The Issue Whether Respondent's policy of treating "Gretna-style" barrel match racing as the legal equivalent of traditional quarter horse racing, i.e., a legitimate pari-mutuel wagering event for which a quarter horse racing permitholder can obtain an annual operating license, constitutes an agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy in violation of section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2012).1
Findings Of Fact Parties Respondent Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (the "Division"), is the state agency responsible for implementing and enforcing Florida's pari-mutuel laws. Its duties include the licensing and regulation of all pari-mutuel activities in Florida. Petitioner Florida Quarter Horse Racing Association ("FQHRA") is a nonprofit Florida corporation located in Tallahassee, Florida. FQHRA's main function is to promote the ownership, breeding, and racing of quarter horses, a function which includes representing individuals who have an interest in racing quarter horses in Florida. FQHRA, moreover, is assigned functions by statute related to quarter horse racing in Florida, which include representing quarter horse owners in negotiating purse agreements with quarter horse permitholders, pursuant to section 849.086(13)(d)3, Florida Statutes, and setting the schedule of racing at quarter horse racetracks, pursuant to section 550.002(11). Petitioner Florida Quarter Horse Breeders and Owners Association ("FQHBOA") is a nonprofit Florida corporation located in Tallahassee, Florida. FQHBOA's main functions are to receive and distribute breeder and owner awards for quarter horse races in Florida. Section 550.2625(5)(a), Florida Statutes, designates FQHBOA to be the recipient of a portion of the racing revenues from all quarter horse races conducted in Florida, which funds are to be used for the promotion of racing quarter horses in Florida. FQHBOA administers the accredited Florida-bred program and breeders' awards for quarter horses. Gerald Keesling is an owner, breeder, and trainer of race horses competing in quarter horse racing. He has been involved with quarter horse racing for more than thirty years and has raced quarter horses at various tracks around the country, including Pompano Park and Hialeah Park in Florida. Intervenor is an entity formed and operated for the purpose of advancing the interests of "new" quarter horse permitholders in the legislature and before administrative agencies. According to its corporate representative, Intervenor was formed "to advocate for the elimination of the restrictions" facing new quarter horse permitholders in order "to allow these new permitholders to secure the gaming rights that all of the other permitholders around the state had secured." Pari-mutuel Wagering Gambling is considered to be inherently dangerous to society.3 This societal disapprobation is reflected in the widespread prohibitions on gambling activities found in Florida law. Indeed, an entire chapter of the Florida Statutes——chapter 849——is devoted to criminalizing many forms of gambling. This case involves a species of gambling known as lotteries, and a specific kind of lottery referred to as pari-mutuel wagering. In pari-mutuel wagering, bets placed on the outcome of a race or game are pooled, and the payout to the winners is drawn from that pool, so that the winners divide the total amount bet (the "handle"), less management expenses and taxes. See § 550.002(13),(22), Fla. Stat. The Florida Constitution categorically prohibits lotteries such as pari-mutuel pools, but makes an exception for certain types of pari-mutuel activities, which the legislature may permit in the exercise of its police powers. See Art. X, § 7, Fla. Const.4 Pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes, which is known as the Florida Pari-mutuel Wagering Act (the "Act"), the legislature has legalized pari-mutuel wagering on dog racing, jai alai, and three distinct types of horseracing, namely harness racing, in which standardbred horses pull two-wheeled "sulkies" guided by a driver; thoroughbred horse racing; and quarter horse racing. The Act empowers the Division to regulate and closely supervise pari-mutuel wagering, which is a criminal activity if not conducted in compliance with the Act. See, e.g., § 550.255, Fla. Stat. Any person who desires to conduct pari-mutuel operations on one of the five types of authorized pari-mutuel activities must apply to the Division for a permit. Such a permit is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of conducting pari-mutuel performances; a license, too, is required. Before a permit can become effective, however, it must be approved by a majority of the voters in the county in which the applicant proposes to conduct pari-mutuel wagering activities. See § 550.054(2), Fla. Stat. After the Division has issued a permit and the permit has been approved in a ratification election, the permitholder must apply to the Division for an annual license to conduct pari-mutuel operations. See § 550.0115, Fla. Stat. This permitholder license——sometimes also called an "annual license," "operating license," "dates license," or simply a "license"——is "an annual license issued by the division to conduct pari-mutuel operations at a location specified in the permit for a specific type of pari-mutuel event specified in the permit." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61D-2.001(12). The annual license gives a permitholder authority to conduct the pari-mutuel wagering activity authorized under its permit on the dates identified in the license. The Act mandates that the Division exercise its regulatory power to "adopt reasonable rules for the control, supervision, and direction of all applicants, permittees, and licensees and for the holding, conducting, and operating of all racetracks, race meets, and races held in this state," which "rules must be uniform in their application and effect." See § 550.0251(3), Fla. Stat. Quarter Horse Racing Quarter horse racing is widely known as a type of horse racing in which multiple horses——specifically, American Quarter Horses——compete head-to-head in short-distance races, running at high speed. The American Quarter Horse breed took its name from the length of the race in which its members excel, i.e., the quarter mile. The American Quarter Horse Association ("AQHA") is an organization of quarter horse owners, breeders, and trainers. It publishes the official breed registry for quarter horses. In addition, AQHA issues rules and standards for quarter horse racing conducted throughout the United States and abroad, and it keeps official records relating to all quarter horse races registered with AQHA. AQHA publishes an Official Handbook of Rules and Regulations, which includes a section devoted to Racing Rules and Regulations setting forth the standards and requirements that a race must meet to be recognized by AQHA as a quarter horse race. AQHA works through state-level affiliates. FQHRA is AQHA's affiliate for the state of Florida. Quarter horse racing is part of the long established pari-mutuel racing industry in Florida, which dates back to the 1930s. Before 2011, the type of quarter horse race on which pari-mutuel wagering was conducted in Florida involved a contest between approximately eight to ten horses sprinting side-by-side on a flat, oval racetrack, beginning at a single starting gate and ending when the horses crossed a common finish line. Races of this type——which will be referred to as "traditional" quarter horse races——were conducted at two of Florida's historic pari- mutuel racetracks, Pompano Park and Hialeah Park. For almost eighteen years beginning in the early 1990s, no pari-mutuel quarter horse racing was conducted in Florida. During this time, owners of racing quarter horses, such as Mr. Keesling, transported their horses to other states to participate in quarter horse racing. In the summer of 2005, AQHA organized a meeting in Ocala, Florida, to gauge and foster interest in the development of quarter horse racetracks in Florida. AQHA's efforts eventually bore some fruit. In 2008, the Division issued a permit to conduct pari-mutuel wagering on quarter horse races at Hialeah Park. Quarter horse racing resumed at Hialeah Park in 2009 and has continued under annual licenses issued each year since then. The events at Hialeah Park are traditional quarter horse races. As of this writing, Hialeah Park is the only pari-mutuel facility in Florida where quarter horse races recognized by AQHA are held. Barrel Racing Barrel racing is a kind of obstacle race on horseback——often performed at rodeos, horse shows, and fairs——in which a horse and rider complete a cloverleaf pattern around three barrels arranged in a triangular shape inside a rectangular "arena." Barrel racing is a separate discipline from horse racing conducted on flat tracks, such as traditional quarter horse racing. A challenge involving speed, strength, and agility, barrel racing is a timed event, with each contestant running individually, one after the other, in an attempt to complete the course in the fastest time possible. A penalty of five seconds is added to a horse's time for colliding with a barrel. The outcome of the contest is determined by each horse's respective time; the winner is the horse having the shortest time. Gretna Racing——The Permit On March 18, 2008, Gretna Racing, LLC ("Gretna Racing"), submitted an application to the Division seeking a pari-mutuel permit to operate a quarter horse racetrack in Gretna, a small city in Gadsden County, Florida. Included in the application were a business plan summary and a drawing of the planned racetrack. In its business plan, Gretna Racing informed the Division of its intent to construct "a Quarter Horse racetrack that will allow racing at standard Quarter Horse racing distances." The drawing attached to the application depicted a conventional oval racetrack of the type on which traditional quarter horse races are run. On July 31, 2008, Gretna Racing sent the Division a revised site plan showing a modified quarter horse racetrack design known as a "J-loop." Environmental concerns had prompted the change in the proposed shape of the planned racetrack. As drawn, the J-loop track was capable of accommodating traditional quarter horse races. At no time while Gretna Racing's application was pending did Gretna Racing tell the Division that it planned to conduct any type of pari-mutuel activity other than traditional quarter horse racing or to construct any type of race course other than an oval or J-loop quarter horse racetrack. On September 12, 2008, the Division issued a permit to Gretna Racing for the conduct of pari-mutuel wagering on quarter horse racing in Gadsden County. The permit authorizes Gretna Racing to "Operate A Quarter Horse Racetrack". After receiving the permit, Gretna Racing did not build either an oval race course or a J-loop quarter horse racetrack as depicted in its application. As of this writing, no such racetrack has been constructed at Gretna Racing's pari- mutuel facility in Gadsden County. Gretna Racing——The License On September 6, 2011, Gretna Racing submitted an application to the Division for an annual license authorizing operating dates on which to conduct pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to its quarter horse racing permit. In the following weeks, Gretna Racing communicated