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 The Petitioner has accused Respondent, Francis Clifford Joyce, with a violation of Rule 7E-1.06(11)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which reads: (a) The running of a horse in a race with any narcotic, stimulant, depressant or local anesthetic is prohibited. If the stewards shall find that any narcotic, stimulant, depressant or local anesthetic has been administered or attempted to be administered, internally or externally, to a horse before a race, such stewards/ shall impose such punishment and take such other action as they may deem proper under any of the rules, including reference to the Division, against every person found by them to have administered, or to have attempted to administer, or to have caused to be administered, or to have caused an attempt to administer, or to have conspired with another person to administer, such narcotic, stimulant, depressant or local anesthetic. If the Division laboratory shall find a positive identification of any such medication, such finding shall constitute prima facie evidence that such horse raced with the medication in its system. Under the accusation, the Respondent is made responsible pursuant to the provisions of Rule 7E-1.18(3), Florida Administrative Code, which indicates that "The trainer shall be responsible for, and be the insurer of the conditions of the horses he enters. Trainers are presumed to know the rules of the Division." Specifically, Respondent Joyce is accused under facts that allege that on December 2, 1978 the horse Sensinita, trained by the Respondent, did race in the tenth (10th) race at Tropical Park Inc., finishing in the second (2nd) position. Subsequent to the race on the same date, a urine specimen was taken from the horse, Sensinita, and assigned sample number 509910A, and that specimen was allegedly analyzed by the Petitioner's laboratory. It is further alleged that on February 20, 1979, the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering laboratory reported the results of the test and that report showed that the urine sample contained Despropionyl Fentanyl, which is classified as a derivative of Fentanyl, a narcotic.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon a Notice to Show Cause (Administrative Complaint) filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, against Francis Clifford Joyce. At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, Francis Clifford Joyce was a holder of License Numbers K-4547, K-4201 and K-575 issued by the Petitioner to Respondent, Francis Clifford Joyce, to operate as a horse trainer for horses racing at the various race tracks located in the State of Florida. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty of the regulation of, among other things, the matters pertaining to thoroughbred horse racing in the State of Florida. The authority for such regulation is found in Chapter 550, Florida Statutes, and those rules promulgated to enforce the provisions of that chapter. Included in that body of rules are Rule 7E-1.06(11)(a) and 7E-1.18(3), Florida Administrative Code, alluded to in the issue statement of this Recommended Order. Those rules as set out in the issue statement shall serve as a basis for determining the facts and reaching the legal conclusions necessary to formulate a decision in this matter and official recognition is taken of the aforementioned rules. Facts in the case reveal that the Respondent, Francis Clifford Joyce, was operating in his capacity as a trainer on December 2, 1978, at the Tropical Park, Inc. race course in Florida. On that date a horse for which he was the trainer, named Sensinita, ran in the tenth (10th) race and finished in second (2nd) place. On the date of the race and prior to the race the horse was seen and treated by a veterinarian, Carl J. Meyer, DVM. This included a treatment for a condition which Dr. Meyer described as Myopathy. In actuality, Dr. Meyer injected the horse with Sublimaze under the guise of treating the horse for Myopathy. A urine sample taken from the horse shortly after the conclusion of the race and on the same data as the race was examined by a series of tests, and the urine sample revealed a positive identification of a substance known as Despropionyl Fentanyl, which is classified as a derivative of Fentanyl, a narcotic. This particular narcotic, Fentanyl, metabolizes to become Despropionyl Fentanyl, a central nervous system stimulant in horses. The trade name for Fetanyl is Sublimaze. The Respondent did not know that Dr. Meyer had injected Sensinita with the substance, Sublimaze, on the date of the race. Respondent had made inquiry of Dr. Meyer concerning treatment for Myopathy in October, 1978, related to the horse, Hawaiian Gardens. At that point, Dr. Meyer indicated that treatment for Myopathy was a treatment for the horse's nervous system. Subsequent to this discussion, the Respondent read an article related to allegations against other trainers who had been accused of violating the same provisions as set out in the present Notice to Show Cause, dealing with the same alleged narcotic. Among those individuals was one Frank Rudolph Solimena. Shortly after finding out about the allegations related to the other trainers, Respondent approached Dr. Meyer and asked him if he had given Hawaiian Gardens the same substance which Respondent thought Dr. Meyer might have given Solimena's horses. Dr. Meyer denied giving Hawaiian Gardens Sublimaze and told the Respondent not to worry about anything. The Respondent then became informed of a newspaper article claiming that the narcotic, Fentanyl/Sublimaze, had been given to his horse, Hawaiian Gardens, prior to running a race on October 16, 1978. Following this publication, a Notice to Show Cause was filed, a formal hearing was held and a Recommended Order was entered in DOAH. Case No. 79-228, now on review for final order. Prior to any notification by the Petitioner or through the media that a positive sample had bean allegedly detected in the test of the urine sample of Hawaiian Gardens, Respondent ceased to use Dr. layer to treat his horses and, effective December 4, 1978, the Respondent began using a Dr. Teigland, DVM. On or about February 20, 1979, Joyce received notice of the positive urine sample related to Sensinita's race which is the subject herein. On June 22 or 23, 1978, following the formal hearing on the subject of the horse, Hawaiian Gardens, and its race of October 16, 1978, Joyce again spoke with Dr. Meyer about his possible use of illegal narcotics in the horses Joyce was training. Dr. Meyer laughed and responded to the effect that the Respondent would not have a problem with prosecution for horses Meyer had treated. In summary, it is evident that Sensinita ran in the tenth (10th) race at Tropical Park, Inc. on December 2, 1978, at a time when the substance, Dispropionyl Fentanyl, was in its system and this had resulted from Dr. Meyer's infusion of Sublimaze. Joyce had no knowledge of Dr. Meyer's intentions on that date or the act of infusing the horse, nor did the Respondent have any reason to believe that the horse would be infused with Sublimaze.
