The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the order to cease and desist dated June 6, 1989, as amended by the allegations set forth in the motion filed December 29, 1989; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing stipulation, the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was not registered to sell securities under the provisions of Section 517.12, Florida Statutes, nor did Respondent register securities under those provisions. Respondent was incorporated and doing business within the State of Florida during the period 1984 through 1986. At that time, Neil Pincus served as vice president of the company. On July 27, 1984, an advertisement ran in The Tampa Tribune which contained the following language: OWN A RACING GREYHOUND Visit The Farm Hanover Farms is offering a total purchase plan. You get title to your greyhound, boarding, training, racing services provided. Low investments with tax advantages. If you're ready to step into the winner's circle call for appointment and transportation from the Quality Inn, Longwood (Or1and) to the nearby farm. 305-862-4000 The same or similar advertisements ran in other news periodicals for a time, including (on July 15, 1985) the Tallahassee Democrat and a number of out-of-state newspapers. In response to one such advertisement, Christopher Desnoyers, a resident of Massachusetts, requested additional information regarding Respondent's investment program. Mr. Desnoyers received materials from Respondent which outlined the program. Such materials provided, in pertinent part: The Greyhound Ownership Program is unique in the Greyhound Industry. Here's how it works. Our greyhound experts and trainers select from the available supply of young, unraced greyhounds, just those few outstanding greyhounds which qualify under our strict standards for breeding, conformation and racing ability. We then offer the greyhound for purchase under our Greyhound Ownership Program. A staff of veterinarians, trainers, handlers, analysts and managers will ensure that each greyhound purchased receives the finest state-of-the art care and training. * * * After completing the qualifying training, at your direction, Hanover Farms will lease your greyhound for racing or you may select a kennel of your choice. You will receive a percentage of all purses won by your greyhound. In addition, you will receive the owners portion of all stud, breeding and syndication fees. In addition to the foregoing, Respondent mailed Mr. Desnoyers materials regarding a specific litter of greyhound puppies. That material provided, in pertinent part: MC'S Grandmaster Litter Syndication... Participate in the ownership of a litter of eight. A beautiful litter of eight pups (7 females, 1 male) out of Spumescent Queen by MC's Grandmaster is being offered to the first eight people committing for a unit in this outstanding breeding. Each individual will purchase one or more units in this litter at a cost of $5,000.00 per unit. The greyhounds will race under the control of Hanover Farms. Every unitholder will name a greyhound for each unit purchased. The prefix "Hanover" will be in each name, therefore the unitholder may select a name with no more than eight (8) characters. Each unit will represent a 1/8th interest in the entire litter, thereby enabling unitholders to share in the return on all the successes of the greyhounds in his litter. In addition, a 40 % commission Bill be paid to owners, rather than the standard 35 %. All materials furnished by Respondent to Mr. Desnoyers stressed the profitability of winning greyhounds and the successes Respondent had experienced IA past racing. Of the two programs outlined in paragraphs 5 and 6, Mr. Desnoyers advised Respondent that he would purchase an interest in the Grandmaster syndication. Accordingly, he remitted a $3000 deposit and pledged to pay the balance of $2000 within 60 days. An agreement between Respondent and Mr. Desnoyers was executed on July 22, 1986. Contrary to Mr. Desnoyer's intention, that agreement provided for the purchase of an individual greyhound as described in paragraph 5. Mr. Desnoyers did not, however, despite full payment, receive a greyhound from the Grandmaster litter. Contract notwithstanding, Respondent advised Mr. Desnoyers that his participation in the syndication would be as described in paragraph 6. Moreover, since th( litter was whelped March 1, 1986, it was not anticipated that the greyhounds would begin racing until some 16 to 20 months from that date. For the interim period, it was intended that Respondent would retain possession of the Grandmaster litter, would obtain appropriate registration for them, would assure proper training for the dogs, and would place them with a suitable kennel for racing at the designated time. Unfortunately, Respondent received television coverage which resulted in significant financial damage to its program. According to Mr. Pincus, a CNN defamatory account of Respondent's business ultimately caused it to go out of business in 1986. Consequently, Respondent sent Mr. Desnoyers correspondence which provided, in part: As you may know, a program recently appeared on television that caused great damage to Hanover Farms, Inc. It is the opinion of management that certain statements made in the telecast were false and defamatory. We are consulting our attorneys concerning appropriate litigation. As a result of the defamation, we are unable to continue to feed, board, raise and train your greyhound. The MC Grandmaster litter program has been converted to individual ownership. Your greyhound is located at Kenneth L. Griffins' (sic) Greyhound Farm, Route 1, Box 246 W., Morriston, Florida. 