The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the order to cease and desist dated June 6, 1989, as amended by the allegations set forth in the motion filed December 29, 1989; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing stipulation, the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was not registered to sell securities under the provisions of Section 517.12, Florida Statutes, nor did Respondent register securities under those provisions. Respondent was incorporated and doing business within the State of Florida during the period 1984 through 1986. At that time, Neil Pincus served as vice president of the company. On July 27, 1984, an advertisement ran in The Tampa Tribune which contained the following language: OWN A RACING GREYHOUND Visit The Farm Hanover Farms is offering a total purchase plan. You get title to your greyhound, boarding, training, racing services provided. Low investments with tax advantages. If you're ready to step into the winner's circle call for appointment and transportation from the Quality Inn, Longwood (Or1and) to the nearby farm. 305-862-4000 The same or similar advertisements ran in other news periodicals for a time, including (on July 15, 1985) the Tallahassee Democrat and a number of out-of-state newspapers. In response to one such advertisement, Christopher Desnoyers, a resident of Massachusetts, requested additional information regarding Respondent's investment program. Mr. Desnoyers received materials from Respondent which outlined the program. Such materials provided, in pertinent part: The Greyhound Ownership Program is unique in the Greyhound Industry. Here's how it works. Our greyhound experts and trainers select from the available supply of young, unraced greyhounds, just those few outstanding greyhounds which qualify under our strict standards for breeding, conformation and racing ability. We then offer the greyhound for purchase under our Greyhound Ownership Program. A staff of veterinarians, trainers, handlers, analysts and managers will ensure that each greyhound purchased receives the finest state-of-the art care and training. * * * After completing the qualifying training, at your direction, Hanover Farms will lease your greyhound for racing or you may select a kennel of your choice. You will receive a percentage of all purses won by your greyhound. In addition, you will receive the owners portion of all stud, breeding and syndication fees. In addition to the foregoing, Respondent mailed Mr. Desnoyers materials regarding a specific litter of greyhound puppies. That material provided, in pertinent part: MC'S Grandmaster Litter Syndication... Participate in the ownership of a litter of eight. A beautiful litter of eight pups (7 females, 1 male) out of Spumescent Queen by MC's Grandmaster is being offered to the first eight people committing for a unit in this outstanding breeding. Each individual will purchase one or more units in this litter at a cost of $5,000.00 per unit. The greyhounds will race under the control of Hanover Farms. Every unitholder will name a greyhound for each unit purchased. The prefix "Hanover" will be in each name, therefore the unitholder may select a name with no more than eight (8) characters. Each unit will represent a 1/8th interest in the entire litter, thereby enabling unitholders to share in the return on all the successes of the greyhounds in his litter. In addition, a 40 % commission Bill be paid to owners, rather than the standard 35 %. All materials furnished by Respondent to Mr. Desnoyers stressed the profitability of winning greyhounds and the successes Respondent had experienced IA past racing. Of the two programs outlined in paragraphs 5 and 6, Mr. Desnoyers advised Respondent that he would purchase an interest in the Grandmaster syndication. Accordingly, he remitted a $3000 deposit and pledged to pay the balance of $2000 within 60 days. An agreement between Respondent and Mr. Desnoyers was executed on July 22, 1986. Contrary to Mr. Desnoyer's intention, that agreement provided for the purchase of an individual greyhound as described in paragraph 5. Mr. Desnoyers did not, however, despite full payment, receive a greyhound from the Grandmaster litter. Contract notwithstanding, Respondent advised Mr. Desnoyers that his participation in the syndication would be as described in paragraph 6. Moreover, since th( litter was whelped March 1, 1986, it was not anticipated that the greyhounds would begin racing until some 16 to 20 months from that date. For the interim period, it was intended that Respondent would retain possession of the Grandmaster litter, would obtain appropriate registration for them, would assure proper training for the dogs, and would place them with a suitable kennel for racing at the designated time. Unfortunately, Respondent received television coverage which resulted in significant financial damage to its program. According to Mr. Pincus, a CNN defamatory account of Respondent's business ultimately caused it to go out of business in 1986. Consequently, Respondent sent Mr. Desnoyers correspondence which provided, in part: As you may know, a program recently appeared on television that caused great damage to Hanover Farms, Inc. It is the opinion of management that certain statements made in the telecast were false and defamatory. We are consulting our attorneys concerning appropriate litigation. As a result of the defamation, we are unable to continue to feed, board, raise and train your greyhound. The MC Grandmaster litter program has been converted to individual ownership. Your greyhound is located at Kenneth L. Griffins' (sic) Greyhound Farm, Route 1, Box 246 W., Morriston, Florida. 32668. The telephone number is (904) 528-3772. Contact Kenneth Griffin directly and arrange for him to complete your greyhound training. We regret the necessity of doing this however, we are victims of a situation beyond our control. Mr. Desnoyers did not receive one of the Grandmaster puppies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities enter a final order requiring the Respondent to cease and desist from the sale of unregistered securities. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 89-4558 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 8 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as hearsay or irrelevant. The substantive fact of paragraph 11 is accepted. Paragraphs 12 through 21 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard W. Mazloff LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. MAZLOFF, P.A. Dadeland Towers South, Suite 425 9400 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Robert K. Good Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level, Rm. 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's license should be summarily suspended in accordance with Subsection 550.2415(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2006).