Recommendation It is recommended that the case against the Respondent, Francis Clifford Joyce, related to the incident of December 2, 1978, involving the horse, Sensinita, be DISMISSED DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: W. S. Frates, Esquire FRATES, FLOYD, PEARSON, STEWART, RICHMAR & GREER One Biscayne Tower 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 David M. Maloney, Esquire Francis Clifford Joyce Department of Business 1015 South 17th Avenue Regulation Hollywood, Florida 33020 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondents have violated the provisions of section 550.2415(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Division of Pari-Mutual Wagering is the state agency charged with the regulation of pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to section 20.165 and chapter 550, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaints, Respondent Richard Alves held a pari- mutuel wagering greyhound trainer license, number 1053205-1021, issued by Petitioner. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaints, Respondent Casey Alves was also licensed as a greyhound trainer by Petitioner, having been issued license number 2015868-1021. At all times material hereto, Daytona Beach Kennel Club (DBKC) has been a licensed Florida pari-mutuel facility authorized to conduct pari-mutuel wagering. The Respondents trained greyhounds that were entered to race at DBKC. Cocaine is a local anesthetic and a Class One drug under the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, as promulgated by the Association of Racing Commissioners, Inc. It is a prohibited medication pursuant to section 550.2415(10(a). At all times material hereto, Respondent Richard Alves was the trainer of record for greyhounds named "Flying Car," "Goldie's Trey," and "Iruska Direct." At all times material hereto, Respondent Casey Alves was the trainer of record for greyhounds named "Kelsos Jalopy," "Wild Mia," "Mani Appeal," and "Fuzzy's Big Shot." Flying Car On April 27, 2010, Flying Car was entered in the third race at DBKC. Flying Car finished sixth in the third race that day. Flying Car was subject to pre-race testing, and prior to the start of the race, urine sample 610687 was collected from Flying Car. The urine sample was processed in accordance with established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. Richard Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because according to John Decker, DBPR Investigations Supervisor, trainers are not permitted to be on the track when greyhounds are there for the race. Trainers are required to drop the animals off at the track approximately one and a half hours prior to the racing schedule and leave them there until after the dog's race is over. Depending on when the dog races, the trainer has no contact with the racing animal from two to approximately five hours. Richard Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Flying Car, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample number 610687 and found that it contained Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. Goldie's Trey Respondent Richard Alves was the trainer of record for racing greyhound Goldie's Trey on August 5, 2010. On August 5, 2010, Goldie's Trey was entered in the tenth race at DBKC. Goldie's Trey finished sixth in the tenth race. Goldie's Trey was subject to pre-race testing, and prior to the start of the race, urine sample 603139 was collected from Goldie's Trey. The urine sample was processed in accordance with established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. Richard Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because trainers of greyhounds are not permitted to be on the track at that time. Richard Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Goldie's Trey, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample 60319 and found that it contained cocaine, plus Benzoylecgonine and Ecgonine Methyl Ester, metabolites of Cocaine. Iruska Direct Respondent Richard Alves was the trainer of record for the greyhound, Iruska Direct. On November 26, 2010, Iruska Direct was entered in the 15th race at DBKC. Iruska Direct finished sixth in the 15th race. Iruska Direct was subject to pre-race testing, and prior to the start of the race, urine sample 662039 was collected from Iruska Direct and processed in accordance with established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. Richard Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because trainers for greyhounds are not permitted to be on the track when the animals are there for the race. Richard Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Iruska Direct, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample number 662039 and found that it contained Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. Kelsos Jalopy Respondent Casey Alves was the trainer of record for the racing greyhound Kelsos Jalopy. On November 10, 2010, Kelsos Jalopy was entered in the seventh race at DBCK. The dog finished second in the seventh race. Kelsos Jalopy was subject to pre-race testing, and prior to the start of the race, urine sample 661859 was collected from Kelsos Jalopy and processed in accordance with the established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. Casey Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because trainers for greyhounds are not permitted to be on the track when the animals are there for the race. Casey Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Kelsos Jalopy, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample number 661859 and found that it contained Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. Mani Appeal Respondent Casey Alves was the trainer of record for the racing greyhound Mani Appeal on