32668. The telephone number is (904) 528-3772. Contact Kenneth Griffin directly and arrange for him to complete your greyhound training. We regret the necessity of doing this however, we are victims of a situation beyond our control. Mr. Desnoyers did not receive one of the Grandmaster puppies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities enter a final order requiring the Respondent to cease and desist from the sale of unregistered securities. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 89-4558 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 8 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as hearsay or irrelevant. The substantive fact of paragraph 11 is accepted. Paragraphs 12 through 21 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard W. Mazloff LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. MAZLOFF, P.A. Dadeland Towers South, Suite 425 9400 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Robert K. Good Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level, Rm. 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether Respondent is responsible for three violations of Section 550.2415(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering which is created by Section 20.165(2)(f), Florida Statutes. The Division regulates pari-mutuel wagering in the State of Florida. Respondent, Donald S. Abbey, was the holder of a pari-mutuel occupational license, License No. 2013666-1081, that was issued by the Division during the month of May 2001. Hialeah Park is a facility operated by a permit holder authorized to conduct thoroughbred racing and pari-mutuel wagering in the State of Florida. Hialeah Park was so authorized in May 2001. On May 16, 2001, Respondent was the trainer of record and owner of a thoroughbred race horse named “Savahanna.” The horse Savahanna finished second in the first race at Hialeah Park on May 16, 2001. Immediately after the race a urine sample was collected from Savahanna. The urine sample was assigned sample No. 748428 and was shipped to the University of Florida Racing Laboratory. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample No. 748428 and found it to contain Terbutaline. On May 16, 2001, Respondent was the trainer of record and owner of a thoroughbred race horse named "Hada Clue." The horse Hada Clue finished second in the third race at Hialeah Park on May 16, 2001. Immediately after the race, a urine sample was collected from Hada Clue. The urine sample was assigned sample No. 748440 and was shipped to the University of Florida Racing Laboratory. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample No. 748440 and found it to contain Terbutaline. On May 18, 2001, Respondent was the trainer of record and owner of a thoroughbred race horse named "Sounds Like Scott." The horse Sounds Like Scott finished second in the fifth race at Hialeah Park on May 16, 2001. Immediately after the race a urine sample was collected from Sounds Like Scott. The urine sample was assigned sample No. 748536 and was shipped to the University of Florida Racing Laboratory. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample No. 748536 and found it to contain Terbutaline. Terbutaline is a bronchodilator and a Class 3 drug according to the Association of Racing Commissioners International classification system. In his Election of Rights, Respondent indicated that he was not the trainer of record. Specifically, he indicated that he had hired a person named Dimitrius Monahas as the trainer with the knowledge of the stewards of Hialeah Park. State Steward Walter Blum testified at the hearing that Respondent was, in fact, the trainer of record for the horses Savahanna, Hada Clue, and Sounds Like Scott. At Hialeah, the trainer of record is determined at the time stall spaces are assigned at the beginning of a meet. Respondent’s name appears in the official programs as both the trainer and the owner of the horses at issue. There is a procedure at Hialeah to notify the stewards of a change in trainer. However, Respondent did not notify the stewards of any change. Dimitrius Monahas signed sample tags for sample Nos. 748440 and 748536 as the owner’s witness. The sample tags list Respondent as both the trainer and owner of the horses.