frequently with the Division regarding Gretna Racing's intent to conduct a novel form of barrel racing as a pari-mutuel wagering event under its permit. The type of contest that Gretna Racing had in mind had never before been licensed or regulated by the Division as a pari- mutuel event. At a meeting with Division officials in September 2011, Gretna Racing delivered a PowerPoint presentation in which it characterized the proposed pari-mutuel activity as "the Barrel Horse Race" and advocated for its "[i]ntroduction as a Pari-mutuel Wagering event in Florida . . . ." Among other things, the PowerPoint slide show included a description of the race pattern for barrel racing as a "traditional cloverleaf with 75 feet between barrels 1 and 2 and 90 feet between barrels 2 and 3." This narrative was accompanied by the following diagram, which depicts a single horse running around three barrels in a rectangular arena: Although Gretna Racing referred to the performances it proposed to conduct as "barrel racing"——a term which the parties have continued to use in this litigation——the "Gretna-style" barrel race differs somewhat from the traditional rodeo-style barrel race. The unique twist that Gretna-style barrel racing introduces is the "match race" format, which entails placing two separate arenas next to each other and running two horses simultaneously around two separate, albeit adjacent, barrel courses whose "[p]atterns are identical," according to Gretna Racing's PowerPoint presentation. In the materials that Gretna Racing gave to the Division while lobbying for approval of its first annual license, the separate courses were depicted as follows: As the foregoing pictures show, instead of having the competing horses run one at a time the way traditional barrel races are conducted, the Gretna-style contest requires the horses to run in pairs, with each horse maneuvering around its own barrel course, inside a separate, fenced-in arena, the two arenas separated by an eight-foot-wide alley. Thus, Gretna- style barrel racing is basically traditional barrel racing "times two", i.e., two rodeo-style barrel races performed at once. This gives the event the appearance, at least, of a match race between two horses. In reality, however, the Gretna-style barrel match race ("BMR"5) is not so much a competition between two horses as it is an event comprising two individual performances by horses competing independently against the clock on their respective obstacle courses. This is because each horse, isolated in its own enclosed arena, separately attempts to negotiate the barrels in the quickest time possible; there is negligible (if any) competitive interaction between the horses in the "match race." Moreover, inasmuch as the most important indicator of a barrel- race horse's success is its personal time, being the first horse to finish——and hence the winner of——a given BMR is something of an arbitrary achievement, determined by the convenience of the pairing instead of the intrinsic nature of the competition. For any BMR between horses A and B, the winner——whichever completes the obstacle course the fastest——could just as well be determined by running the horses one after the other, in the traditional rodeo-style barrel racing format. BMR artificially imposes the determinative element of "order of finish" on a type of contest that does not inherently require simultaneity of performances as a necessary condition of the competition.6 The Division employees reviewing Gretna Racing's application for licensure had never seen anything like BMR before. They were acutely aware, from the beginning, that Gretna Racing's proposal to conduct pari-mutuel operations on this new kind of contest, with which the Division was unfamiliar, was hardly routine, raising as it did questions of first impression for the Division. As one of them wrote in an e-mail to the Division director dated September 9, 2011, Gretna Racing wanted "to do barrel racing instead of traditional quarter horse racing, along with the possibility of other timed events like calf roping and cutting horse events. Not traditional venues for us." Understandably, Gretna Racing's application was the subject of much internal discussion, genuine disagreement, and, predictably, some controversy. The details of these deliberations are unimportant. What matters——and what the evidence clearly shows——is that the Division knew that Gretna Racing, as a quarter horse permitholder, was seeking approval to conduct pari-mutuel wagering on BMR, an original type of contest that differed substantially from traditional quarter horse racing. Further, as the result of lobbying on both sides of the issue, the Division was thoroughly familiar with the essential attributes of the BMR performances Gretna Racing planned to hold. Finally, the Division understood that, if licensed, Gretna Racing would conduct pari-mutuel operations on BMR to the exclusion of traditional quarter horse racing. In a September 30, 2011, e-mail to Joe Dillmore, who had by then been named acting director of the Division, an attorney for Gretna Racing advanced a legal argument for allowing BMR as a new pari-mutuel activity, which was premised on section 550.334(5), Florida Statutes. That statute allows a quarter horse permitholder to substitute races of other breeds of horse——including the American Cracker Horse——for up to "50 percent of the quarter horse races during its meet." Gretna Racing asserted that the cracker horse is a "'rodeo' breed" whose members compete in "equestrian events such as barrel racing, pole bending, stump racing, and calf roping"——but not flat track racing. On that basis, Gretna Racing contended that the legislature, in enacting section 