November 6, 2010. On November 6, 2010, Mani Appeal was entered in the second race at DBKC. Mani Appeal finished fourth. Mani Appeal was subject to pre-race testing, and prior to the start of the race, urine sample 661795 was collected from Mani Appeal and processed in accordance with established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. Casey Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because greyhounds' trainers are not permitted to be on the track at that time. Casey Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Mani Appeal, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample number 661795 and found that it contained cocaine, and Benzoylecgonine and Ecgonine Methyl Ester, metabolites for cocaine. Wild Mia Respondent Casey Alves was the trainer of record for the racing greyhound Wild Mia on November 5, 2010. On that day, Wild Mia was entered in the sixth race at DBKC. Wild Mia finished second in the sixth race. Prior to the start of the race, urine sample 661786 was collected from Wild Mia as part of pre-race testing, and processed in accordance with established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. Casey Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because greyhounds' trainers are not permitted to be on the track at that time. Casey Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Wild Mia, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample number 661786 and found that it contained cocaine, and Benzoylecgonine and Ecgonine Methyl Ester, metabolites for cocaine. Fuzzy's Big Shot Respondent Casey Alves was the trainer of record for the racing greyhound Fuzzy's Big Shot on November 17, 2010. On that day, Fuzzy's Big Shot was entered in the fifth race at DBKC and finished first. Fuzzy's Big Shot was subject to pre-race testing. Prior to the start of the race, urine sample 661943 was collected from Fuzzy's Big Shot in accordance with established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. As was the case with the other racing greyhounds, Casey Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because greyhound trainers are not permitted to be on the track at that time. Casey Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Fuzzy's Big Shot, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample 661943 and found that it contained Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. Respondents steadfastly deny giving cocaine to any of the animals discussed above. Both Casey and Richard Alves' kennels were searched in November of 2010. No drugs or illegal substances were found in the kennels. John Dekker, Investigations Supervisor for the Department for the Department, testified that the procedures were different for pre-race and post-race testing.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering enter a final order finding that Respondent Casey Alves violated section 550.2415(1)(a); impose an administrative fine of $2,000; and suspend his occupational license for a period of one year, retroactive to January 31, 2011. It is further recommended that the Department enter a final order finding that Richard Alves violated section 550.2415(1)(a); impose an administrative fine of $1,500 and suspend his occupational license for one year, retroactive to January 31, 2011. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 19th day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: David Perry, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 40 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Mitchell G. Wrenn, Esquire 958 Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Milton Champion, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Order of Summary Suspension of Respondent's license as a greyhound trainer filed September 20, 2002, is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department presented the laboratory reports from the University of Florida, College of Veterinary Medicine, Racing Laboratory, showing positive test results in seven samples for Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is a topical anesthetic and a Class 1 drug. The Benzoylecgonine was found in the following samples: 865286, 865667, 865724, 865725, 889275, 889359, and 889492. The Department presented documentation establishing that all the samples were taken from greyhounds that raced at Naples-Fort Myers Greyhound Track, identified as Track 142. Petrillo was the trainer for the greyhounds at the time the samples were taken and, as the owner's witness, witnessed the taking of the samples after each greyhound had completed its race. Petrillo was issued a greyhound trainer's license, number 1558181, by the Department on May 4, 2002. Petrillo denied that he administered the drug to the animals. According to his testimony, others may have had access to the greyhounds prior to the races in which the dogs participated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered continuing the summary suspension of Steven M. Petrillo's license until the entry of a final order on the pending administrative complaints. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 18th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Steven M. Petrillo 17401 Butler Road Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 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 the Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated February 15, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: 1. The Division is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes. 2. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Haber held an Unrestricted "U1" General pari-mutuel wagering occupational license, number 0097388-1081, issued by the Division. Mr. Haber has held this license for 20 years, and has never been subject to discipline by the Division. 