Recommendation Based upon 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 matter suspending Respondent’s occupational license for a period of ten (10) days and imposing a fine of $850.00. It is further recommended that the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering order that any purse received as a result of the second-place finishes of two of the races in question be returned. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 16th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald S. Abbey Post Office Box 1199 Pilot Point, Texas 76258-1199 Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 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 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Jefferson County Kennel Club, Inc.’s, pari-mutuel wagering and operating license should be disciplined, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact JCKC holds a pari-mutuel wagering license, number 0000146-1000, and a pari-mutuel operating dates license numbered 0000146-1001. Under those licenses, Respondent operates a dog track and poker room at its race track facility in Jefferson County, Florida. On certain dates, Respondent offers matinee and evening dog races. For each race, Respondent is required to have a licensed veterinarian on the premises before, during, and after the race. The purpose of the veterinarian is to ensure the racing dogs are healthy and fit enough to race and to provide care for any racing dog injured during a race. In general, the veterinarian examines or observes all dogs during the dogs’ weigh-in and after the dog is placed in the lock-out kennel before and after a race. The lock-out kennel or Jenny Pit is a holding area where each dog is held in a separate cage. Access to the area is limited. On September 17 and 19, 2005, February 6, 18, 24, 25, March 4, 10, 11, 18, 30, and April 1, 8, 15, and 22, 2006, Respondent conducted races at its track. During 2005 and 2006, Dr. David Jordan, now deceased, was the licensed veterinarian at Respondent’s track. At the time, Dr. Jordan was dying from cancer, and with little notice, sometimes could not be present on race days due to his illness. On those days, and because of the limited number of qualified veterinarians in the Jefferson County area, attempts to locate another veterinarian were not successful. As a consequence, no track veterinarian was present for the matinee races held on September 17, 2005. Similarly, no track veterinarian was present for the evening races held on September 19, 2005, February 6, 2006, February 18, 2006, February 24, 2006, February 25, 2006, March 4, 2006, March 10, 2006, March 11, 2006, March 18, 2006, April 1, 2006, April 8, 2006, April 15, 2006, and April 22, 2006. Additionally, no track veterinarian was present for the weighing in before the greyhounds entered the lock-out kennel prior to the evening races held on March 30, 2006. However, a veterinarian was present to observe the race dogs during and after the evening races on March 30, 2006. Respondent does not dispute that a veterinarian was not present on the days listed above and does not dispute that such failure was a violation of the Division’s rules. Respondent does dispute the maximum amount of the fine sought by Petitioner. Clearly, Respondent’s license is subject to discipline under Chapter 550, Florida Statutes (2008). The law in effect from September 2005 though April 2006 allowed JCKC to operate its cardroom only on the days that it was conducting live greyhound racing. The revenues from JCKC’s cardroom operations for the dates at issue are as follows: DATE GROSS RECEIPTS TOURNAMENT GROSS RECEIPTS TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS TAX DUE STATE 09/17/05 $4,558.00 $1,620.00 $6,178.00 $617.80 11/19/05 4,220.00 0.00 4,420.00 422.00 02/04/06 6,852.00 0.00 6,852.00 685.20 02/18/06 5,452.00 0.00 5,452.00 545.20 02/24/06 3,862.00 0.00 3,862.00 386.20 02/25/06 5,154.00 0.00 5,154.00 515.40 03/04/06 5,404.00 0.00 5,404.00 540.40 03/10/06 2,971.00 0.00 2,971.00 297.10 03/11/06 3,949.00 0.00 3,949.00 394.90 03/18/06 4,254.00 918.00 5,172.00 517.20 03/30/06 898.00 1,600.00 2,498.00 249.80 04/01/06 3,494.00 1,224.00 4,718.00 471.80 04/08/06 3,782.00 1,440.00 5,222.00 522.20 04/15/06 4,204.00 1,386.00 5,590.00 559.00 04/22/06 3,235.00 1,440.00 4,675.00 467.50 TOTALS $62,289.00 $9,628.00 $71,917.00 $7,191.70 Even with this revenue, the track operates at a loss. Moreover, this is the only disciplinary action against Respondent. On the other hand, Respondent did have multiple times when a veterinarian was not present to observe the dogs at the track. However, the veterinarian’s absences were unpredictable and not within Respondent’s control. Given these factors, it is unreasonable to fine Respondent the maximum amount accorded under Chapter 550, Florida Statutes (2008). In this case, a reasonable fine would be $500 for each day the track veterinarian was not present as required.