550.334(5), must have "intended for [the American Cracker Horse] to be wagered upon via its widely accepted and practiced racing, namely barrel racing and the like." Gretna Racing argued that the barrel match "racing [it had] proposed . . . meets the statutory definition of racing under a quarter horse permit." It is clear from the evidence that, in submitting its application and seeking approval to conduct pari-mutuel wagering on BMR, Gretna Racing realized it needed the Division to interpret the Act as having legalized pari-mutuel wagering on BMR. Gretna Racing urged the Division to implement such an interpretation through the issuance of an annual license to Gretna Racing authorizing performances of BMR as a pari-mutuel event. On October 19, 2011, the Division issued an annual operating license, number 542, to Gretna Racing, which gave the licensee the authority to conduct 41 total performances under its quarter horse racing permit during the 2011/2012 season. The license does not mention BMR or any other pari-mutuel activity. As a matter of law, however, the license necessarily gave Gretna Racing approval to hold performances of the "specific type of pari-mutuel event specified in [its] permit," i.e., quarter horse racing, and only such performances; the license could do nothing else. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61D- 2.001(12). Thus, the issuance of license no. 542 at once manifested and implemented the Division's determination that BMR is quarter horse racing for purposes of the Act. Had the Division not made such a determination, it could not have issued license no. 542, for it knew that Gretna Racing intended to hold BMR performances. Nevertheless, the Division was reluctant to express this determination in an unambiguous public declaration, and this reticence has remained throughout the instant proceeding. For example, on October 4, 2011, a couple of weeks before the issuance of license no. 542, a writer for BloodHorse.com, an online trade magazine, sent an e-mail to the Division's spokesperson inquiring "whether [the Division] has determined if barrel racing is permissible for a Quarter Horse permit holder." The spokesperson drafted and circulated internally, via e-mail, a proposed response, namely: "The Department has not made a determination on this subject matter." Department of Business and Professional Regulation Secretary Ken Lawson rejected this, writing in a reply e-mail: "Don't like the answer. We are not deciding on the merits of barrel racing, only on the racing days." The Division, however, of necessity would decide "on the merits" whether BMR was licensable as a pari-mutuel activity under a quarter horse racing permit because that, and not the proposed racing schedule, was the central——and only controversial——question Gretna Racing's application presented. On October 20, 2011, the day after Gretna Racing had received its first annual license, the same BloodHorse.com writer asked the Division to answer the following questions: *What are the reasons under Florida law that you determined it is permissible for Gretna to use its [quarter horse] permit to have pari-mutuel barrel racing? *Does this approval set a precedent for other Florida [quarter horse] permit holders to use them for pari-mutuel barrel racing? *Barrel racing is new under [the Division]. What are some of the major steps needed for riders, judges and others to obtain licenses? In response, the spokesperson sent out what she called a "canned statement" saying that "[a]fter a careful review of the guidelines and statutes as set forth by the Legislature, the Department has determined that [Gretna Racing's] application meets the requirements." In lieu of making a clear public statement announcing the policy behind the issuance of license no. 542, the Division has advanced various theories whose common denominator is the attempt to explain why this license does not reflect, manifest, implement, or announce a decision of consequence to anyone besides Gretna Racing. At hearing, for example, the Division (through the testimony of Mr. Dillmore) took the position that everything regarding pari-mutuel wagering which is not forbidden under the Act is allowed, and that therefore——because the Act does not explicitly prohibit BMR——the Division had to grant Gretna Racing's application.7 This explanation, which turns chapter 550 on its head, is the Division's attempt to deny having given the Act a construction that legalizes BMR as a pari-mutuel activity, by acknowledging only a much narrower (and legally irrelevant) determination, i.e., that the Act does not plainly prohibit BMR.8 At another point during the hearing, the Division's attorney articulated the Division's position as being "that . . . whether [the race is] around barrels" or traditional quarter horse racing, "it is all quarter horse racing."9 This statement is significant because, in its Joint Prehearing Stipulation (joined by Intervenor but not by Petitioners), the Division stated that it has "consistently . . . giv[en] [statutory] terms their plain and ordinary meaning ascertainable by reference to a dictionary." The Division asserted, further, that the meanings of such terms as "'race', 'contest', 'horserace', and 'horseracing' are . . . readily apparent and available via reference to a dictionary." The logical implication of these statements, taken together, is that the Division believes BMR, like traditional quarter horse racing, comes within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "horse race" (and its variants) as used in the Act, and for that reason is a licensable pari-mutuel activity. This tells that the Division found BMR to be allowed under (as opposed to being, merely, not