The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 550.105(4) and (7), Florida Statutes (2016),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-2.005, as applicable, by engaging in the following conduct, as alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint: (1) assisting an unlicensed person in working in a restricted area at a licensed pari-mutuel wagering facility, in violation of section 550.105(4) and rule 61D-2.005; and (2) accumulating unpaid obligations directly related to the sport of pari-mutuel racing, in violation of section 550.105(7); and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Licensure Status Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering in the state of Florida pursuant to chapter 550. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was the holder of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Individual Occupational License No. 2005775-1021, which authorizes him to own and train racing horses in this state pursuant to chapter 550. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent trained and raced horses at Gulfstream Park ("Gulfstream"), a facility operated by a permitholder authorized to conduct pari- mutuel wagering in this state pursuant to chapter 550. The Administrative Complaint At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was subject to chapter 550 and applicable rules codified in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-2. On or about March 29, 2017, Petitioner served its Administrative Complaint on Respondent, charging him with two counts of violating statutes and rules governing pari-mutuel racing. Count I of the Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with "conspiring with, soliciting, aiding, abetting, counseling, hiring, or procuring" Salvador Domingo Ramos to work in a restricted area of Gulfstream on or about July 25, 2016. If proved, this conduct would violate section 550.105(4), which makes it unlawful to take part in any way at any pari-mutuel facility without first having secured an occupational license and paid the occupational license fee; and also would violate rule 61D-2.005, which, among other things, prohibits a licensee from conspiring with, aiding, abetting, counseling, hiring, or procuring any other person or persons to engage in a violation of chapter 550. Count II of the Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with "accumulating unpaid obligations that directly relate to the sport of racing at a pari-mutuel facility in Florida." If proved, this conduct would violate section 550.105(7), which, among other things, makes a sanctionable offense the accumulation of unpaid obligations that directly relate to the sport of racing being conducted at a pari- mutuel facility in this state. The Evidence Adduced at Hearing Count I On July 25, 2016, Julio Minaya, an investigative supervisor employed by Petitioner, engaged in an inspection of the "backside" of Gulfstream. Specifically, Minaya and the investigative team he supervised inspected barn nos. 21, 22, and 23 at Gulfstream. The "backside" is a secured area at a pari-mutuel facility that contains the barns and stables, where the racing horses are housed, and the race tracks. Only persons who hold occupational licenses or who are otherwise authorized are allowed to enter and engage in activities in the backside, and security officers are hired to guard the backside and ensure that unauthorized persons do not enter this area. As part of the inspection on July 25, 2016, Minaya requested each person encountered in barn nos. 21, 22, and 23 to provide his or her occupational license for inspection, in order to ensure that the person was licensed and that the license was valid. During the July 25, 2016, inspection of the backside at Gulfstream, a member of the Minaya's investigative team encountered a person in a storage room within barn no. 23. The man, who ultimately identified himself as Salvadore Domingo Ramos, told Minaya that he did not have his license with him. At that point, Minaya informed Ramos that he would have to leave the backside. As Minaya escorted him out of the backside, Ramos told Minaya that he worked for Respondent, that he did not have "any papers," and that he was just trying to work. Minaya interpreted Ramos's comments to mean that he (Ramos) was an undocumented immigrant, so would not have a valid occupational license. Minaya then contacted Respondent, who told him that Ramos had been working for him, exercising his horses, for approximately a month and a half. Respondent told Minaya that he did not know that Ramos was unlicensed, but that had seen Ramos exercising other trainers' horses, so assumed Ramos was licensed. At the final hearing, Respondent testified that Ramos had worked for him, for compensation, as an exerciser for the horses Respondent trained. Respondent further testified that he knew that unlicensed persons could not be hired to work in any capacity in the backside, and he acknowledged that he did not ask Ramos for his license before he hired him to exercise his horses. However, he noted that persons who go into the backside must pass through a security check at which they must show their license to gain entry. Because Respondent had seen Ramos on numerous occasions in the backside exercising other trainers' horses, he assumed that Ramos was licensed. The evidence, consisting of testimony by Petitioner's licensing administrator and supporting documentation from Petitioner's licensing computer database, confirmed that Ramos did not hold an occupational license on July 25, 2016, and had never held such a license. Count II Finish Line Feed, Inc. ("Finish Line"), is a business that sells animal food products. Ninety