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-6.009(2), and imposing a $7500 fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. “Chip” Collette, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Steve Andris Post Office Box 400 Monticello, Florida 32345 Tim Vaccaro, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for disposition in this case is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-6.0052 (Proposed Rule) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida for-profit corporation operating at the Palm Beach Kennel Club (PBKC) in West Palm Beach, Florida. Petitioner’s members are owners of greyhounds that are raced at the PBKC. Of the 12 greyhound kennels that operate at PBKC, nine are current members of Petitioner. Petitioner’s members each hold licenses issued by the Division pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes. Some of the PBKC kennel owners are themselves licensed greyhound trainers, and some employ licensed trainers. Petitioner’s Articles of Incorporation establish its purposes as including the promotion of “the welfare and care of greyhounds, . . . including, but not limited to, . . . promoting fair regulatory treatment of the greyhound industry.” The Division is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering activities in Florida pursuant to chapter 550. The Proposed Rule The full text of the Proposed Rule is as follows: 61D-6.0052 Procedures for Collecting Samples from Racing Greyhounds Designating Greyhounds for Sampling: Any greyhound the judges, division, track veterinarian, or authorized division representatives designate, shall be sent immediately prior to the race to the detention enclosure for examination by an authorized representative of the division for the taking of urine and/or other such samples as shall be directed for the monitoring and detection of both permissible and impermissible substances. When possible, a sample should be collected from two (2) greyhounds per race. When possible, greyhounds from more than one participating kennel should be sampled per performance. Additional greyhounds may also be sampled if designated by the judges, division, track veterinarian, or authorized division representatives. Collection of Samples: Urine and/or other samples shall be collected by an authorized representative of the division in an unused sample container supplied by the division, or its agent. Authorized representatives of the division shall wear unused gloves supplied by the division, or its agent, during sample collection until the sample container is sealed with its lid. Authorized representatives of the division shall use a sample card with a unique identifier to record the date of sample collection and the identification tattoo, microchip or name of the greyhound sampled or attempted to be sampled. The owner, trainer of record, or other authorized person is permitted to witness when the sample is collected from their greyhound. Failure of an owner, trainer of record or other authorized person to witness and/or sign the sample card shall not preclude the division from proceeding with sample analysis. Sealing and Labeling of Samples: As soon as possible after a sample is collected, the sample container shall be sealed with its lid. The sample container shall be labeled with the sample card’s unique identifier. Evidence tape shall be placed over both the sample container and lid on at least two sides. The authorized representative of the division that sealed the sample container shall initial the evidence tape on the sample container. Storing and Shipping of Samples: The samples shall be stored in a lockable freezer or container in a restricted area accessible by only authorized representatives of the division until the time of shipment. Upon the completion of packing the samples for shipment, the shipping container shall be locked. All appropriate forms for shipment shall be completed and included with the shipment to ensure correct delivery and identification of the contents. The samples shall be shipped to the laboratory under contract with the division for testing of the samples via the laboratory’s contracted common carrier. Authority of the Division: The division investigator or other authorized representative is authorized to confiscate any legend or proprietary drugs, medications, unlabeled medication, medication with altered labels, medicinal compounds (natural or synthetic) or other materials which are found on the grounds of greyhound race tracks and kennel compounds or in the possession of any person participating in or connected with greyhound racing, including veterinarians and trainers, and which are suspected of containing improper legend or proprietary drugs, medications, medicinal compounds (natural or synthetic) or other materials which are illegal or impermissible under these rules. Such legend or proprietary drugs, medications, unlabeled medication, medication with altered labels, medicinal compounds (natural or synthetic) or other materials shall be delivered to the laboratory under contract with the division