Findings Of Fact The Division is the agency of the state responsible for monitoring and regulating all aspects of pari-mutuel wagering activities. One of its responsibilities is the testing of greyhound dogs for prohibited substances. Michaud holds pari-mutuel wagering license number 16293-1021 as a greyhound trainer. On June 23, 2006, Michaud was the registered trainer of a greyhound known as "Ikes Trudy." Michaud was working at the Sanford Orlando Kennel Club (also known and hereinafter referred to as "CCC Racing"). Ikes Trudy ran in the seventh race at CCC Racing on June 23, 2006, finishing fourth or fifth in that race. Upon conclusion of the race, a urine sample was taken from Ikes Trudy by a Division employee. The sample was taken in an area of CCC Racing set aside for that purpose. The testing site was not covered, i.e., it was open to the elements. However, there was no evidence of inclement weather at the time the test sample was taken. At the conclusion of each greyhound race, the winning dog is always tested. It is normal for the Division to randomly select another dog from the same race for testing as well. In this case, however, Ikes Trudy was specifically selected for testing by the Division. No other dog was randomly sampled. After the urine sample had been taken, a "Urine Sample Card" was completed by the Division employee, signed by Michaud, and placed in a coin envelope. The urine sample card identifies the greyhound as Ikes Trudy, the race track as CCC Racing, and the trainer as Michaud. The urine sample was then duly-processed and tested in accordance with procedures established by the Division. The test was performed at the University of Florida Racing Lab, a certified and accredited testing facility. David M. Tiffany supervised the testing procedure and signed the Report of Positive Result on the test sample. The test determined the presence of two metabolites of cocaine in the urine sample: Benzoylecgonine ("BZE") and Ecgonine Methyl Ester ("EME"). Cocaine is a Class 1 drug and is a prohibited substance in racing greyhounds. The BZE concentration in the sample was greater than 720 nanograms per milliliter or 720 ng/mL. The EME concentration was 62.9 ng/mL. The normal or average concentration of these metabolites, when found in a greyhound, is between 10 and 50 ng/mL. The highest level Mr. Tiffany had ever seen was approximately 120 ng/mL of BZE and that was in this same animal, Ikes Trudy. The question of how such a high concentration of these metabolites would affect an animal was not resolved at the final hearing. Michaud suggested such a level would kill the animal; Mr. Tiffany could not confirm that suggestion as factual. Mr. Tiffany did not think the extremely high concentration of metabolites in this test raised any questions about the testing process or its results.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering upholding the summary suspension of the license of Chad E. Michaud. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Stefan Thomas Hoffer, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Chad E. Michaud 27 Jackson Court Casselberry, Florida 32707 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David J. Roberts, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to keep proof of vaccination on file for racing greyhounds in his kennel, had a hypodermic needle on premises where racing greyhounds were lodged or kept, or stored cleaning supplies in the same area as bedding intended for racing greyhounds, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering in the state of Florida, pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes. Mr. O'Donnell owns racing greyhounds. He keeps his dogs, along with some leased dogs of other owners, in kennels that he leases for that purpose. At all times material to this case, Mr. O'Donnell held a pari-mutuel wagering business occupational license, number 441699, issued by the Department. At all times material to this case, Mr. O'Donnell held a pari-mutuel wagering professional individual license, number 330177, issued by the Department. A "permitholder" is a person or entity which holds an annual license to conduct pari-mutuel operations at the location specified in the permit. The licenses held by Mr. O'Donnell do not allow him to operate a pari-mutuel track or to conduct pari- mutuel operations at specified locations. Mr. O'Donnell is not a permitholder. Mr. O'Donnell employed a licensed trainer, Mr. Dennis Smith, who was responsible for day-to-day activities involving the dogs. Mr. O'Donnell personally kept responsibility for setting up vaccinations for the dogs. Mr. O'Donnell was not always physically present when vaccinations were given. Dr. Emilio L. Vega was a licensed veterinarian that Mr. O'Donnell employed to vaccinate his racing dogs. Dr. Vega came to Mr. O'Donnell's kennels for many years to vaccinate the dogs. Dr. Vega died on September 4, 2010, at the age of 80 years. On September 14, 2011, Investigator Tyrell Smith of the Department was reviewing operations of licensees who own or train greyhounds at the Florida Kennels Compound in Hialeah, Florida. At kennel number 45, leased by Mr. O'Donnell, he asked a kennel helper to let him inspect the vaccination records for the dogs.3/ Fifty-two vaccination records that had been signed in 2011 were produced for dogs in that kennel, and the helper indicated that Mr. O'Donnell was keeping vaccination records for other dogs. Investigator Smith noted that the name in the veterinarian's signature block on the forms was Dr. Vega. He was not aware at that time that Dr. Vega was deceased and could not have signed the forms in 2011. On September 23, 2011, Investigator Smith asked a kennel helper at Steubenville Kennel, numbers 36 and 37, which are also leased by Mr. O'Donnell, for vaccination records for the dogs. The kennel helper provided four records that contained the name of Dr. Vega in the veterinarian's signature block, dated in 2011. After talking with other trainers at the track, Investigator Smith learned that Dr. Vega had died in 2010. On September 30, 2011, Investigator Smith and other employees of the Department visited two animal clinics where Dr. Vega had formerly worked. The clinics did not have vaccination records for dogs in any of Mr. O'Donnell's kennels. Investigator Smith was able to view copies of some other vaccination records, and the signature appeared to Investigator Smith to be the same signature that appeared on the forms that had been given to him for the dogs in Mr. O'Donnell's kennels. On October 4, 2011, Investigator Smith visited kennel number 39 in Hialeah and asked Mr. O'Donnell for the vaccination records for those dogs. Mr. O'Donnell told him that the records had been stolen. Investigator Smith asked Mr. O'Donnell if he had filed a police report. Mr. O'Donnell said he had not. He indicated that he would just re-do the vaccinations. Investigator Smith returned to kennel number 39 on October 14, 2011. The vaccination records were not available. Mr. O'Donnell gave Investigator Smith the telephone number of Dr. Ann Romano, a veterinarian, and was told that she would be able to give him the vaccination information. Investigator Smith called Dr. Romano, but had only a very brief conversation with her, because communication was poor and because she was leaving on vacation. On October 25, 2011, Investigator Smith returned to kennel number 39 and again requested to see vaccination records for the dogs. He was provided records signed on October 24, 2011, by Dr. Romano. He later talked to Dr. Romano, who confirmed that she had vaccinated the dogs on October 24, 2011, but had not ever vaccinated any of Mr. O'Donnell's dogs before that date. The rule provides no "grace period" for enforcement of the requirement to keep proof of vaccination on file. Mr. Charles Taylor is an investigation specialist for the Department. Investigator Taylor was asked by his supervisor to go to the Orange Park Kennel Club ("Orange Park") and examine dog vaccination records for dogs in Mr. O'Donnell's kennels to see if any had been signed by Dr. Vega. Investigator Taylor visited the Orange Park facility on December 21, 2011. In the racing secretary's office, he found 56 National Greyhound Association papers, with vaccination records attached, for dogs in Mr. O'Donnell's kennels. The National Greyhound Association is an association that registers racing greyhounds. Examining these 56 vaccination records, he found that 21 