percent of its business is selling equestrian hand grain in Florida to race track facilities and to individuals who train and race horses at race tracks in Florida that hold pari-mutuel events. Doreen DeFonzono, office manager at Finish Line, is responsible for keeping records of all sales transactions for Finish Line. DeFonzono testified, and provided copies of customer account statements showing, that Respondent was a customer of Finish Line and that he purchased equestrian food products from Finish Line over a period of time. DeFonzono testified, credibly, that the food Respondent purchased was delivered to him at a pari-mutuel facility in Florida. The evidence shows that Respondent often was arrears in paying his account balance with Finish Line, but that he periodically would pay part of the outstanding balance. The customer account statements show on November 30, 2015, Respondent paid $500.00 toward his outstanding account balance. After this payment, Respondent's outstanding balance was $12,915.91. Thereafter, Respondent did not make any further payments toward his customer account balance. Finance charges on the outstanding balance accrued monthly, so that by July 31, 2016, Respondent's outstanding account balance was $13,986.06. Thereafter, Finish Line filed suit against Respondent to recover the amount Respondent owed. The court entered a Default and Final Judgment by Default ("Default Judgment") against Respondent in Case No. COCE-16-019754DIV 54, ordering Respondent to pay a total of $15,458.14 to Finish Line for the outstanding principal balance of $13,986.06, plus filing, process service, and attorney fees. The Default Judgment was recorded in the Broward County public records on December 14, 2016. DeFonzono credibly testified that to date, Respondent still owes Finish Line the amount of the Default Judgment, plus accrued interest, and that Finish Line and Respondent have not discussed or entered into any repayment agreements regarding the amount Respondent owes Finish Line. Respondent does not dispute that he did not fully pay off his balance with Finish Line or that a Default Judgment was entered against him. He testified that he had been a customer of Finish Line from 2004 to 2015. His credible testimony, supported by the customer account statements, showed that he made periodic payments in an effort to reduce his outstanding balance. He testified, credibly, that he fell on bad financial times, and that a number of unfortunate events and circumstances——including having an accident, breaking his hip, losing his driver's license, becoming unemployed, and being unable to pay workers' compensation insurance for any employees he may hire——rendered him unable to revive his horse training and racing business, so that he was, and remains, unable to pay the amount he owes Finish Line. Respondent currently is unemployed and does not train or race horses at Gulfstream or any other pari-mutuel facility. Findings Regarding Alleged Violations Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent hired an unlicensed person to work for him in a restricted area of Gulfstream on or about July 25, 2016. This conduct violates section 550.105(4), which makes it unlawful to take part in any way at any pari- mutuel facility without first having secured an occupational license and paid the occupational license fee. This conduct also violates rule 61D-2.005, which, among other things, prohibits a licensee from hiring any other person to engage in a violation of chapter 550. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent accumulated unpaid obligations that directly relate to the sport of racing at a pari-mutuel facility in Florida. This conduct violates section 550.105(7), which, among other things, makes a sanctionable offense the accumulation of unpaid obligations that directly relate to the sport of racing being conducted at a pari- mutuel facility in this state. Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstances There was no evidence presented showing that Respondent previously violated any laws or rules regarding pari-mutuel wagering or pari-mutuel wagering facilities in Florida. Additionally, the evidence shows that Respondent did not knowingly or willfully hire an unlicensed person. As Respondent persuasively testified, he had seen Ramos on the premises in the backside of Gulfstream working for other trainers, so assumed that he was licensed. Respondent did not know Ramos was unlicensed when he hired him. The evidence further shows that due, at least in part, to a series of significant, unfortunate events and setbacks, Respondent is unemployed, so is not in a financial position to purchase the insurance necessary for him to be able to restart his horse training business. These hardships have rendered Respondent unable to pay Finish Line the balance owed pursuant to the Default Judgment. The evidence does not show that Respondent is, or has been, financially able to pay Finish Line the balance he owes but has simply chosen not to do so.2/ The evidence also does not show that Respondent bought products from Finish Line, intending not to pay for them or knowing that he was not going to pay for them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, enter a final order finding and concluding that Respondent violated sections 550.105(4) and 550.105(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-2.005; imposing a fine of $100.00 to be paid over a period of six months of the date of the final order; and suspending Respondent's occupational license until such time as either: (1) Respondent has repaid his debt to Finish Line in full, or (2) Respondent has entered into an agreement with Finish Line to repay his debt and he has been in compliance with that agreement for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 8th day of May, 2018.