3. Mr. Haber is the owner, with his two brothers, of Haber Kennels, Inc., which was started by his father and has been in business for 30 years. 4. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Haber kept in the Palm Beach Kennel Club compound in Palm Beach County, Florida, greyhounds both that he owned and that were owned by others; Mr. Haber trained these greyhounds for racing at the Palm Beach Kennel Club. Mr. Haber and Dale Wilson, his helper, took care of the greyhounds, and Mr. Haber was responsible for feeding and caring for the dogs, as well as for maintaining them in "racetrack form." 5. The greyhounds were kept in two kennels in the compound, Kennel Number 11 and Kennel Number 24. Both kennels have a "turnout area" where the greyhounds are kept when they are let outside the kennel. There is no shade cover in the turnout area of Kennel 24. 6. On August 5S, 2000, Mr. Haber was responsible for caring for the greyhounds housed in Kennel 24. The dogs were let out into the turnout area after they were fed, around 10:00 a.m. The female and male greyhounds were separated, and, after a time, the females were let back into the kennel, while the males were switched to the pen that the females had just vacated. 7. After letting the female greyhounds back into the kennel, Mr. Haber and Mr. Wilson left the compound to pick up some carpet. Mr. Haber thought that Mr. Wilson had put the male greyhounds back in the kennel. 8. Mr. Haber received a telephone call at about 2:00 p.m. from Stacy McClellan, who also trains racing greyhounds at the Palm Beach Kennel Club, and she told him that there had been an accident at the kennel. Mr. Haber rushed back to Kennel 24 and found two greyhounds dead, one greyhound in convulsions and dying, and one greyhound apparently in good health. When he arrived at the kennel, Ms. McClellan and two others were pouring water on the dog that was having convulsions. Ms. McClellan described Mr. Haber as "hysterical" and "upset" when he arrived at the kennel and saw the dead greyhounds. 9. Mr. Haber moved the greyhound that was having convulsions into the air-conditioned kennel, but the dog died while he was trying to cool him down. A fourth greyhound in Mr. Haber's care was found dead in another kennel, which he reached by jumping two fences; this greyhound was named Positive Thought .? 10. Mr. Haber cut off the ears of the dead greyhounds. The ears were tattooed with marks that identified the greyhounds, and Mr. Haber kept the ears until they rotted and the tattoos were illegible. Mr. Haber attributed his actions to panic and fear, and he admitted that it was a mistake to cut the ears off the dogs. 11. Mr. Haber also buried three of the greyhounds, named Haberfield, Mask of Courage, and Tiebreak Winner, on the grounds of the compound, near a sprint track.? 12. The Division was notified of the incident by an official of the Palm Beach Kennel Club on August 30, 2000, and an investigator was sent to look into the incident. 13. As a result of the death of the greyhounds, Mr. Haber was charged in an Information with four misdemeanor counts of cruelty to animals pursuant to Section 828.12(1), Florida Statutes, and four misdemeanor counts of abandonment of an animal pursuant to Section 828.13(3), Florida Statutes. Mr. Haber plead guilty to the four counts of cruelty to animals, and, pursuant to the pleas, the court adjudicated him guilty of Count 1 of the Information and withheld adjudication on Counts 2 through 4. Counts 5 through 8 of the Information, in which Mr. Haber was charged with abandonment of an animal, were disposed of by nolle prosequi. 14. Mr. Haber was sentenced to one year's probation for Count 1 and to six month's probation for Counts 2 through 4, to run consecutively, for a total of 18 month's probation. 15. Mr. Haber was also given six-month's probation by the National Greyhound Association for cutting the ears off of the greyhounds. 16. Mr. Haber expressed remorse at the hearing for the death of the greyhounds, and he testified that leaving the greyhounds outside was accidental. He further testified that he plead guilty to Counts 1 through 4 of the Information because he wanted to get past the incident and to go on with his life. 17. Mr. Haber also testified that he plead guilty on the advice of his attorney and in reliance on her assurance that she had been told by an employee of the Division that the Division would take no action against Mr. Haber for the incident. 18. Mr. Domanic Esposito testified that Mr. Haber trained several greyhounds that he owned and that, in his dealings with Mr. Haber, Mr. Haber was very concerned with the welfare of Mr. Esposito's two greyhounds and put the best interest of the dogs before other considerations. 19. The evidence is uncontroverted that Mr. Haber plead guilty to four misdemeanor counts of cruelty to animals pursuant to Section 828.12(1), Florida Statutes, that he was adjudicated guilty of one count, and that adjudication was withheld on three other counts of cruelty to animals pursuant to Section 828.12(1), Florida Statutes. 20. The uncontroverted evidence is also sufficient to support a finding of fact that the death of the four greyhounds on August 5, 2000, was the result of a miscommunication between Mr. Haber and his helper. The evidence presented by Mr. Haber is sufficient to establish that he did not intentionally leave the greyhounds outside and without shade on a very hot day in August, and no evidence was presented by the Division to dispute Mr. Haber's contention that he had never "had a problem before this incident of losing dogs." The evidence is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Helton used poor judgment after the greyhounds died when he tried to conceal the death of the greyhounds and their identities.