for analysis. The division is authorized to confiscate any evidence that an illegal or impermissible legend or proprietary drug, medication, or medicinal compound (natural or synthetic) may have been administered to a racing animal. It is a violation of these rules for a licensee to threaten to interfere, actually interfere or prevent the taking of urine, blood, saliva or other samples authorized by Chapter 550, F.S. For such a violation, the division may impose any disciplinary penalties authorized by Chapter 550, F.S., or the rules promulgated thereunder. Rulemaking Authority 120.80(4)(a), 550.0251(3), 550.2415(12), (13) FS. Law Implemented 120.80(4)(a), 550.0251, 550.1155, 550.2415 FS. History–New . Issues for Disposition Section 120.56(2)(a) provides that “the agency has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as to the objections raised.” The “objections raised” as identified in the Joint Pre- hearing Stipulation are those that remain for disposition in this proceeding, with issues not preserved having been waived. See Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Broward Marine, Inc., 174 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). As set forth in the recitation of “Petitioner’s Position,” the following issues are at issue: The proposed rule refers to urine and/or other samples in its text, yet only contains procedures for urine collection; The proposed rule fails to adequately detail necessary chain of custody procedures for sampling racing greyhounds; The proposed rule ignores basic scientific principles as to contamination; The proposed rule ignores basic scientific principles as to the timing of sampling; The proposed rule ignores basic scientific principles as to the temperature of a sample; The proposed rule fails to provide trainers and owners of an opportunity to witness their greyhounds' sampling; The proposed rule grants too much discretion to Respondent; Respondent failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures set forth in chapter 120; The proposed rule does not limit its application to urine; Stipulated Facts The following facts were stipulated by the parties: It is possible that a racing greyhound could become exposed to environmental substances during the time between the trainer relinquishing it at the track and the sampling. The reason that racing greyhounds are tattooed is for identification purposes. It is important to prevent contamination of a racing greyhound's sample. It is important to preserve the integrity of a racing greyhound's sample. The Proposed Rule does not require racing greyhound samples to be stored frozen. However, subsection (4)(a) of the Proposed Rule requires that the samples are stored in a lockable freezer or container. The Proposed Rule does not require that the racing greyhound samples be kept refrigerated. However, subsection (4)(a) of the Proposed Rule requires that samples be stored in a lockable freezer or container. The Proposed Rule does not contain any provisions for the drawing of blood, "other specimens," or other fluids from the racing greyhound. The Proposed Rule does not describe how all the individuals involved in the chain of custody of a racing greyhound sample record their involvement. The Proposed Rule contains a section entitled "Sealing and Labeling of Samples." The Proposed Rule does not describe the chain of custody for the taking of "other specimens" from the racing greyhound. The Proposed Rule does not describe the chain of custody procedures associated with materials confiscated under paragraph five of the Proposed Rule. Respondent published its Notice of Development of Rulemaking for Proposed Rule 61D-6.0052, F.A.C. (Notice of Development), on January 22, 2018. Respondent published its Notice of Proposed Rule 61D- 6.0052, F.A.C. (Notice of Proposed Rule), on January 29, 2018. Respondent's Notice of Proposed Rule 61D-6.0052, F.A.C., indicated it was approved by the agency head, Jonathan Zachem, on January 26, 2018, a mere [four] days after publication of Respondent's Notice of Development of Rulemaking for Proposed Rule 61D-6.0052, F.A.C. On February 6, 2018, a rule development workshop was requested for Proposed Rule 61D-6.0052, F.A.C. Respondent did not hold a rule development workshop for Proposed Rule 61D-6.0052, F.A.C. Respondent did not provide an explanation in writing as to why a workshop was unnecessary for Proposed Rule 61D-6.0052, F.A.C., other than Bryan A. Barber's letter of February 13, 2018. Facts Adduced at Hearing The purpose and effect of the Notice of Development was “to further clarify and describe the procedures performed by the Division in collecting samples from greyhounds and to create a rule specific to the greyhound sample collection. The Notice of Proposed Rule did not contain a statement of estimated regulatory costs imposed on small businesses. On February 6, 2018, Petitioner, through its representative, sent a letter to the Division requesting a rule development workshop. On