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a licensed greyhound trainer, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner issued Respondent greyhound trainer's license number 156254-1021 on January 10, 2003. Respondent was the trainer of record for the following greyhounds that raced at Hollywood Greyhound Track at the times pertinent to this proceeding: "WP's Dylan," "LM's Ice Age," "Doinwhat Blair," "Okie Leona," "Tom's Rusty," "Hi Accord," "LM's Angel Eyes," and "Miss Challenger." Hollywood Greyhound Track is a facility authorized to conduct pari-mutuel wagering in Florida pursuant to a permit issued by Petitioner. "WP's Dylan" raced in the fourth race at Hollywood Greyhound Track on the afternoon of January 21, 2003. "WP's Dylan" finished fourth in that race. Following the race, urine sample number 908316 was collected from "WP's Dylan" and was processed at the Racing Laboratory. "LM's Ice Age" raced in the first race at Hollywood Greyhound Track on the evening of January 23, 2003. "LM's Ice Age" finished second in that race. Following the race, urine sample number 907673 was collected from "LM's Ice Age" and was processed at the Racing Laboratory. "Doinwhat Blair" raced in the third race at Hollywood Greyhound Track on the evening of January 23, 2003. "Doinwhat Blair" finished first in that race. Following the race, urine sample number 908327 was collected from "Doinwhat Blair" and was processed at the Racing Laboratory. "Okie Leona" raced in the ninth race at Hollywood Greyhound Track on the evening of January 23, 2003. "Okie Leona" finished first in that race. Following the race, urine sample number 908358 was collected from "Okie Leona" and was processed at the Racing Laboratory. "Tom's Rusty" raced in the fifth race at Hollywood Greyhound Track on the evening of January 25, 2003. "Tom's Rusty" finished first in that race. Following the race, urine sample number 908104 was collected from "Tom's Rusty" and was processed at the Racing Laboratory. "Hi Accord" raced at Hollywood Greyhound Track on January 25, 2003. Following the race, urine sample number 907704 was collected from "Hi Accord" and was processed at the Racing Laboratory. "LM's Angel Eyes" raced at Hollywood Greyhound Track on January 25, 2003. Following the race, urine sample number 907694 was collected from "LM's Angel Eyes" and was processed at the Racing Laboratory. "Miss Challenger" raced at Hollywood Greyhound Track on January 25, 2003. Following the race, urine sample number 907698 was collected from "WP's Dylan" and was processed at the Racing Laboratory. Petitioner proved that each urine sample involved in this proceeding was collected, maintained, and analyzed pursuant to established, routine procedures. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that all eight urine samples involved in this proceeding tested positive for metabolites of cocaine (benzoylecgonine and/or ecgonine methyl ester). Cocaine is a topical anesthetic, and a Class 1 drug under the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, as promulgated by the Association of Racing Commissioners, Inc. Cocaine is prohibited in racing animals in Florida. The presence of the metabolites of cocaine in the urine of the eight animals at issue in this proceeding established that the dogs had been administered cocaine prior to the respective races. Respondent testified that he did not administer cocaine to any of the animals involved in this proceeding. Respondent's denial was uncorroborated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's license and imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the aggregate amount of $8,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 29th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Kenneth C. Purdy 15855 Miami Lakeway, North E 248 Hialeah, Florida 33014 David J. Roberts, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's Notice of Intent to Withdraw License should be granted or dismissed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held The Permit, which authorizes Respondent to conduct summer jai-alai performances in Dade County. In 1980, Respondent converted a greyhound racing permit into the Permit, as authorized by a predecessor to section 550.0745, which is discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Each year, as required by section 550.0115, Respondent has obtained an operating license under the Permit to conduct performances, which it has done at the same location named in the Permit. On December 26, 2016, Respondent filed an application for an operating license for 2017-18. This application sought a license to conduct performances in Dania, which is in Broward County. The new location is less than 35 miles from the Dade County location mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Petitioner's employee assigned to examine applications attached a large post-it note to the portion of the application advising of the change in operating location from Dade to Broward county. The note is still attached to the file, which was presented at the final hearing. The note is impossible to miss. On March 10, 2017, Petitioner granted the operating license, which authorizes Respondent to conduct summer jai-alai performances in Dania for the 2017-18 season. In reliance on the 2017-18 operating license, Respondent has terminated its lease for the Dade County facility and entered into a lease for the Dania facility. Following a complaint from the lessor of Respondent's Dade County location, the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division) concluded