forbidden by) the Act because the Act permits pari- mutuel wagering operations on quarter horse racing. In its Post-Hearing Brief, the Division tried to tie its positions together in a unified theory of non-responsibility for any general policy regarding pari-mutuel wagering on BMR. The Division's global theory begins with the premise that the agency lacks specific rulemaking authority to define "horseracing."10 From there, the Division reasons that, in carrying out its duties, which include issuing licenses to permitholders, it must implement the statutory language without expanding, limiting, or defining what is or is not meant by "horse racing" and "quarter horse racing." Confusingly, however, the Division simultaneously asserts that the "determination of what is and what is not horse racing is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Division . . . as the agency assigned the responsibility of administering Chapter 550." Resp. to the Order Re Off'l Recog'n, etc., at 18. The Division attempts to reconcile these seemingly inconsistent positions by drawing a distinction between (a) what it calls "licensing 'policy'" and (b) quasi-legislative policy affecting a wider class of persons.11 When making "licensing policy," the Division believes it can define horseracing for a particular permitholder only; this, in fact, and nothing more, is what it claims to have done in connection with Gretna Racing's application for licensure.12 Yet, the Division apparently felt that, in evaluating Gretna Racing's application, it needed to apply the most inclusive meaning of "horseracing" that reason will allow because, in its view, the pertinent statutes neither restrict the term "horseracing" (except to the extent that the use of certain breeds is required) nor prohibit barrel racing. Thus, under the Division's theory, upon its receipt of Gretna Racing's application for an operational license, the Division's duty was merely to grant or deny the application within 90 days.13 Lacking the power to put limits on horseracing, at least for all persons who would be affected by such limitations, and finding none in the statutes, the Division had to grant the application, given that Gretna Racing possessed a valid quarter horse racing permit and BMR is a form of "horseracing" in at least the broadest sense of the word. At bottom, the Division's position rests on the notion that the intensional meaning of the general term "horse race" (and its variants) as used in the Act includes BMR within its extensional meaning. This statement is of little value, however, without knowing just what attributes the Division regards as common to (and shared only by) all of the contests denoted by the term "horse race"——without knowing, in other words, what the Division considers to be the intension of the operative term. Because the intension of a term determines its extension, i.e., the collection of the objects named, denoted, or referred to thereby, the Division's statement regarding the common attributes of a "horse race" (its intensive definition) is essential for evaluating whether the Division has applied the term correctly and, more important, for deciding whether——as Petitioners contend——the Division has redefined the term so as to expand the scope of pari-mutuel wagering otherwise allowable under the Act. The definition of "horseracing" is critical because any contest that constitutes a licensable horse race for one permitholder must likewise be licensable for all similarly situated permitholders who seek legal sanction to conduct horseracing performances under the Act. Contrary to the Division's theory of "licensing policy," there cannot be one definition of horseracing for this permitholder and another definition for that one. As should be self-evident, the definition of "horse race" for purposes of chapter 550 must apply equally to everyone who seeks to conduct pari-mutuel wagering on horseracing. If, therefore, as Petitioners maintain, the Division has given the term "horse race" a meaning that is not readily apparent from a literal reading of the statutes, then such a definition would constitute a statement of general applicability. Whether the Division has done so will be discussed below. The Consequences of Licensing Gretna Racing Soon after receiving its first annual license, Gretna Racing began conducting pari-mutuel wagering on BMR at its facility in Gadsden County, holding its first performance on December 1, 2011. The BMR performances conducted by Gretna Racing pursuant to its license were substantially the same as they had been described to Division officials while Gretna Racing's application for licensure was under consideration in September and October 2011. Prior to October 19, 2011, the Division had never approved pari-mutuel wagering on BMR performances. In fact, governmentally sanctioned pari-mutuel wagering on barrel racing had never occurred in Florida or anywhere else in the United States until Gretna Racing commenced operations in December 2011. The pari-mutuel barrel match racing as approved by the Division and conducted by Gretna Racing is not recognized or registered by AQHA as quarter horse racing. AQHA does not keep records of the results of the BMR contests held at Gretna Racing's facility as it does for the traditional quarter horse races conducted at Hialeah Park. Because only two horses compete in each race, BMR requires substantially fewer horses and personnel than traditional quarter horse racing as conducted at Hialeah Park. The handle and purses are much smaller,14 too, which means that as a pari-mutuel event, BMR is less lucrative than traditional quarter horse racing for many participants. As currently configured, Gretna