February 13, 2018, the Division noted that the “rule development phase” ended with the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rule, and the request for a workshop was, therefore, untimely. There is no evidence that anyone provided the Division with information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs, or provided the Division with a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative. No one requested that a public hearing be held on the Proposed Rule. Racing greyhounds are delivered to the track by their owners or trainers prior to the commencement of their race card. Greyhounds racing during the matinee card are delivered at one time, and greyhounds racing during the evening card are delivered at a later time. The greyhounds are all weighed in about 60 to 90 minutes prior to the first race, regardless of the race in which a particular greyhound is scheduled to appear. After weigh-in, the greyhounds are handed over to the “lead-outs,” who are track employees, and taken to the ginny pit. Each greyhound is then placed in a numbered cage designating its race and position, and held there until its race is scheduled to commence. From the time an animal is given over to the lead-outs until its race is over, they are out of the control and sight of the owners and trainers. For greyhounds racing in the last race of a card, that period can be well in excess of four hours. Prior to each race, the race judge, Division, track veterinarian, or “authorized division representative” designates the greyhounds to be tested for that race. The process was not described, other than as described in the rule that “[w]hen possible, a sample should be collected from two (2) greyhounds per race. When possible, greyhounds from more than one participating kennel should be sampled per performance.” Mr. Ehrhardt testified that “ideally it’s blind and that you just pick one at random,” and that dogs from separate kennels be selected “to ensure that no one is singled out.” However, the Proposed Rule contains no criteria for the selection of an animal other than its being in the race. Even a requirement that the selection be random, and a mandatory selection of different kennels be made “when possible,” is sufficient to preclude an unfettered exercise of discretion in the selection of the greyhound. As it is, the selection of both dogs and kennels is completely within the discretion of the Division. Upon selection, the greyhounds are led to an open area to relieve themselves. At the Orange Park Kennel Club, the area is a restricted access grass and sand area surrounded by a chain link fence. There was no evidence as to other tracks, but there is little to suggest that the areas at other tracks are dissimilar. The process of collecting the sample involves watching the dog for a sign that it is ready to urinate, and then holding a plastic cup at the end of a stick, an “armed doohickey” as described by Mr. Ehrhardt, under the dog until it produces a sample. The sampler wears fresh gloves and uses an unused cup. When the sample is collected, the sampler places the lid on the container, labels the container, and places evidence tape “over both the sample container and lid on at least two sides.” After the sample cup is capped, labeled, and sealed, it is placed in a “lockable freezer or container in a restricted area.” Mr. Ehrhardt indicated that it was the Division’s intent that the freezer or container should be locked at all times that it is not being accessed to place samples in it, and that it should not be left unlocked. However, the plain language of the rule suggests otherwise. The lockable container is to be in a restricted area, but is only required to be locked “[u]pon completion of the packing of the samples for shipment.” Dr. Tobin testified that samples must be kept frozen or, at a minimum, refrigerated. Mr. Ehrhardt testified that once a sample is collected, it goes “straight to the freezer,” suggesting that freezing is the preferred method of storage. Failure to do so can result in degradation of the sample, bacterial growth, and, in certain cases, breakdown of substances into metabolites that would more closely mimic a prohibited substance in a dog’s urine. Petitioner argued that the timing of the sampling is problematic for another reason, other than the holding period for the greyhounds. Many owners and trainers have more than one dog racing during a card. The ginny pit and the finish line are at different ends of the track. Therefore, a trainer or owner may be collecting their dog(s) at the conclusion of a race at the same time the pre-race sample is being taken for the next race, making observation of the sampling difficult from a practical perspective. However, both Mr. Agganis and Mr. Chin acknowledged that there was nothing to directly prevent an owner or trainer from observing the sampling. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent the owner or trainer, or even Petitioner’s members collectively, from having an employee or agent witness the sampling on their behalf, since the rule allows “[t]he owner, trainer of record, or other authorized person” to witness the sampling. In no fewer than 10 places in the Proposed Rule, actions are authorized to be taken by an “authorized representative” of the Division, or an “other authorized person.” The Proposed Rule does not identify who those representatives or persons might be, or how they may come to be authorized. Mr. Ehrhardt testified that the purpose of the less definitive description was “to figure out a way to make the rule flexible,” to meet the possibility that a “job title is going to change.” During Mr. Ehrhardt’s visit to the Orange Park greyhound racing facility, he was allowed into the restricted ginny pit area by “authorized personnel from the division,” who he described as “veterinarian assistants, chief inspector, investigators, people like that.” Petitioner objected to the lack of specificity because it provided no assurances that these individuals are competent, or held to any particular standard.
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 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 The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Srdan Saric, committed violations of Chapter 550, Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-6, as alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation in DBPR Case Nos. 2005042972, 2005039423, and 2005042974, and amended January 30, 2006; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his State of Florida pari-mutuel wagering occupational license.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-mutuel Wagering (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is an agency of the State of Florida created by Section 20.165(2)(f), Florida Statutes, and charged with the responsibility for the regulation of the pari- mutuel wagering industry pursuant to Section 550.0251, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Srdan Saric, is, and was at the times material to this matter, the holder of a pari-mutuel license, number 2016930-1021, issued by the Division. During the time period at issue in this case, Mr. Saric trained harness race horses and was a jockey at the harness race course of Pompano Park Racing (hereinafter referred to as "Pompano Park"), located in Pompano Beach, Florida. Pompano Park is a harness horse racing facility authorized to conduct pari-mutuel wagering in Florida and is the location of all activity material to this matter. On July 27, 2005, Respondent was the trainer of record and jockey for two standard bred harness race horses, known as "Youngbro Clever" and "Swift Courier." Both horses were owned by Jeanette Glowacki. The Events of July 27, 2005. Youngbro Clever and Swift Courier were both scheduled to race at Pompano Park the evening of July 27, 2005. Youngbro Clever was to run in the fourth race and Swift Courier was to run in the twelfth race. The fourth race was scheduled to begin at approximately 8:15 to 8:30 p.m. Both horses were being housed in Barn C of Pompano Park. That barn was shared by the two horses being trained by Mr. Saric and horses owned and trained by Michael Snyder. Tack boxes, where equipment was stored, were located at Barn C adjacent to the wall just outside the horse stalls. Those located in the area where Mr. Saric's horses were housed were considered to be within areas of Barn C which he occupied or had the right to occupy. The tack boxes are part of the premises within the grounds of a racing permitholder where racing animals were lodged or kept and which Mr. Saric occupied or had the right to occupy. At approximately 7:30 p.m., on July 27, 2005, Jeremy Glowacki, the son of the owner of Youngbro Clever and Swift Courier and an employee Mr. Saric had previously fired, informed Pompano Park security supervisor Richard Masters that he had witnessed Mr. Saric place syringes in a tack box located just outside Barn C, Stall 8. Based upon Mr. Glowacki's report, Pompano Park security searched the tack box and found a 35 cc hypodermic syringe with needle attached and a 12 cc hypodermic syringe with needle attached. As a result of the discovery of the syringes, Youngbro Clever and Swift Courier were immediately scratched from their scheduled races and were sent to the State Veterinarian for drug testing. Mr. Saric was also suspended from Pompano Park and remained so at the time of the final hearing of this matter. The State Veterinarian drew blood serum sample 173675 from Youngbro Clever and blood serum sample 173680 from Swift Courier. These samples were processed in accordance with established procedures. Both blood serum samples were, along with the two syringes recovered from Mr. Saric's tack box, sent to the University of Florida Racing Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as the "Racing Laboratory"), for analysis. Results of Racing Laboratory Testing. The Racing Laboratory, following applicable procedures, performed