of them contained the name of Dr. Vega in the veterinarian's signature block, with dates ranging from January 15, 2011, to September 16, 2011. He also found one undated, blank record with Dr. Vega's name in the veterinarian's signature block. Investigator Taylor made copies of these vaccination records. He did not contact either Mr. O'Donnell or the trainer of record about these vaccination records. Dr. Vega was deceased and did not sign any vaccination forms in 2011. Any forms purporting to contain his signature with a 2011 date were invalid and did not constitute proof of vaccination. The Department had visited the workplaces of Dr. Vega, and no other proof of vaccination could be obtained through the treating veterinarian. On August 27, 2013, Mr. O'Donnell occupied or had the right to occupy kennel number 45, at the Florida Kennels Compound, 7218 West Fourth Avenue, Hialeah, Florida, 33014. Mr. Luis Miranda is the facility manager of the Florida Kennel Compound. He conducts regular walk-through inspections of the kennels. Mr. Miranda points out any violations he observes to Investigator Smith when he comes to inspect the kennels. On August 27, 2013, Mr. Miranda told Investigator Smith that Mr. Miranda had found that kennel 45 was dirty during his walk-through inspection.4/ Investigator Smith went to kennel 45. There was no one there. A kennel is never locked, because it must remain open for safety of the dogs; however, there is a security gate and guard on duty at the entrance to the facility, and only licensees can gain entrance. Inspector Smith testified that kennel 45 did not appear dirty. He looked in the medicine cabinet in the kitchen area of the kennel, which is only about five feet from the dogs. He saw a syringe with a hypodermic needle attached. He confiscated it, took a picture, and placed it in a storage container. He never asked Mr. O'Donnell about the needle. On October 10, 2013, Mr. O'Donnell occupied or had the right to occupy kennel numbers 36 and 37, at the Florida Kennels Compound. On October 10, 2013, Inspector Smith conducted an inspection of kennel numbers 36 and 37, the Steubenville Kennel. He found the vaccination records all in order. He found a bottle of Clorox bleach and spray bottles containing unknown substances sitting on top of a crate that had a dog sleeping inside. He asked kennel workers about the chemicals. They told him they had just put them up there for cleaning and would move them in a few minutes. He found a hypodermic needle with syringe in kennel 36. He photographed these items. Kennel helpers removed the bleach and spray chemicals. Mr. O'Donnell was not there when Investigator Smith arrived, but came later while Investigator Smith was still there. While the Department showed that a bottle of Clorox cleaning solution was on top of a crate that had a dog sleeping inside, it did not clearly show that the Clorox cleaning solution was being "stored" there. The word "store" is defined as "to take in or hold supplies, goods, or articles, as for future use" or "to deposit or receive in a storehouse or warehouse for safekeeping" or "to put something that is not being used in a place where it is available, where it can be kept safely, etc." See Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. (2014), online at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/store; American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th ed. (2014), by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, at www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=store; and Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/store. If the helpers only placed the Clorox on the crate while they were using it, as claimed, the Clorox and other cleaning materials were not "stored" there. There was no clear evidence to refute the helpers' admissions. The Department showed by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. O'Donnell failed to keep proof of vaccination for 52 of his racing greyhounds on September 14, 2011. The Department showed by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. O'Donnell failed to keep proof of vaccination for his racing greyhounds on October 4, 2011. The Department showed by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. O'Donnell failed to keep proof of vaccination for 21 of his racing greyhounds on December 21, 2011. The Department showed by clear and convincing evidence that on August 27, 2013, and October 10, 2013, Mr. O'Donnell had hypodermic needles with syringes on premises which he had a right to occupy on the grounds of a racing permitholder where racing greyhounds were kept. Mr. O'Donnell has been involved with racing greyhounds for over 60 years. Prior to the incidents involved in this case, Mr. O'Donnell had never received a notice of violation from the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-mutuel Wagering, enter a final order: (1) finding Mr. James E. O'Donnell guilty of 74 counts of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-6.009(9) and two counts of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D- 6.004(2)(a); and (2) imposing an administrative fine of $76,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of December, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Imperial Embassy Condominium Four, Inc. ("Imperial"), discriminated against Petitioner, Barbara Porter ("Porter"), on the basis of her purported disability in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Barbara Porter in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 2012.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondents held valid Pari-Mutuel Wagering occupational licenses as greyhound judges that had been issued by Petitioner. Respondent, Robert C. Crawford, holds license number 0131528-6035 and was, at all times pertinent hereto, the Presiding Judge at Biscayne Kennel Club. Respondent, Robert E. May, holds license number 0131748-6035 and was, at all times pertinent hereto, the Associate Judge at Biscayne Kennel Club. Biscayne Kennel Club is a pari-mutuel facility located in Dade County, Florida, that is licensed by Petitioner. Petitioner has duly enacted a rule 1/ which provides that three judges have general supervisory authority and responsibility over all facets directly involved in the running of pari-mutuel races, including other race officials. Two of these judges, the "presiding judge" and the "associate judge" are so designated by the pari-mutuel facility. The third judge, referred to as the "division judge", is designated by the Petitioner. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, the three judges, acting as a collegial body, had the responsibility and the authority to supervise the Racing Secretary, the Paddock Judge, the Chart Writer, and all other racing officials at Biscayne Kennel Club. During the evening performance of April 30, 1991, Biscayne Kennel Club conducted 13 separate greyhound races upon which wagering was permitted. For the evening performance of April 30, 1991, Respondent Crawford and Respondent May were serving at Biscayne Kennel Club in their official capacities as Presiding Judge and Associate Judge, respectively. At the times pertinent hereto, including the evening performance of April 30, 1991, Douglas D. Culpepper was the Division Judge at Biscayne Kennel Club. The 13th race was conducted without apparent incident, the three judges agreed on the order of finish, and the official results were posted as agreed by the three judges. The official results reflected that the greyhound wearing blanket number 8 finished first, the greyhound wearing blanket number 5 finished second, the greyhound wearing blanket number 6 finished third, and the greyhound wearing blanket number 4 finished fourth. The greyhound wearing blanket number 7 was officially charted as having finished eighth. The 13th race on April 30, 1991, concluded at approximately 11:12 P.M. and was the last race of the evening. At approximately 11:25 P.M., Norman T. Campbell, the general manager of Biscayne Kennel Club, telephoned Respondent Crawford and asked that Respondent Crawford, Respondent May, and Mr. Culpepper meet him in his office. This request from Mr. Campbell was in response to a report he had received that three greyhounds had been mis-identified when the greyhounds were blanketed under the supervision of the Paddock Judge immediately prior to the running of the 13th race. The three greyhounds that had been reportedly mis-identified were: NY DAMASCUS, STRIDDEN RITE, and MPS SEBASTION. The following trainers attended the meeting in Mr. Campbell's office that followed the 13th race: Maggie Spears, the trainer of STRIDDEN RITE; Joel Fries, the trainer of NY DAMASCUS; and Jeanne Ertl, the trainer of MPS SEBASTION. These three trainers were in agreement that their three greyhounds had been mis-identified. These three trainers agreed that the following errors occurred: (1) NY DAMASCUS was assigned the fifth post, but was wearing blanket number 7; (2) STRIDDEN RITE was assigned the sixth post, but was wearing blanket number 5; and (3) MPS SEBASTION was assigned the seventh post, but was wearing blanket number 6. These three trainers agreed that the official results were in error as follows: (1) NY DAMASCUS officially finished second, but he actually finished eighth, twenty lengths off the pace; (2) STRIDDEN RITE officially finished third, but he actually finished second by a nose; and (3) MPS SEBASTION officially finished eighth, but he actually finished third. The three trainers were in agreement that the prize money going to the trainer/owner of the greyhound should be redistributed to reflect the actual finish of the race. Instead of second place money, the trainer of NY DAMASCUS agreed to take nothing. Instead of third place money, the trainer of STRIDDEN RITE received second place money. Instead of no money, the trainer of MPS SEBASTION received third place money. The decision was made at the meeting of April 30, 1991, to redistribute the prize money awarded to the trainer/owner consistent with the agreement of the trainers. BISCAYNE KENNEL CLUB was closing and the public had disbursed by the time the alleged mis-blanketing was reported to Mr. Campbell. By the time the racing officials were made aware of the alleged mis-blanketing on the night of April 30, 1991, it was too late to recall the official results or to redistribute the payoff that had been made to the public pursuant to the official results that had been posted. In addition to the three trainers, the other persons in attendance at the meeting in Mr. Campbell's office following the 13th race on April 30, 1991, were: Mr. Campbell, Respondent Crawford, Respondent May, Mr. Culpepper, Kay Spitzer, and Jerry Escriba. Ms. Spitzer was the president of Biscayne Kennel Club. Mr. Escriba was acting in the capacity as the Paddock Judge. Mr. Escriba was not, as of April 30, 1991, licensed by Petitioner to act in the capacity as Paddock Judge. Mr. Escriba had attempted to become licensed, but had been unable to do so because Petitioner was temporarily out of the forms necessary to process the application. However, the Division Director of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering had given his permission for Mr. Escriba to serve as Paddock Judge for the meet at Biscayne Kennel Club that included the races on April 30, 1991. While Mr. Escriba had not previously served as a Paddock Judge, he was qualified by experience and training to serve in that capacity. Mr. Escriba had participated in pari-mutuel events for approximately 13 years and had held a variety of positions all related to the management and control of racing greyhounds. Mr. Escriba had observed the Paddock Judge perform his duties on thousands of occasions. Before Mr. Escriba was assigned the position of Paddock Judge, he was subjected to a two week training period under the supervision of Respondent Crawford and a former experienced Paddock Judge named Chris Norman. Respondent Crawford and Respondent May knew Mr. Escriba well and had confidence in his abilities. The Paddock Judge is a racing official who has the responsibility to ensure that the greyhounds participating in a pari-mutuel event are properly identified and that each greyhound runs its assigned race in its assigned post position. The Paddock Judge, in keeping with his responsibilities, is required to engage in a series of examinations of each greyhound which are designed to ensure proper identification. Each greyhound has what is referred to as a "Bertillon card", which contains measurements, markings, and other identifying information unique to each greyhound. The Paddock Judge also examines the greyhound identification tattoo which is inscribed upon the ear of each greyhound. After the Paddock Judge completes the identifying process, a tag which designates the race and the post position in which the greyhound is to participate is placed upon the greyhound's collar. Just prior to the race, when a greyhound that is about to race is on the viewing stand, the Paddock Judge executes his final check by ensuring that the tag upon the greyhound's collar corresponds to the race and the blanket number that has been assigned to the greyhound. At the meeting of April 30, 1991, and at the formal hearing, Mr. Escriba adamantly maintained that the alleged mis-blanketing of the greyhounds had not occurred. Mr. Escriba maintained that all identifying procedures had been properly followed and that the trainers were mistaken. Mr. Escriba's only explanation as to how such an alleged mis-identification could have occurred was that he was operating shorthanded, with only twelve leadouts instead of the usual complement of sixteen. Mr. Escriba asserted at the hearing that the twelve leadouts were enough to perform the work. Mr. Culpepper had little doubt after the meeting in Mr. Campbell's office broke up in the early morning hours of May 1 that the mis-identification had occurred and he believed that Mr. Escriba had not followed the rigid identification procedures. Because it was too late to redistribute the pay out to the public and because there was a conflict between the trainers and the Paddock Judge as to what had happened, Respondent Crawford, Respondent May, and Mr. Culpepper decided that the best course of action was to seek guidance from the highest state official available by telephone. The official contacted was Allen P. Roback, the Regional Supervisor of the Bureau of Operations of the Divisions of Pari-Mutuel Wagering. Mr. Roback had general supervisory authority over the operation of Biscayne Kennel Club and direct supervisory authority over the Respondents. Mr. Roback was contacted by telephone shortly after midnight, in the early morning hours of May 1, 1991. During the telephone call in the early morning hours of May 1, 1991, Mr. Roback talked with Mr. Campbell and Mr. Culpepper. Mr. Roback instructed them that the matter of the 13th race should be handled in the same manner as an incident generally referred to as the "photo finish" incident. The "photo finish" incident occurred at Biscayne Kennel Club in December of 1990 during a race for which Mr. Roback served as the Division Judge, Respondent Crawford served as the presiding Judge, and Respondent May served as the Associate Judge. Following the subject race, the judges declared the official results relating to