Racing's facility cannot accommodate traditional quarter horse racing. At the time of hearing, Gretna Racing's facility was the only pari- mutuel racing plant in Florida whose race courses consisted of barrels or other obstacles for horses to navigate around. Shortly after the Division issued an annual license to Gretna Racing, another quarter horse permitholder, Hamilton Downs Horsetrack, LLC ("Hamilton Downs"), filed an application with the Division requesting a license to conduct barrel racing as a pari-mutuel wagering event in substantially the same fashion as Gretna Racing. Hamilton Downs received a license, number 547, for the 2012/2013 racing season, authorizing the conduct of pari-mutuel operations on BMR performances. On March 15, 2012, the Division renewed Gretna Racing's license no. 542 for the 2012/2013 season, authorizing 38 total performances of BMR at the Gadsden County facility. As a result of the Division's issuance of a license to Gretna Racing, according to Mr. Dillmore, if any quarter horse permitholder "submits an application and says that they're going to conduct quarter horse racing in compliance with [section 550.334(5), which allows other breeds to be used as substitutes for quarter horses provided the licensee is] using 50 percent registered quarter horses in their races[,] and meets the other regulations, [and] they have the detention barn, and the other people are licensed," then the Division will issue the permitholder a license authorizing pari-mutuel wagering on barrel races "as long as they [are] using quarter horses."15 In other words, the Division's decision in October 2011 that pari- mutuel barrel racing is permissible under a quarter horse permit will be relied upon by the Division in processing future requests by quarter horse permitholders to conduct pari-mutuel wagering on barrel racing, as the grant of a license to Hamilton Downs for that purpose demonstrates. The Division's approval of pari-mutuel barrel match racing reflects and implements a statement of agency policy interpreting the Act so as to legalize gambling on barrel racing as a type of pari-mutuel pool recognized under the statutory authorization for quarter horse racing. This new policy, which has not been promulgated as a rule, is a statement of general applicability because it announces an inclusive interpretation of the term "horse race" that will serve as the basis for other quarter horse permitholders to engage in this new form of pari- mutuel activity in lieu of traditional horseracing.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering of the Florida Department of Business Regulation is an agency charged with responsibility for implementation and enforcement of the statutory framework governing the conduct of pari-mutuel operations in Florida. The Division's agency head is its Director. The Division has initiated proceedings to adopt rules to establish procedures whereby dog racing tracks and jai alai frontons will select dates for matinee performances. Proposed Rule 7E-2.03 relates to the scheduling of matinee programs by dog racing tracks. It provides in pertinent part: The application [the track's application for an annual license, operating dates, meetings and the number of performances] shall designate the matinee programs to be conducted by the association. Each association shall be permitted during its authorized meeting to conduct a maximum of 54 matinee programs on the days of its choice. Provided, however, that no association located in a county where there is a thoroughbred association or within a radius of 35 miles of another pari-mutuel association shall be permitted to conduct more than 3 matinee programs during any calendar week of its authorized meeting, except that a matinee program can be scheduled on New Year's Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day and Thanksgiving Day. Provided, further, that in those counties where a thoroughbred association is authorized to have dark during its meeting all other pari-mutuel associations in the same county may conduct their matinee programs on any or all such dark days as long as the total for the respective association does not exceed 54 matinee programs. Proposed Rule 7E-3.03(32) relates to selection of matinee dates by jai alai frontons, and contains language that is functionally identical to Proposed Rule 7E-2.03. The effect of these proposed rules would be to allow dog racing tracks and jai alai frontons to schedule up to fifty-four matinee programs during their authorized operating dates. If the track or fronton is located in a county where there is a horse racetrack, no more than three matinee programs can be scheduled during any calendar week, except for the designated holidays. The Respondent conducted a public hearing with respect to the proposed rules on January 19, 1981. The Petitioners, Calder Race Course, Inc., and Tropical Park, Inc.; and the Intervenors Gulfstream Park Racing Association and Hialeah, Inc., are horse racetrack operators. These parties are affected by the proposed rules because the proposed rules would allow dog racing tracks and jai alai frontons to operate matinee programs at the same time that horse race programs are being run by these parties. The Intervenors WJA Realty; Biscayne Kennel Club, et al.; and St. Petersburg Kennel Club are operators of dog racing tracks or jai alai frontons. They are affected by the proposed rules because the proposed rules would allow dog racing tracks and jai alai frontons to operate matinee programs at the same time that horse race programs are being run by these parties. The horse racetrack parties are located in Dade County or Broward County, Florida. They conduct only daytime, matinee