Conclusions Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ann Porath, Esquire 12773 Forest Hill Boulevard Suite 209 Wellington, Florida 33414
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Mitchell Haber's pari-mutuel wagering occupational license. DONE AND ENTERED this 4 Fh aay of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. . yi Ahh beg. L/ DYiloae PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 49/4 day of June, 2001.
The Issue The issue presented herein concerns whether or not Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner, Michael Brown, on the basis of his race.
Findings Of Fact At the outset of the hearing herein, Respondents moved to dismiss the Petition herein based on a claimed lack of jurisdiction over the Respondents because of Petitioner's failure to allege that the Respondents were employers within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Additionally, Respondent, William B. Bryant Company, alleged that the Petition was untimely in that it was not filed within 180 days of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful employment practice as set forth in Rule 22T-9.01(2), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, William B. Bryant Company, introduced payroll records for all times relevant herein. 1/ An examination of those records reveals that Respondent William B. Bryant Company has not employed 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. Based thereon, Respondent William B. Bryant Company is not an employer within the meaning of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended. Section 23.162(6) and 23.167(10), Florida Statutes (1981). Additionally, an examination of the Station Agreement entered into by and between Greyhound Lines, Inc., a California corporation with offices at 431 Greyhound Tower, Phoenix, Arizona, and William Boyd Bryant, d/b/a William B. Bryant Company, which has a contractual agreement to provide services at Respondent Greyhound Lines, Inc., Ocala, Florida terminal, is not an employer of either Michael Brown, Petitioner, or William B. Bryant Company. Based thereon, it is determined that Respondent Greyhound Lines, Inc. is not an employer of Petitioner within the The meaning of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended. Sections 23.162(6) and 23.167(1), Florida Statutes (1981).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition filed herein. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1984.
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 Business History. Petitioner is the sole owner of Sentry Dogs, Inc., a Florida corporation, having its principal place of business at 7120 Cheney Highway, Orlando, Florida. Sentry Dogs, Inc. does business as K-9 of Orlando, a fictitious name. Petitioner originally acquired Sentry Dogs, Inc. by purchase in 1968 of the corporation's outstanding stock which was placed in escrow pending full payment of the purchase price. The obligation was discharged in 1970 and the stock was released from escrow to the Petitioner, at which time he became the sole owner of Sentry Dogs, Inc. In April, 1970 on behalf of the corporation Petitioner applied for a Certificate of Registration from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, and was issued such a Certificate under sales tax number 58002626799. (Exhibit 1-1) Sales Tax Deficiencies. On April 14, 1976 the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, advised Petitioner that an audit of K-9 of Orlando was to be undertaken. (Exhibit 1-7) Such an audit was thereafter undertaken by the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, and the audit covered the period from April 1, 1973 through March 31, 1976. As a result of said audit, a first notice of assessment, dated April 29, 1976 was issued to Petitioner by the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. (Exhibit 1-8) Petitioner then requested and was granted an informal conference with the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, with respect to said first notice of assessment, after which a revised notice of assessment dated November 22, 1976 was issued. (Exhibit 1-9) An amended revised notice of assessment, dated June 2, 1977, was issued to Petitioner alleging a proposed deficiency of the Florida sales taxes, including penalties and interest in the total amount of $6,320.96 after further documentation was provided by Petitioner. (Exhibit 1-10) On July 8, 1977 Petitioner filed a Petition with the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, requesting that a formal proceeding be instituted in connection with the amended revised notice of proposed assessment dated June 2, 1977. With respect to said amended notice of proposed assessment, dated June 2, 1977, Petitioner alleged that the sale by Petitioner of dual personality command dogs is not subject to sales taxes and further alleges that a reasonable portion of the payments made by Petitioner under a lease Agreement dated November 18, 1971 are option payments and not subject to the imposition of a commercial rent tax. Business Activities Conducted by Petitioner. Petitioner engages in four types of business activities involving dogs: The obedience training of dogs brought to it by specific customers who own the dogs; The maintenance of boarding facilities for short term care and feeding of dogs owned by others; Bathing and dipping of dogs; The training and leasing of guard dogs; and The sale of dual personality command dogs. Sale of Dual personality Command Dogs. Under normal circumstances the following actions occur in the sale of dual personality command dogs. A prospective customer of Petitioner orders a dual personality command dog. Such order is made on a written purchase order (Composite Exhibit 1-5) which includes among other things the date the order is placed, the amount of the order, the deposit to be made, the type of dog, the color, the sex, and the type of behavior the dog is to have (i.e., housebroken -- must not jump fences, as well as the dual personality of basic obedience and family protection). At the time of signing said purchase order the customer either