an analysis on the syringes found in Mr. Saric's tack box and the blood serum samples taken from Youngbro Clever and Swift Courier. No prohibited substance was detected by the Racing Laboratory analysis of the 35 cc syringe. Flunixin was detected by the Racing Laboratory analysis of the 12 cc syringe. Flunixin is a "non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug" which can be used to suppress inflammation and provide pain relief to race horses. The Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc. has classified Flunixin under the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances as a "Class IV" drug. As such, it is considered an "impermissible substance." Flunixin in excess of 200 ng/ml. was also found by the Racing Laboratory in blood serum sample number 173675 which had been collected from Youngbro Clever. Flunixin in excess of 200 ng/ml. was also found by the Racing Laboratory in blood serum sample number 173680, which had been collected from Swift Courier. In addition to Flunixin, the Racing Laboratory test of blood serum sample number 173675 collected from Youngbro Clever and blood serum sample number 173680 collected from Swift Courier also revealed that those samples contained phenylbutazone, or its metabolites, in excess of 16 micrograms per milliliter of serum. Like Flunixin, phenylbutazone is a "non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug" which can be used to suppress inflammation and provide pain relief to race horses. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D- 6.008, phenylbutazone, unlike Flunixin, may be administered to a race horse in an amount which, following the running of a race, will result in the horse's blood serum being found to contain less than 8 micrograms per milliliter of serum. Dr. Cole testified convincingly and credibly that Flunixin and phenylbutazone had been administered to Youngbro Clever and Swift Courier within 24 hours of their scheduled races on June 27, 2005. Youngbro Clever and Swift Courier, having been administered Flunixin and phenylbutazone within 24 hours of their scheduled races, would have been able to compete at a higher level in their scheduled races than if these drugs had not been ministered to them. According to Dr. Cole, whose unrebutted testimony in this regard is also credited, if Youngbro Clever and Swift Courier had been allowed to run their scheduled races, blood samples collected immediately after their respective races would have revealed the presence of phenylbutazone in each horse in excess of 8 micrograms per milliliter of serum. Mr. Saric's Prior Disciplinary History. Mr. Saric has previously been disciplined by the Division on two separate occasions. On both occasions, Mr. Saric was fined because Methocarbamol (a skeletal muscle relaxant and Class IV drug) was detected in urine samples collected from Youngbro Clever as part of the post race analyses. The first violation for which Mr. Saric was disciplined took place on December 6, 2004. Mr. Saric was fined $250.00 for this violation of Section 550.2415(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D- 6.011(1). The second violation for which Mr. Saric was disciplined took place on April 15, 2005. Mr. Saric was fined $500.00 for this violation of Section 550.2415(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-6.011(1). Mr. Saric's Responsibility for Youngbro Clever and Swift Courier. While Mr. Saric attempted, unsuccessfully, to prove that he did not place the syringes in his tack box or inject Flunixin and phenylbutazone into Youngbro Clever and Swift Courier, the evidence failed to support such a finding. The evidence also failed to prove that Jeremy Glowacki was responsible for these violations. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Saric took the measures necessary to protect Youngbro Clever and Swift Courier in particular and the racing industry generally from harm, especially considering the fact that this case involves the third time that Youngbro Clever has tested positive for a prohibited substances in his blood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, finding that Srdan Saric violated Sections 550.105(5)(b) and 550.2415(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61D-6.004(2) and 61D-6.011(1), as described in this Recommended Order; suspending his license for a total period of two years from the date of the final order; and requiring that he pay a fine of $6,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 14th day of April, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Thomas Peavey Hoffer Ralf E. Michels Assistants General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Rose H. Robbins, Esquire One Boca Place 2265 Glades Road Suite 324 Atrium Boca Raton, Florida 33431 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 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
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 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