programs. The dog track and jai alai fronton parties, other than St. Petersburg Kennel Club, Inc., operate in Dade County and Broward County, Florida. They are all located within a radius of thirty-five miles of other pari-mutuel associations, and in the same county with thoroughbred associations. Prior to 1970, dog tracks and jai alai frontons in Southeast Florida conducted nighttime programs almost exclusively. Horse track operators conducted, and continue to conduct, only matinee programs. During the decade of the 1970's, dog tracks and jai alai frontons began conducting an increasing number of matinee programs under various regulatory systems imposed by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, or its predecessors. In 1978 the Division adopted a policy which is in all material respects identical to the policy that the Division is seeking to implement through the adopting of the rules which are the subject of this proceeding. While it appears to have been the Division's intent to adopt the policy as a rule in 1978, the policy was never formally filed with the Office of the Secretary of State, and was therefore not adopted as a rule. It has, nonetheless, been in operational effect since 1978. The Division's experience with the policy has been favorable. Dog track and jai alai fronton operators have chosen days for operating matinee programs which are most profitable. The State obtains revenue from these operations based upon a percentage of the "handle" or the dollar volume that goes through a facility on a given day. The more money an operation takes in, the more revenue the State obtains. The State's experience with the matinee policy has been favorable from a revenue generating perspective. Horse track operators are to some degree affected by having dog tracks and jai alai frontons operating conflicting matinee programs. The degree of this effect has not been established with any precision. Horse track operators have experienced operational difficulties during the past decade. Many factors have contributed to these difficulties. It has not been established that having matinee competition from dog tracks and jai alai frontons has been a significant factor. Various statistics were presented by the parties in an effort to show either that matinee competition has resulted in a diminution of the handle of horse racetracks, or the contrary. The statistics were not prepared in such a manner as to isolate the impact of matinee competition upon the revenues of horse racetracks. Even if any such findings could be isolated from the statistics that have been presented, the conclusions would be conflicting. Certainly having competition drains some customers from horse racetracks. The extent of this impact cannot, however, be determined from the evidence presented in this proceeding.
The Issue Whether the FHBPA, FTBOA, and OBS have standing to bring this unadopted rule challenge; and, if so, whether their petition was timely; and, if so, whether the Division’s determination that a new summer jai alai permit was made available and that Calder is eligible for a new summer jai alai permit pursuant to section 550.0745(1), Florida Statutes (2019), is based on unadopted rules.
Findings Of Fact Parties/Standing The Division is the agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering and issuing pari-mutuel permits under the provisions of chapter 550, including section 550.0745 pertaining to summer jai alai permits, and rule 61D-4.002. Calder is a pari-mutuel permitholder authorized to operate thoroughbred horse racing and conduct pari-mutuel pools on exhibition sports in Miami-Dade County pursuant to chapter 550. Calder has been a pari- mutuel permitholder authorized to operate thoroughbred horse racing in Miami-Dade County since 1971. The Division issued a new summer jai alai permit to Calder on February 9, 2018. The Division did not provide FHBPA, FTBOA, or OBS with formal notice that Calder had applied for a new summer jai alai permit or that the Division intended to issue a new summer jai alai permit to Calder. The Division subsequently licensed Calder to operate this summer jai alai permit in fiscal years 2018/2019 and 2019/2020. Calder is currently licensed to operate both summer jai alai and thoroughbred racing at its Miami-Dade County facility pursuant to the permits and licenses issued by the Division to Calder for thoroughbred horse racing and summer jai alai. Calder is also currently licensed to operate slot machine gaming. Calder receives approximately $85,000,000 in annual gross revenues from slot machine gaming, making this the most profitable activity Calder conducts at its facility. FHBPA is not a pari-mutuel permitholder. FHBPA is a Florida not-for- profit corporation and an association whose membership consists of a majority of horse owners and trainers (approximately 5,000 to 6,000 "horsemen"), whose horses race at thoroughbred race meets operated by the licensed thoroughbred permitholders in South Florida. Pursuant to section 551.104(10)(a)1., Florida Statutes, no slot machine license or renewal license can be issued to an applicant with a thoroughbred horse racing pari-mutuel permit unless the applicant has on file with the Division a binding, written agreement with FHBPA governing the payment of purses on live thoroughbred horse races conducted at the licensee’s pari- mutuel facility. FHBPA and Calder have a contractual agreement, whereby Calder must run 40 days of thoroughbred horse races under its thoroughbred license. Under the current agreement between Calder and FHBPA, Calder is required to pay FHBPA a sum equal to ten percent of Calder’s gross slot machine revenues to be used for purses. This amounts