that it had issued the operating license in error, determined that an operating license for a converted permit must be limited to the county named in the converted permit, and issued the NOI on June 1, 2017. Directed to Respondent, the NOI does not allege that Respondent has violated any statute or rule. Instead, the NOI states only that Petitioner issued the operation license "in error as [Respondent] is not authorized to operate summer jai-alai performances via The Permit outside of Miami-Dade County." The NOI never mentions section 550.475. At one time, Petitioner construed section 550.475, which is discussed below, to allow a holder of a county-specific permit to relocate performances to a facility located within 35 miles from the facility, but in another county, and a circuit court has sustained this construction. In the past, Petitioner issued operating licenses to holders of converted or created permits that authorized performances at the licensed location or a facility leased pursuant to section 550.475. It is unclear, though, when Petitioner changed its position. Division directors changed between the issuance of the 2017-18 operating license and the NOI, and it is unlikely that the former director missed the proposed out-of-county relocation described in the application for the 2017-18 operation license. However, these two facts do not preclude a mistake of law, as Petitioner contends, so that the NOI is not necessarily a statement that represents a change in longstanding policy. The NOI states that the operating license is based on a mistake of law, but Petitioner's proposed recommended order states that the operating license is a mistake of law--the same conclusion that the Administrative Law Judge reaches in the Conclusions of Law.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Intent to Withdraw License. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2017, 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 12th day of December, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a horse trainer licensed in the State of Florida, and holds Occupational License No. L-25378. Respondent is a division of the Department of Business Regulation, and is charged by law with regulatory authority over Florida's pari-mutuel wagering industry. On May 5, 1979, Respondent issued an administrative complaint, seeking to fine, suspend or revoke Petitioner's occupational license, alleging that Petitioner had violated Rules 7E-4.25(16) and 7E-4.02(17)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The administrative complaint alleges that on December 7,1 979, a search of Petitioner's automobile, conducted pursuant to Rule 7E-4.02(3), Florida Administrative Code, revealed certain prohibited drugs and other items including Didrex, Narcan, Levophed, cannabis or marijuana, and hypodermic syringes and needles. The facts alleged in the administrative complaint presently are pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings in Division of Administrative Hearings Case no. 80-1147.
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.
Findings Of Fact The Findings of Fact contained in the Recommended Order are hereby adopted as the findings of the Division.
Conclusions The State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division) hereby enters this Final Order for the above styled matter. On January 4, 2001, the Division received a Recommended Order from the Honorable Susan B. Kirkland, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Recommended Order is attached to this Final Order and incorporated by reference herein. This Final Order is being executed by the Secretary of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation because Dr. Paul F. Kirsch, Director of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering testified at the formal hearing which was consolidated with the rule challenge styled Daniel G. Hennessey, Fred G. Warren and Celestina M. Gangemi vs. Division, DOAH Case Nos. 99-5254RX, 00-2821RX and 00-3809RX.
Appeal For This Case Unless expressly waived, any party substantially affected by this final order may seek judicial review by filing an original Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and a copy of the notice, accompanied by the filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the appropnate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days rendition of this order, in accordance with Rule 9.110, Fla. R. App. P., and section 120.68, Florida Statutes. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that this Notice has been provided by facsimile transmission to Cynthia S. Tunnicliff and Martha J Edenfield, Attorneys for Respondent, by U.S. Certified Mail at Post Office Box 10095, Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 and David S. Romanik, Attorney for Respondent, by U.S. Certified Mail to Post Office Box 310, Hallandale, Florida 33008-0310 this 4 day of, pk 2001. Mary Polomo, Division Clerk Copies furnished to: Bureau of Operations Licensing Section Bureau of Investigations Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Assistant General Counsel General Manager, Calder Chief Inspector, Calder Stewards, Calder Director of Security, Calder Racing Form, Calder