the first and second place winners. A photo of the finish was provided the judges approximately eight minutes after the race concluded and revealed that the greyhound that had been declared the first place winner had actually been beaten by the greyhound that had been declared the second place finisher. Notwithstanding the undisputed photographic evidence that the official results were wrong, it was decided by the judges that the official results would not be changed. The pari-mutuel pay out to the public was made on the basis of the official results. However, the prize money to the trainers/owners of the greyhounds was distributed based on the actual finish of the first and second greyhounds as revealed by the photograph. Mr. Roback had been clear in his instruction not to change the official results following the "photo finish" incident. The two greyhounds that finished first and second in that race continued to race thereafter with their respective performance lines as indicated by the official and not the actual order of finish. After Mr. Culpepper had spoken with Mr. Roback, Respondent Crawford and Respondent May were advised that the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering would be conducting an official investigation into the events surrounding the conduct of the 13th race at Biscayne Kennel Club on April 30, 1991. Respondent Crawford and Respondent May were not directed to change the official results of the 13th race, nor were they told to withhold the three greyhounds involved in the dispute from further participation in pari-mutuel events pending the investigation. Respondent Crawford and Respondent May reasonably believed that the official results of the 13th race were final until otherwise notified by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering. On May 1, 1991, during normal business hours, the alleged mis- blanketing incident was assigned to Marilyn (Lyn) Farrell for investigation. Ms. Farrell is an investigator for Petitioner's Bureau of Investigations. One of Ms. Farrell's assignments was to make a determination of the actual order of finish of the 13th race. Ms. Farrell's investigative report was completed on May 9, 1991. In that report, Ms. Farrell correctly concluded that the mis- blanketing of the three greyhounds had occurred, that the official results were wrong, and that the actual order of finish was that agreed to by the three trainers of the greyhounds involved. Mr. Roback and Ms. Farrell each visited Biscayne Kennel Club during the course of the investigation. Mr. Roback first spoke with Gary Duell, the Racing Secretary, who told him to talk with Respondent Crawford. Respondent Crawford asked Mr. Roback how much trouble he was in and asked him to meet with Mr. Campbell. While the investigation was pending, Mr. Escriba told Respondent Crawford that on April 13 there was confusion in the area where the greyhounds who were to run the 13th race were being blanketed. Mr. Escriba said that he panicked and released the greyhounds to the track before checking all of their tags when the bell for the 13th race rang. Respondent Crawford passed this information on to Mr. Roback. There was no discussion between Mr. Roback and the Respondents as to whether the racing lines should differ from the official results of the race. In the period between April 30, 1991, the date of the incident, and May 9, 1991, the date Ms. Farrell completed her investigation, NY DAMASCUS, MPS SEBASTION, and STRIDDEN RITE continued to participate at pari-mutuel events at Biscayne Kennel Club. A racing line for each greyhound scheduled to run in a pari-mutuel event is published in the event's program. The program is distributed to the public. Members of the public then use the information contained in the racing line to determine their bets. A racing line gives certain information pertaining to the greyhound, including the greyhound's recent performance history. Because the information is used to formulate wagers, it is important that the information is accurate. The chart writer is the official with direct responsibility for the accuracy of the racing lines. The chart writer at Biscayne Kennel Club at the times pertinent to this proceeding was Mildred A. Ketchum. At Biscayne Kennel Club on May 3, 1991, MPS SEBASTION participated in the 6th race, STRIDDEN RITE participated in the 10th race, and NY DAMASCUS participated in the 15th race. The racing line for each of these greyhounds contained in the official racing program published by Biscayne Kennel Club for the races held May 3, 1991, charted the performance of that greyhound in the 13th race for April 30, 1991, consistently with the official results that had been posted following the race. At Biscayne Kennel Club on May 7, 1991, MPS SEBASTION participated in the 4th race. The racing line for MPS SEBASTION contained in the official racing program published by Biscayne Kennel Club for the races held May 7, 1991, charted the performance of that greyhound in the 13th race for April 30, 1991, consistently with the official results that had been posted following the race. At Biscayne Kennel Club on May 8, 1991, STRIDDEN RITE participated in the 1st race. The racing line for STRIDDEN RITE contained in the official racing program published by Biscayne Kennel Club for the races held May 8, 1991, charted the performance of that greyhound in the 13th race for April 30, 1991, consistently with the official results that had been posted following the race. On May 9, 1991, John Pozar, Petitioner's Bureau Chief for the Bureau of Investigation, called Respondent Crawford, indicated that the investigation had confirmed that the mis-identification had occurred, and instructed him to scratch NY DAMASCUS from a race that was scheduled for later that day. Mr. Pozar also instructed Respondent Crawford to change the racing lines for the three greyhounds to reflect their correct performances on April 30, 1991. This was the first direction from Petitioner as to the results of the investigation or as to the action that should be taken. Respondents took immediate action to comply with Mr. Pozar's instructions. The correct performance lines for NY DAMASCUS, STRIDDEN RITE, and MPS SEBASTION in the 13th race at Biscayne Kennel Club did not appear in any Biscayne Kennel Club Program until May 11, 1991. Respondent Crawford, Respondent May, and Mr. Culpepper, as the three judges, had supervisory responsibility and authority over the chart writer and could have ordered her to change the performance lines for the three greyhounds involved in the incident of April 30, 1991, at any time between April 30 and May 9. The three judges did not act to change the performance lines between April 30 and May 9 in deference to the investigation being conducted by Petitioner's investigators. In the matinee program for May 11 for the 12th race, the racing line for NY DAMASCUS accurately reflects that it finished eighth in the 13th race on April 30, 20 lengths off the pace. In contrast, the racing lines for NY DAMASCUS contained in the May 3 program erroneously reflected that NY DAMASCUS finished second by a nose. In the evening program for May 11 for the 13th race, the racing line for STRIDDEN RITE accurately reflects that it finished second by a nose on April In contrast, the racing lines for STRIDDEN RITE contained in May 3 and May 8 programs erroneously reflected that STRIDDEN RITE finished third. In the evening program for May 11 for the 2nd race, the racing line for MPS SEBASTION accurately reflects that it finished third, five lengths off the pace, on April 30. In contrast, the racing lines for STRIDDEN RITE contained in May 3 and May 7 programs erroneously reflected that MPS SEBASTION finished eighth, twenty lengths off the pace. Petitioner has adopted no rule which establishes the circumstances under which racing lines can vary from official results in a case such as this. The three judges have to use their judgment as to the appropriate course of action to take in resolving a charge of mis-blanketing. Official results of a race are not to be overturned by the judges in the absence of competent, substantial evidence that the official results are wrong. The record of this proceeding did not establish that these Respondents failed to act within the scope of their discretion in deferring to the investigation by Petitioner. Likewise, the record fails to establish that the Respondents failed to exercise their supervisory authority and responsibility by waiting to change the racing lines until after the official investigation was completed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the administrative complaint brought against Respondent, Robert C. Crawford, in Case No. 91-6682 and which dismisses the administrative complaint brought against Respondent, Robert E. May, in Case No. 91-8107. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1992.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against a licensee on the basis of allegations in an Administrative Complaint in which the Respondent is charged with two violations of Section 550.2415(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the State of Florida, Department of Business of Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division) which is created by Section 20.165(2)(f), Florida Statutes. The Respondent, Douglas J. Levkoff, is the holder of an unrestricted U-1 Professional Pari-Mutuel License, License Number 10311836-1081, issued by the Division on or about July 1, 2000. West Flagler is a permitholder authorized to conduct greyhound racing and pari-mutuel wagering in the State of Florida. On September 9, 2000, the Respondent was the trainer for a racing greyhound named "Dodge A Ram." The racing greyhound "Dodge A Ram" finished third in the ninth race of the evening performance of West Flagler on September 9, 2000. Immediately after the race a urine sample was collected from "Dodge A Ram." The urine sample was assigned sample number 651573. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample number 651573, and found it to contain Benzoylecgonine.1 On September 23, 2000, the Respondent was the trainer for a racing greyhound named "Izz Our Patsy." The racing greyhound "Izz Our Patsy" finished first in the sixth race of the matinee performance of West Flagler on September 23, 2000. Immediately after the race a urine sample was collected from "Izz Our Patsy." The urine sample was assigned sample number 652144. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample number 652144, and found it to contain Benzoylecgonine.2 Benzoylecgonine is a metabolite of Cocaine. It is the primary marker of Cocaine in forensic technology. The metabolite Benzoylecgonine is not produced by any drug other than Cocaine. Cocaine is a Class 1 drug according to the Association of Racing Commissioners International classification system. The Respondent is the trainer of record for Sun Coast Kennels, which provides greyhounds for racing to West Flagler Greyhound Track. He is listed as the trainer for Sun Coast Kennels on the kennel personnel roster filed with the Racing Secretary at West Flagler. Sun Coast Kennels is assigned kennel number 17 by West Flagler for identification purposes. Specifically, the Respondent provided the names of "Dodge A Ram" and "Izz Our Patsy" to West Flagler through a listing of available greyhounds and an official schooling, respectively.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering enter a final order in this case suspending the Respondent's license for a period of twenty days, imposing an administrative fine in the total amount of $200.00, and requiring the return of any purse that was received by the Respondent as a result of the two races at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2001.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner was an employee of Respondent and, if so, whether Respondent is guilty of an act of employment discrimination against Petitioner, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns four ranches in Florida, including the Yeehaw Plantation near Yeehaw Junction, as well as a ranch in Texas and a ranch in Georgia. Respondent employs about 80 persons in its Atlanta offices and at its various ranches. The Yeehaw Plantation includes 7000 acres of hunt courses, gun dog kennels, and horse stables. To address deficiencies in its gun dog operations at the Yeehaw Plantation, Respondent retained Robin Watson to perform a kennel evaluation in early 2015. A citizen of the United Kingdom, Mr. Watson has earned an international reputation as a breeder, trainer, and handler of gun dogs, mostly British Labradors, and has trained dogs throughout the world. In the United Kingdom, Mr. Watson has served as the highest-level judge for field trials of hunting dogs, and he and his dogs have won several championships. Following the kennel evaluation, Respondent extended Mr. Watson an offer of full-time employment to train its gun dogs and provide his British Labradors for use in Respondent's hunting operations. Upon receipt of the employment offer, Mr. Watson informed Respondent that he could accept the job only if he could be joined by Petitioner, who had accompanied him on the kennel evaluation. Petitioner is a female citizen of the United Kingdom and is of British origin. Respondent agreed to this condition and, to induce Mr. Watson's acceptance, also agreed to pay the visa-application and relocation expenses of Mr. Watson and Petitioner. Respondent retained counsel to assist with Mr. Watson's visa. Based on his world-class qualifications as a gun dog trainer, Mr. Watson applied for, and obtained, an 0-1 visa, which is reserved for persons with "extraordinary ability." Petitioner did not qualify for an 0-1 visa, but obtained a B-2 visa, which is reserved for visitors and does not allow employment in the United States. Due to its involvement in securing the visas, Respondent was aware at all times of the type of Petitioner's visa and its prohibition against employment. In August 2015, Petitioner and Mr. Watson moved from the United Kingdom to Florida, where they occupied, as part of Mr. Watson's employment package, a house on the ranch. Mr. Watson's supervisor was Bud O'Connor, who is Respondent's ranch administrator. A majority of Mr. O'Connor's time is spent at Respondent's four Florida ranches, but he also visits Respondent's ranch in Texas and ranch in Georgia. While at the Yeehaw Plantation, Mr. O'Connor met with Mr. Watson an average of once weekly. At some point roughly coinciding with complaints voiced by a principal of Respondent in connection with a recent hunt, Mr. O'Connor became dissatisfied with Mr. Watson's work. Part of the dissatisfaction involved Petitioner, whom Mr. O'Connor described as "joined at the hip" with Mr. Watson. Petitioner accompanied Mr. Watson even on the hunts, where the support truck was to have been occupied only by Mr. Watson, as the dog handler, and two employees whose duties were to handle the horses. Mr. O'Connor's frustration with the situation is exemplified by his assumption that, when Mr. Watson drove the trailer off a small bridge on the ranch while talking on his cellphone, he must have been talking to Petitioner, who was not present with him at the time. Mr. O'Connor eventually directed Mr. Watson not to allow Petitioner to join them on the hunts. Mr. Watson objected on the