

Response:
Agree.
PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
Appellant had the burden to establish a “compelling justification” by a preponderance
of the evidence. Appellant failed to meet his burden for either of the Possession ADRVs charged
and established in this matter. Appellant therefore committed two Possession ADRVs contrary
to Rule 3214(a) of the ADMC Program.
Response:
Disagree. PFF 18, 21, 23-26.
2.

Appellant was properly charged with two ADRVs.
Response:
Disagree. HIWU’S EAD Notice and Charge Letter do not cite a Rule with language

allowing HIWU to charge Appellant with two counts of Rule 3214(a). HIWU presumes it can,
based on two Banned Substances. But the EAD Notice only states that “Consequences may be
imposed pursuant to ADMC Program Rules 3221, 3222, and 3223 for each violation.” AB p.
3974. No Rule specifically permits two charges.
3.
Separate, consecutive sanctions should be imposed for each ADRV based on a proper
assessment of proportionality in accordance with the Shell Appeal.
Response:
Disagree. Decision ¶¶ 7.7.1-7.7.5.
4.

Appellant failed to establish No Fault or Negligence.
Response:
12

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 13 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC
Disagree. Appellant did due diligence, spoke with Dr. Jeff Blea, and based on the
guidance provided, a reasonable vet would have done nothing more. PFF 13-16; 24-28.
5.
Appellant bears responsibility for delegating the tasks of loading and unloading his
veterinary truck to his veterinary technicians, including Ms. Ingram. Any Fault committed by
Appellant’s delegates that contributes to either of his ADRVs is therefore strictly fixed to
Appellant.
Response:
Agree.
6.
The Arbitrator’s assessment of Fault was correct and should be applied in respect of each
ADRV, such that Appellant receives a 1-month reduction for each 24-month period of Ineligibility
imposed on him.
Response:
Disagree. Under Cilic v. International Tennis Federation, CAS 2013/A/3327, objectively
and subjectively a reasonable veterinarian with a Non-Covered practice would have understood
Dr. Scollay’s guidance to mean that they can carry Banned Substances if they have records
that demonstrate a need to carry for Non-Covered use or intended use, and that no other actions
were required. PFF 9, 10, 13-15. The Arbitrator irrationally connected the Decision to the
facts by improperly reading Dr. Scollay’s guidance against Appellant. Decision, ¶¶ 7.8.137.8.14. In the “totality of circumstances,” Fault was “insignificant,” and the Sanction should have
been reduced to the minimum. Rule 3225. The Arbitrator correctly concluded HIWU relied
upon Rule 3228(d) in prosecuting this case, which applies only if Controlled Medications and
Banned Substances are charged, and does not permit charging multiple violations, or two years
ineligibility for each Banned Substance, recovered in one transaction and occurrence. Rule
3228 does not apply on its face. Decision, ¶¶ 7.7.1-7.7.5.

DATED:

December 26, 2025

Respectfully submitted,
_/s/ Howard Jacobs_______________________

13

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 14 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC
Howard L. Jacobs
Cal. Bar No. 149709
Law Offices of Howard L. Jacobs
31111 Agoura Rd., Suite 225
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone (805) 418-9892
Fax (805) 418-9899
Email: howard.jacobs@athleteslawyer.com
Counsel for Appellant Larry Overly

14

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/26/2025 OSCAR NO. 614629 -PAGE Page 15 of 15 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to 16 CFR 1.146(a) and 16 CFR 4.4(b), a copy of the forgoing Appellant’s Reply to
HISA’S Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is being served this 26th day of
December 2025 via first class mail and by emailing a copy to:
Allison J. Farrell
Michelle C. Pujals
Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit
4801 Main Street, Suite 350
Kansas, MO 64112-2749
afarrell@hiwu.org
mpujals@hiwu.org
COUNSEL FOR HIWU
A Division of Drug Free Sport, LLC
Hon. Jay L. Himes
Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20580
Copies Via Email to oalj@ftc.gov and

Bryan H. Beauman
Rebecca C. Price
Sturgill, Tuner, Barker & Moloney, PLLC
333 W. Vine St., Suite 1500
Lexington, KY 40507
bbeauman@sturgillturner.com
rprice@sturgillturner.com
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
April Tabor
Office of the Secretary
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite CC-5610
Washington DC 20580
electronicfilings@ftc.gov

With a hard copy to:
Hon. Jay L. Himes
Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Federal Trade Commission
1 Bowling Green, Room 318
New York, NY 10004

Executed on December 26, 2025, at Brea, California.
/s/ Katlin N. Freeman
Katlin N. Freeman

15

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aftc%3Aed56a6712c368d02. Public record. Not legal advice.