The Issue The issues for disposition in this case are whether Hamilton Downs violated section 550.01215(3), Florida Statutes (2013), by failing to operate all performances specified on its license on the date and time specified, and whether the Division should be estopped from prosecuting Hamilton Downs.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering activities in Florida pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Hamilton Downs held a Quarter Horse Racing pari- mutuel permit issued by the Division, number 0000547-1000, that authorized Hamilton Downs to conduct pari-mutuel wagering on quarter horse races pursuant to chapter 550. On or about March 15, 2013, the Division issued a Permitholder Annual License & Operating Day License (the “operating license”), number 0000547-1001, to Hamilton Downs, which authorized Hamilton Downs to perform 20 regular quarter horse performances from June 18 through 22, 2014, at a rate of four performances a day. Each performance consisted of eight individual races. Thus, the operating license authorized a total of 160 races. In 2012 and 2013, Hamilton Downs conducted licensed quarter horse barrel match races at its facility. When the 2014 operating license was issued, Hamilton Downs intended to conduct a meet consisting of barrel match races. As a result of litigation that culminated several months before the commencement of the Hamilton Downs 2014 racing meet, the Division advised Hamilton Downs that it would not be able to conduct barrel match racing under its quarter horse racing operating permit. However, Hamilton Downs was permitted to conduct “flag-drop” racing during that period of time. From June 18 through 22, 2014, Hamilton Downs conducted the quarter horse “flag drop” racing meet pursuant to its operating license. Flag drop racing as performed at Hamilton Downs involved two horses racing2/ simultaneously on a crude dirt “track” approximately 110 yards in length. The track was straight for about 100 yards, with a pronounced rightward turn to the finish line, and was haphazardly lined with white stakes. The race was started by a person who waved a red cloth tied to a stick whenever it appeared that both horses were in the general vicinity of what the starter perceived to be the “starting line.” There was no starting box or gate. The track was in the middle of an open field. There was no grandstand, though there was a covered viewing area on “stilts” from which the state steward and track stewards could observe the races. The track had one betting window and tote machine in an on-site shed. The only window in the shed was, mercifully, occupied by a window-unit air conditioner. As stated by Mr. Haskell, “nothing about Hamilton Downs is real in terms of racetrack standards.” For several years prior to the 2014 meet, Hamilton Downs shared horses and riders with the racetrack in Gretna, Florida, and the North Florida Horsemen’s Association. Several weeks prior to the commencement of the Hamilton Downs 2014 meet, a schism developed between the groups. As a result, the Gretna racetrack and North Florida Horsemen’s Association prohibited its horses and riders from competing in Hamilton Downs meets. That action stripped Hamilton Downs of most of the horses and riders that it was relying upon to perform in its meet. Mr. Richards had the permitted dates, and was required to race on those dates to remain in compliance. He was able to make arrangements for horses “way down on the eligible list.” They were, for the most part, older horses of lesser quality. Nonetheless, Hamilton Downs did its best to fulfill its permitted slate of races. The pool from which the races were set included 19 horses and six riders. The horses and riders were supplied to Hamilton Downs by the Hamilton Downs Quarter Horse Association (HDQHA). The HDQHA believed it could provide enough horses to handle the meet. The horses, and their owners, were: Precious N Fritz -- Stardust Ranch, LLC Skippers Gold Tupelo -- Stardust Ranch, LLC Business Official -- Stardust Ranch, LLC Cutter With A Twist -- Stardust Ranch, LLC Dun It Precious Gal -- Stardust Ranch, LLC Heavens Trick -- Stardust Ranch, LLC Dancer Blue Ghost -- Amie Peacock Starpion N Skip -- Amie Peacock Twist N to Stardust -- Amie Peacock Docs Lil Jose -- Amie Peacock Dandees Bay Apache -- Amie Peacock Kings Hollywood Moon -- Amie Peacock Lassies Last Chance -- Elaine Tyre Sugars Daisy Bar -- Elaine Tyre Touch of Leaguer -- Elaine Tyre Joys Winning Touch -- Elaine Tyre Jazz Potential -- Emma McGee Sonney Dees Diamond -- Emma McGee Royal King Princess -- Richard McCoy The riders were: Amie Peacock Elaine Tyre Emma McGee Richard McCoy Nicholas McCoy Christine Bradley Each of the owners was licensed by the Division. The riders were mainly local riders. The breeds of the horses complied with state law regarding horses allowed to run in quarter horse races.3/ The horses had their ownership records and identifying tattoos, and their current Coggins forms, which are required to substantiate that they have tested negative for diseases. Mr. Stallings testified that there were no problems regarding the ages of the horses since “that is not something DBPR worries about.” The animal detention areas checked out and were secure. Mr. Taylor inspected the track and found no violations of track setup under the current rules. The horses and riders had access to the track for the three days prior to the meet for purposes of training and acclimating the horses to the track. The races at Hamilton Downs during June 2014 were conducted in the presence of a state steward. The races must be seen to be believed. The 14 events for which video evidence was received show a series of races involving -- as a rule -- tired, reluctant, skittish, or disinterested horses moving at a slow pace down the dust-choked path. There was no marked starting line or finish line. The horses were often yards apart when the red rag-on-a-stick was waved. With one exception (performance 2, race 7), the gait of the “racing” horses ranged between a slow walk and a canter. Horses often simply stood at the starting line before slowly plodding down the track. In one instance, a horse actually