ground that she was his secretary and worried that she would be displeased. But Mr. O'Connor was adamant and, in mid- 2016, also forbade her from attending meetings in the Yeehaw Plantation office. While living at Yeehaw Plantation, Petitioner helped Mr. Watson with the dogs, as she had done before and has done after his employment with Respondent. However, at all times, Petitioner provided her services as a volunteer. At no time did Respondent agree to employ her. Foremost among the reasons not to employ Petitioner was the illegality of such employment: Respondent's operation features the internal controls of a large corporation, so that it would be impossible for one or two persons to conceal an illegal employment decision within the corporate ranks. At no time did Respondent agree to, or in fact, compensate Petitioner directly or indirectly through Mr. Watson. The above-described relocation expenses and housing were inducements to Mr. Watson to accept Respondent's job offer. In July 2016, Respondent provided Petitioner health insurance, but as a dependent of Mr. Watson, whom she had married earlier in the month. In November 2017, Mr. Watson informed Mr. O'Connor that he was quitting, as he did the following month. The timing of Mr. Watson's departure at the start of quail hunting season presented a problem for Mr. O'Connor, who reminded Mr. Watson of the provision of his agreement with Respondent that called for repayment of the relocation expenses in the event of an early termination. Notably, Mr. Watson did not respond that he was entitled to an offset for the services that Petitioner had provided.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Robert E. Rigrish, Esquire Bodker, Ramsey, Andrews, Rollins, Winograd, & Wildstein 3490 Piedmont Road Northeast, Suite 1400 Atlanta, Georgia 30305 (eServed) Rachael J. Watson 2921 Old Farm Road Lancaster, South Carolina 29720 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure as assistant general manager at Seminole Greyhound Park. The Respondent contends that Petitioner does not meet these qualifications because while serving in the past as general manager at Seminole Greyhound Park, Petitioner violated the Respondent's rules by consorting with a convicted bookmaker, by allowing an unapproved veterinarian to serve as the approved track veterinarian, by conducting an excessive number of "T" races, by failing to comply with requirements for disbursement of funds to the Board of Regents, and by placing illegal wagers on National Football League games. Petitioner denies these allegations.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering is responsible for administering provisions of Florida Statutes relating to operation of dog racing establishments. Chapter 550, Florida Statutes. Respondent is specifically charged with responsibility for issuing or denying licenses to all persons connected with dog racing establishments for each specified job. Section 550.10, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner has been licensed in various capacities in the pari- mutuel industry in Florida since approximately 1956. He has served at greyhound racing facilities as a mutuel clerk, in the "money room," as racing secretary, racing judge, and most recently, as a track manager. In October, 1980, Petitioner entered into a five-year employment contract with Seminole Greyhound Park, Inc., to serve as its general manager. Petitioner served in that capacity during the time that the track was physically converted from a harness racing track to a dog racing track. He also served in that capacity during the first greyhound racing season at Seminole Greyhound Park, which began on May 4, 1981, and continued until August 30, 1981. Petitioner was issued a three-year license by the Respondent to serve as general manager commencing in 1981. He nonetheless would need to be certified by Respondent to serve for the 1982 racing season. The owners of Seminole Park desire to continue to employ the Petitioner as general manager. The owners were advised by the Respondent's personnel, however, that Petitioner would not be approved for licensure as general manager at the park for the 1982 season. No formal application to employ Petitioner in that capacity was submitted to the Respondent. Instead, in an effort to accommodate the Petitioner's employment contract, and the desires of the Respondent's personnel, the Seminole Greyhound Park owners sought to employ the Petitioner as assistant manager for the 1982 season, at the same salary and with the same benefits as had been specified in Petitioner's employment contract. Accordingly, Petitioner submitted an application to the Respondent for licensure as assistant manager at Seminole Greyhound Park. The Respondent denied the application by letter dated May 10, 1982. This proceeding ensued. As general manager at Seminole Greyhound Park, Petitioner was basically responsible for the day-to-day operation of the park. Prior to 1981, the park had been operated as a harness racing facility. The park was being converted into a greyhound racing establishment. Petitioner played a significant role in the conversion. He shared managerial responsibilities with John Fountain, an individual who was employed by the owners of Seminole Greyhound Park as special projects manager. Petitioner also shared responsibilities with Paul Dervaes, the President of Seminole Greyhound Park, who also owned an interest in the park; and with Bill Demetree, one of the primary owners of the park. During the conversion period, Petitioner was basically responsible for organizing the track, setting up concessions, booking kennels and the like. When the track opened in early May, 1981, Petitioner continued to share managerial responsibilities with Bill Demetree and Paul Dervaes. Dervaes resigned as president of Seminole Greyhound Park in late May, and through the remainder of the racing season, Petitioner shared managerial responsibilities primarily with Bill Demetree. Operational employees at Seminole Greyhound Park, including the racing secretary, and persons in charge of security, concessions, and publicity answered directly to the Petitioner. John Fountain is an individual who was convicted of a violation of federal bookmaking laws. Fountain's civil rights were restored to him in Florida through a "Certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights" issued by the State Office of Executive Clemency on May 14, 1980. Fountain was primarily responsible for interesting Bill and Jack Demetree, two brothers who are involved in various business enterprises, in purchasing the facilities at Seminole Park and transforming it from a harness racing to a dog racing facility. The Demetrees had known Fountain for many years in both personal and business capacities. Fountain had an interest in ultimately participating in the operation of the track. Under statutes then in effect, persons who had been convicted of bookmaking crimes were forever barred from participating in the management of pari-mutuel facilities. The Demetrees participated in lobbying a bill through the Legislature which would allow for approval by the Respondent of persons who had in the past been convicted of bookmaking crimes to be licensed in the pari-mutuel industry. The lobbying effort was successful. Fountain did apply for licensure to participate in the management of Seminole Greyhound Park, but he withdrew his application before it was acted upon by the Respondent. Fountain had known the Petitioner for many years. Fountain recommended to the Demetrees that they consider Petitioner for the job of general manager at Seminole Greyhound Park. The Petitioner was working as racing