pays the full purchase price or places a deposit which is generally one-half of the total purchase price. Petitioner then acquires a "raw" dog to be sold in accordance with the purchase order. Petitioner acquires approximately ninety-percent (90 percent) of all dogs to be sold by donation with the donor executing a specific donation form (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). The balance of the dogs acquired by Petitioner for sale are by purchase from the general public. The average purchase price of the animals is between $25.00 and $75.00 each. Under the purchase order a customer is given 5 days to cancel the order and any cancellation after such period results in any deposit to Petitioner being forfeited. Upon obtaining the "raw" dog, Petitioner undertakes the following steps in the training of such animal as a dual personality command dog: An evaluation is initially made by Petitioner to determine whether the dog acquired is suitable for training as a dual personality command dog. If it is determined it is not, then it is designated for training as a guard dog. Such evaluation takes from 3 to 7 days. Petitioner then undertakes the basic training of the dual personality dog which involves the training of the dog to heel, sit, stay, down and come. Such basic training also involves getting use to the leash and obeying verbal commands and hand signals and finally to work off the leash with commands. Such training requires the services of 2 to 4 trainers and takes approximately three weeks with specific training undertaken 6 to 8 times daily. The next state of the training process involves protection training in three specific categories -- personal protection, car protection and property protection. The animal is taught to be aggressive by training the dog to respond to a specific command which changes its personality. In addition, it is taught to be aggressive only upon command and not to be aggressive even when an attempt is made to provoke the dog without a command being given. The total training time by Petitioner of a dual personality command dog is approximately 8 to 12 weeks. The training is undertaken solely by Petitioner, but with the sole purpose of fulfilling the order of the customer for a particular dog without any direction from or advice by the customer and the Petitioner advises the customer of this. The training involves an understanding of the dog's psychology and its heredity and knowledge of socialization techniques in order for it to be trained successfully as a dual personality command dog. After completion of the training period as a dual personality command dog, it is then taken by Petitioner to a veterinarian who examines it and gives it the necessary shots. If at any time during the training process, the dog being trained dies, the Petitioner simply obtains another "raw" dog in an effort to fulfill the customers order, and begins the training of that dog. Likewise, the liability and responsibility for the actions of the dog from the time it is obtained to fill an order until the customer signs the Bill of Sale and takes physical possession of the dog is solely the Petitioner's. The dog is thereafter delivered to and picked up by the customer who signs a Bill of Sale (Exhibit 1-6) which indicates that the transaction is final and the customer is accepting the full ownership as of the date the Bill of Sale is signed. At the same time, Petitioner prepares a record of the dog which has been trained for the customer and confers with the customer with respect to how the dog is to be handled. The customer keeps the dog for a period of between 7 to 14 days. The customer then returns to Petitioner and is taught how to handle the dog by a professional trainer of Petitioner. The Petitioner will replace a dog for a customer, after execution of the Bill of Sale and possession by the customer, if it is finally determined that the customer can either not handle the dog or there is a personality conflict between the owner and the dog. Such replacement is made by Petitioner at no additional cost. The average purchase price during the audit period of a dual personality command dog sold by Petitioner was approximately $500.00. Of this amount Petitioner's cost was approximately $200.00 for obedience training and the balance was attributable to the cost in acquiring the dog originally if any, and the cost for the care and maintenance of the dog during the training period. A dog trained as a dual personality command dog requires a refresher course approximately every 6 to 8 months. Petitioner provides such refresher course to its customers and to other animals not originally sold by Petitioner for a price averaging between $85.00 and 125.00. Treatment of Payments made under Lease Agreement of November 18, 1971. Petitioner's business is currently operated on premises known as 7120 Old Cheney Highway, Orlando, Florida. Petitioner originally leased a portion of said property from Fred Ballard during 1968 or 1969. The initial rental payments for such premises was $75.00 and there was no written lease agreement. After 1969 and prior to 1971, Petitioner leased additional property adjacent to the original leased premises from Fred Ballard. Such premises had situated thereon a home which Petitioner thereafter used as an office. Total rental payments after the additional rental was approximately $175.00 a month. There was no written lease agreement. During 1971, a kennel adjacent to the premises and owned bay Fred Ballard leased by Petitioner was destroyed by fire. Petitioner offered to rebuild and to rent the premises upon which the destroyed kennels were located. Mr. Ballard in connection with such adjacent premises offered to Petitioner three (3) propositions relative to such adjacent premises and the other property already leased by Petitioner: Petitioner could rent such adjacent premises outright and the rent would be something less than $695.00 per month; Petitioner could purchase the adjacent property for a down payment of $30,000.00; or Petitioner could rent the adjacent property with a portion of each monthly payment due being charged against