backed up, until a bystander took it by the lead, thereafter giving the horse a congratulatory slap on the rump when it began to move in a forward direction. Mr. Haskell noted races in which riders fell off of their horses, or in which a horse left the course. He described numerous races, aptly, as non- competitive because one or both of the entrants walked, including one race (day 3, card 3, race 5) in which the racing steed took 1 minute and 45 seconds to cover the 110-yard course. The overall quality of the videotaped races was about what one would expect of an entry-level campers’ horse show held at the conclusion of a two-week YMCA summer camp. The interest in the series of races by the betting public was commensurate with the quality of the races. Wagers were of the $2.00 variety. Over the course of the 160-race meet, a total of 10 bets were placed, with two of those reportedly placed by a representative of a competing facility in an effort to substantiate wrongdoing on the part of Hamilton Downs. Given the competitive level of the races, a $20 handle seems about right. Mr. Haskell testified that the same horses just kept racing over and over. However, his steward’s report noted that he “refer[ed] to the ‘rule book’ numerous times in the five days pertaining to ages of horses, number of races a horse may race in a limited time, etc., but the rules just didn’t exist.” Mr. Taylor expressed similar concerns with the failure of the horses to “break” at the start of the races, their slow pace, and other issues. He did not make a point of them or bring them to the attention of Hamilton Downs because there was “no rule violation.” Despite the bemused, occasionally embarrassed expressions on the faces of the riders as their horses ambled slowly down the track, the witnesses, including Mr. Haskell and Mr. Taylor, uniformly testified that the riders tried to make sure the races were competitive. Thus, the poor quality of the races cannot be attributed to a lack of effort on their part. “Coupled entries” are those in which horses owned by the same owner compete against one another in the same race. On the second race of the meet, it was discovered that the two horses scheduled to race were both owned by Amie Peacock. Although the racing program had been distributed to all race officials involved, including the state steward, no one noticed the coupled entry. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the coupled entry was discovered immediately before the start of the race. The racing secretary attempted to alert the starter, but was unsuccessful. Therefore, the race was run.4/ When the coupled entry was discovered, and before the race was made official, a post-race meeting of roughly 30 minutes was held to determine how to proceed. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that the meeting participants included, among others, the state steward, the track stewards, the state investigative specialist, the racing secretary, and the track owner. During the meeting, Mr. Richards offered that the race could be “re-run,” an option that was rejected since there is no authority for re-running a race. Mr. Richards also proposed calling a “no-contest,” which would allow Hamilton Downs to request an additional race from the Division. An additional race is not a re-run of the disputed race, but is a replacement race to be conducted at a different time during the meet. Mr. Richards was familiar with the procedure for requesting an additional replacement race, and was fully prepared to do so. It is not uncommon for such requests to be made in all types of pari-mutuel activities. Mr. Haskell acknowledged the possibility of declaring a no-contest for the coupled entry, and agreed that if he had declared a no-contest, Hamilton Downs could have requested a “make-up date” to be approved by the Division. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Haskell did not declare a no-contest. Rather, he decided to make the race “official.” As a result, Hamilton Downs could not request a make-up race. Mr. Taylor discussed the incident with management of Hamilton Downs, and promised to keep an eye out to make sure a coupled entry did not recur. After the second race of the meet, there were no further instances of coupled entries. Over the course of the meet, Mr. Haskell declared all of the 160 races, including the coupled entry race, to be official, whereupon the winner of the race was determined and results were entered by an Amtote employee into the computer and transmitted to the “hub.” At that point, wagers (if any) were paid out, and the tote was allowed to roll over to the next race. During the June 2014 races at Hamilton Downs, a purse, stake, or reward was offered for the owner of each horse to cross the finish line first. Mr. Richards was frank in his admission that the 2014 race season was important because it allowed Hamilton Downs to qualify for a cardroom license and, if ultimately allowed, slot machines. However, the reason for conducting the meet is of no consequence to the outcome of this proceeding. Hamilton Downs has, subsequent to the 2014 meet, conducted flag drop races at its facility pursuant to operating permits issued by the Division. Within the past five years, the Division has never filed an administrative complaint, suspended a pari-mutuel permitholder, or fined a pari-mutuel permitholder due to a failure to conduct a race at any particular speed. Within the past five years, the Division has never suspended a pari-mutuel permitholder for a violation of section 550.01215 that pertained to a race or races that were made official by a state steward.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 26th day of May, 2016.