secretary at a dog racing track in Miami. He traveled to Orlando to be interviewed by the Demetrees. Fountain participated in at least one of those interviews. Petitioner was hired as general manager in October, 1981. Fountain was very active in the effort to convert Seminole Park into a greyhound racing facility. Fountain was basically in charge of the renovation project. Petitioner worked closely with Fountain. When Petitioner first moved to Orlando, he shared a motel suite with Fountain. The two were close friends, and they met socially as well as working together in the business enterprise. One of the Demetrees had inquired of the Secretary of the Department of Business Regulation as to the propriety of Fountain working in the renovation project. The Secretary expressed no opposition to Fountain working in that capacity, but advised that it would not be permissible for Fountain to be present at the track during the racing season or to participate in any capacity in the operation of the track. Paul Dervaes, the President of Seminole Greyhound Park, Inc., made a similar inquiry. By letter dated May 5, 1981, the Department of Business Regulation specifically advised Dervaes that it would be improper for Fountain to be in attendance at the track during the racing season or to participate in the management or operation of the track. Dervaes showed this letter to the Petitioner. On the first day of the racing season, Fountain was present at Seminole Greyhound Park solely to pick up some materials that he had left there. This visit to the park was expressly approved by Gary Rutledge, who was then the Director of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering. It does not appear that Fountain was otherwise present at the track on that date or at any other time during the 1981 racing season. Despite the Respondent's admonishment that Fountain should not participate in management or operation of Seminole Greyhound Park, Petitioner continued to consult with Fountain on a frequent basis during the 1981 racing season. Fountain frequently contacted the Petitioner with regard to how well the track was performing. Petitioner specifically consulted with Fountain regarding publicity and promotional activities. Fountain had been instrumental in encouraging the use of a "Super 8" promotion whereby customers at the track would attempt to successfully place the order of finish of all eight dogs in a given race. When the promotion was less successful than had been anticipated, Petitioner consulted directly with Fountain about it. Fountain made various recommendations, some of which were followed and some which were not. During the course of the racing season, Fountain communicated with Petitioner with respect to certain persons who Fountain suggested be given special benefits, such as free meals, at the track. These were persons who were "good betters," i.e., persons who placed large bets. These recommendations were followed by Petitioner. On one occasion, Fountain was responsible for authorizing a "petty cash" expenditure for a wedding present for a member of the press. Petitioner approved the expenditure that had been authorized by Fountain. In addition to participating in operation of Seminole Greyhound Park in these specific instances, Fountain was in constant telephone communication with Petitioner and other persons at the park. In addition to communicating with Fountain about various facets of the business operation, Petitioner was in frequent contact with him on a personal basis. It appears that Fountain had more than a casual interest in the success of Seminole Greyhound Park. It appears, for example, that Fountain loaned large amounts of money directly to owners of the park for the express purpose of purchasing and renovating the facility. Although Fountain was employed by the Demetrees to accomplish the renovation of the facility, it appears that he was not compensated for that work. It further appears that no interest was paid to him on the loans that he made to park owners. These activities may reflect adversely upon the ownership of Seminole Greyhound Park. It does not, however, appear that Petitioner was aware of any financial interest that Fountain may have had in Seminole Greyhound Park. Petitioner was responsible for hiring a veterinarian to serve as the approved track veterinarian, and for seeing that the veterinarian was properly approved by the Respondent. Petitioner hired Dr. Bob Sindler as the track veterinarian, and Sindler was properly approved. Shortly before opening day, Petitioner learned that Sindler would not be able to be present at every racing session, and that he would send an associate, Dr. David Case, to serve as track veterinarian on those dates. Dr. Case actually served as track veterinarian on several occasions before he was properly approved by the Respondent. While Case was ultimately approved, and it does not appear that he performed his responsibilities other than properly, he did serve for at least a brief period as track veterinarian before he had been properly approved. Under the Respondent's rules, entries for all races must be drawn by lot, with certain exceptions. One of these exceptions is for "T" races. These races are made up by the track's racing secretary and can include dogs that are not in the same grade and more than one dog from the same kennel. The number of such races is limited to no more than three races per week. Considerably more than three "T" races were run at Seminole Greyhound Park during every week of its 1981 season until the Respondent advised the racing secretary of the violations by a memorandum. Personnel at Seminole Greyhound Park had not received any prior authorization from the Respondent to run more "T" races than allowed under the Respondent's rules. Petitioner was not directly responsible for developing racing programs. That task fell to the racing secretary. The racing secretary was, however, supervised by the Petitioner, and Petitioner knew, or should have known, that excessive "T" races were being run. Greyhound racing facilities are required to devote a portion of receipts to charitable endeavors and to the State Board of Regents. On Petitioner's advice, Bill Demetree prepared a list of institutions to which he wished to devote the funds from the Board of Regents' allotment. He sent checks to each specific institution, rather than a single check to the Board of Regents, which would have then been disbursed to the designated institutions. It appears that the Petitioner gave Demetree this advice after consulting by telephone with personnel of the Respondent. It appears that he misunderstood information that was conveyed to him. On or about August 21, 1981, the Respondent engaged in what was described at the bearing, depending upon the disposition of the witness, as a "raid" or an "investigative action." Agents of the Respondent and the Department of Law Enforcement appeared at Seminole Park during a racing session, seized documents, conducted tests on dogs, and interviewed track personnel. Petitioner was detained and questioned at length by Gary Rutledge, then the Director of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering. Rutledge testified that Petitioner admitted during the course of an interrogation that Petitioner had made bets with bookies on football games. There was no recording device in operation during that portion of the interview, and no other person heard the statement. Rutledge did not testify as to the precise language used by Petitioner in making this asserted admission. The nature of these bets, when they were made and, indeed, whether they were legal or not cannot be gleaned from the evidence.