an option to purchase the property by Petitioner during the term of the prospective lease agreement. Petitioner and Mr. Ballard agreed that a portion of each monthly payment to be paid by Petitioner to Mr. Ballard covering the property originally leased under oral agreement and the property to be acquired from Mr. Ballard adjacent to the same would be applied to the option to purchase if Petitioner were to exercise the option to purchase with respect to the leased property. Said option was exercisable for a period of eight (8) years. However, prior to the exercise of the option contained in the lease agreement all payments received under the lease agreement by Mr. Ballard from Mr. Galley were specifically understood and considered rent not subject to any forfeiture in the event of default or termination of the lease agreement. Mr. Ballard then either prepared or had prepared outside the State of Florida, a lease agreement providing for the rental of Petitioner's business premises located at 7120 Old Cheney Highway, Orlando, Florida, which included the property to be leased as discussed above in 5. In addition the lease agreement under Paragraph 2 contained an option under which the Petitioner could elect to purchase all of the leased premises for a total purchase price of $75,000.00 with credit being given against the purchase price upon exercise of the option for "rentals paid hereunder less interest computed at 7 1/2 percent per annum upon the foresaid purchase price." The balance of the purchase price, if any, after electing the option would be paid by a $45,000.00 mortgage and cash upon closing. At the time Petitioner was provided with the lease agreement he was also provided by Mr. Ballard with an amortization schedule (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) which indicated a breakdown of the allocation of monthly payments toward the amount to be credited toward the purchase price of the property if the option were elected over the eight (8) year period, less the 7 1/2 percent interest factor. The lease agreement was entered into between Petitioner and his wife, Ardys Rae Gailey, as lessees, and Fred B. Ballard and Betty A. Ballard, his wife, on November 18, 1971. (Exhibit 1-2) Though Petitioner entered in said lease agreement he has made the rental payment through his corporation Sentry Dogs, Inc., d/b/a K-9 of Orlando, and since entering into the lease agreement (Exhibit 1-2) the Petitioner has paid $695.27 monthly rent, as provided in paragraph (1) of the lease. On the profit and loss statements of K-9 of Orlando for the audit period involved, all payments made under the lease agreement of November 18, 1971 are reflected as "rent" payments. (Exhibits 1-11 and 1-12) There are no other subsequently written documents or agreements with respect to the lease of said premises by Petitioner nor has Petitioner elected to exercise the option and purchase the demised premises under the lease agreement.
The Issue The Petitioner has accused the Respondent, Frank Rudolph Solimena, with a violation of Rule 7E-1.06(11)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which reads: The running of a horse in a race with any narcotic, stimulant, depressant or local anesthetic is prohibited. If the stewards shall find that any narcotic, stimulant, depressant or local anesthetic has been administered or attempted to be administered, internally or externally, to a horse before a race, such stewards shall impose such punishment and take such other action as they may deem proper under any of the rules, including reference to the Division, against every person found by them to have administered, or to have attempted to administer, or to have caused to be administered, or to have caused an attempt to administer, or to have conspired with another person to administer, such narcotic, stimulant, depressant or local anesthetic. If the Division laboratory shall find a positive identification of such medication, such finding shall constitute prima facie evidence that such horse raced with the medication in its system. Under the accusation, the Respondent is made responsible pursuant to the provisions of Rule 7E-1.18(3), Florida Administrative Code, referred to herein as the absolute insurer's rule, which provides that: The trainer shall be responsible for, and be the insurer of the condition of the horses he enters. Trainers are presumed to know the rules of the Division. Specifically, Respondent Solimena is accused under facts that allege that on November 29, 1978 a horse trained by the Respondent was entered and ran in the sixth (6th) race at Tropical Park, Inc. (at Calder Race Couse). Subsequent to the race a urine specimen was taken from the horse and the specimen was analyzed by the Petitioner's laboratory. It is further alleged that the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering laboratory reported the results of the test and that the report showed that the urine sample contained Despropionyl Fentanyl, which is classified as a derivative of Fentanyl, a narcotic compound.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon a Notice to Show Cause (Administrative Complaint) filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, against Frank Rudolph Solimena. At all times pertinent to the Notice to Show Cause, Frank Rudolph Solimena was the holder of license Nos. K-00257 and 5-00863, issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent, Frank Rudolph Solimena, enabling Solimena to operate as horse trainer and horse owner, respectively, at the several race tracks located in the State of Florida. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty of the regulation of, among other things, the matters pertaining to thoroughbred horse racing in the State of Florida. The authority for such regulation is found in Chapter 550, Florida Statutes, and those rules promulgated to enforce the provisions of that chapter. Within that body of rules, are Rules 7E-1.06(11)(a) and 7E-1.18(3), Florida Administrative Code, alluded to in the issues statement of this Recommended Order. Those rules as set out in the issues statement shall serve as a basis for determining the facts and reaching the legal conclusions necessary to formulate a decision in this matter and official recognition is taken of the aforementioned rules. The facts in this case show that the Respondent, Frank Rudolph Solimena, was acting as a horse trainer on December 4, 1978, at Tropical Park, Inc., in Florida. On that date, Carpe Diem, a horse trained by the Respondent, ran in the second race and finished in first position. Following the race, and on the same date, a urine specimen was taken from the horse, Carpe Diem. That urine specimen was subsequently analyzed through a series of tests and the test directed to the urine sample revealed a positive identification of a substance known as Dispropionyl Fentanyl, which is classified as a derivative of Fentanyl, a narcotic. The process which occurred in Carpe Diem after he received the Fentanyl, was that the Fentanyl was metabolized in the horse's system to become Dispropionyl Fentanyl, and that latter substance acted as a central nervous system stimulant in the horse during the course of the race. The narcotic, Fentanyl, carries the trade name, Sublimaze. The horse referred to above was under the care and treatment of Carl J. Meyer, D.V.M., on the date of the race in question. In addition to treating this horse that is the subject of this complaint, Dr. Meyer had treated other horses for which the Respondent was the trainer, beginning in 1976 and continuing through December, 1978. One of the conditions for which the disputed horse and other horses trained by the Respondent reportedly received treatment was a condition described by Dr. Meyer as Myopathy. 1/ This treatment form was administered to Carpe Diem on the date of the disputed race event. According to Dr. Meyer, Myopathy is a treatment for muscle soreness and is a type acupuncture in which needles are injected at pressure points over the sore muscles and authorized medications are injected into those muscle areas, to include ACTH, Stroids and Lasix. When the Respondent received one of the billing statements from Dr. Meyer which indicated that horses that were being trained by the Respondent had been treated for Myopathy, the Respondent inquired of Dr. Meyer what Myopathy treatments consisted of. Dr. Meyer at that point told the Respondent that you take a needle and put it in certain pressure points in the muscle to relieve bursitis and/or pressure. When questioned in the course of the hearing about further details of the treatment for Myopathy, Dr. Meyer was unable to give a satisfactory explanation of the origins of the treatment for Myopathy and literature related to that treatment which might have been published through research in veterinary medicine. Within the same time frame that Dr. Meyer claimed to be treating the subject horse for Myopathy, he had purchased the substance, Sublimaze, and by his testimony stated that this narcotic had been used on horses other than the one involved in this accusation. The use in the unrelated group of horses was as a pre-anesthetic agent and to treat colic conditions. He claimed to use 18 milligrams as a pre-anesthetic dose and as much as 25 milligrams over a period of time to control the colic condition. The utilization of Sublimaze as a pre-anesthetic agent and for treatment for colic was disputed in the course of the bearing by the testimony of Dr. George Maylin, D.V.M., who also has a Ph.D. in pharmacology. At the time Dr. Maylin gave his testimony, he was an associate professor of toxicology at the New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithica, New York. Dr. Maylin has done extensive research on the effect of Sublimaze as a pre-anesthetic agent and concludes that it is not a predictable anesthetic agent, and that a 10 milligram dosage would not have a desired effect in the use of pre-anesthetic cases. In Dr. Maylin's opinion, 50 milligrams would be the indicated amount. In addition, Dr. Maylin's extensive testing of Sublimaze in a colic model situation pointed out the ineffectiveness of Sublimaze as an analgesic in those colic cases. Finally, Dr. Maylin does not believe that 25 milligrams of Sublimaze over an extended period of time could be effective in treating the colic condition. Other trainers had horses which had been treated by Dr. Meyer around the same time period as the horse of the Respondent, which is the subject of this hearing. Those trainers are Ohayneo Reyes and Edward E. Plesa. Both Reyes and Plesa questioned Dr. Meyer on the subject of Meyer injecting Sublimaze in their race horses. Those questions were asked following accusations placed against those trainers for violations similar to those in the current case of the Respondent. The answers given to Reyes and Plesa by Dr. Meyer indicated that he had in fact injected the horses with Sublimaze, but he told them not to worry because the substance could not be detected. Dr. Meyer also testified in the course of the hearing that he had placed wagers on some of the horses being treated for Myopathy. An analysis of the evidence leads to the factual conclusion that Dr. Meyer infused Carpe Diem, for which the Respondent stands accused through this Notice to Show Cause, with Sublimaze, otherwise identified as Fentanyl, and that he gave those injections under the guise of a treatment for Myopathy, when in fact the so-called treatment for Myopathy was a ruse to enable Dr. Meyer to administer the Sublimaze. This act by Dr. Meyer directed to the horse of the Respondent involved in this accusation, was unknown to the Respondent at the time the injection was administered and nothing that had transpired prior to this placed Respondent in the position of having reason to believe that Dr. Meyer was pursuing this course of conduct. In summary, although the horse in question ran in the subject race while under the effects of Fentanyl, metabolized to become Dispropionyl Fentanyl, it was not through an act of the Respondent.
Recommendation It is recommended that the action through the Notice to Show Cause against the Respondent, Frank Rudolph Solimena, be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32381 (904) 488-9675