to approximately $9,000,000 that FHBPA receives from Calder on an annual basis. This contractual agreement expires in 2020. Since 2014, Calder has satisfied its obligation to run a 40-day thoroughbred racing schedule by contracting with a third party, Gulfstream Park, to run races between October and November of each year. FTBOA is not a pari-mutuel permitholder. FTBOA is a Florida not-for- profit corporation, and the statewide trade association representing the interests of Florida thoroughbred breeders and owners in Florida. Horses owned and/or bred by FTBOA members participate in the thoroughbred horse races at Calder’s race course. FTBOA is designated in section 550.2625(3)(h) as the administrator of the thoroughbred breeders’ awards program established by the Florida Legislature in sections 550.26165 and 550.2625(3). As part of this program, FTBOA is responsible for the payment of breeders’ awards on thoroughbred races conducted in Florida. Pursuant to section 550.26165(1), the purpose of breeders’ awards is to "encourage the agricultural activity of breeding and training racehorses in this state." Pursuant to section 551.104(10)(a)1., no slot machine license or renewal license can be issued to an applicant with a thoroughbred horse racing pari- mutuel permit unless the applicant has on file with the Division a binding written agreement with FTBOA governing the payment of breeders’, stallion, and special racing awards on live thoroughbred races conducted at the licensee’s pari-mutuel facility. FTBOA receives approximately $1,500,000 from Calder each year in breeders’ awards as a result of the Calder racing handle and slot machine revenue. OBS holds a limited intertrack wagering pari-mutuel permit pursuant to section 550.6308 that authorizes it to conduct intertrack horse racing at its Ocala facility. OBS also holds a non-wagering horse racing permit pursuant to section 550.505, and a thoroughbred horse sales license pursuant to chapter 535, Florida Statutes. OBS sells thoroughbred horses at its facility located in Ocala. OBS is the only licensed Florida-based thoroughbred auction sales company in Florida, and it conducts five thoroughbred horse auctions annually. OBS has no pari-mutuel permits located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. On July 31, 2018, Calder filed a Petition for Declaratory Statement with the Division regarding whether it can discontinue the operation of its thoroughbred races and instead operate a full schedule of jai alai performances in order to maintain its eligibility to continue to conduct slot machine gaming. In its petition, Calder made clear its intention to discontinue live thoroughbred horse racing, stating: "Calder desires to discontinue live thoroughbred racing and to obtain a license to operate a full schedule of live jai alai games under its summer jai alai permit. Calder intends on conducting live jai alai games at the same physical location or piece of property where it currently conducts thoroughbred racing." On October 23, 2018, the Division issued its Final Order Granting Declaratory Statement, concluding that Calder may substitute jai alai games in lieu of live horse racing. In its Final Order, the Division also granted FTBOA’s and OBS’s motions to intervene, concluding that FTBOA met its burden of demonstrating associational standing, and that OBS demonstrated its standing pursuant to Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The Division’s Final Order was affirmed on appeal in Florida Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association, Inc. v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 283 So. 3d 843, 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Calder intends to replace its thoroughbred permit with its jai alai permit as the predicate for maintaining its slot machine gaming permit. An incentive for Calder to substitute its jai alai permit for its thoroughbred permit is that if it stops racing horses after December 2020, Calder will be under no obligation to share the millions of dollars in revenue it receives through its slot machines with FHBPA or FTBOA. FHBPA, FTBOA, and their members will be substantially affected if Calder is allowed to use a summer jai alai permit in place of thoroughbred racing to qualify for the continued operation of its slot machine facility. Millions of dollars that would otherwise be available to FHBPA, FTBOA, and their members through the payment of purses and awards from thoroughbred racing will be lost if Calder is permitted to substitute its underlying pari- mutuel activity from racing thoroughbreds to conducting jai alai games. FHBPA’s and FTBOA’s substantial injury is of a type or nature which this proceeding is designed to protect. Likewise, OBS will be substantially affected if Calder is allowed to use a summer jai alai permit in place of thoroughbred racing. The demand to breed and purchase racehorses, and the value of breeding and selling thoroughbred horses, will decrease significantly as a consequence of Calder discontinuing thoroughbred horse racing and replacing the races with summer jai alai games. In addition, as a guest track, OBS retains seven percent of the wagers placed at OBS on thoroughbred races in Florida. OBS intertrack wagering generally handles approximately $1,000,000 on thoroughbred races conducted at Calder and Tropical Park, which directly results in revenue to OBS. OBS’s substantial injury is of a type or nature which this proceeding is designed to protect. Calder’s Summer Jai Alai Permit Application and the Division’s Proper Calculation of "Play or Total Pool" Under Section 550.0745 On August 31, 2017, Calder submitted an application to the Division for the issuance of a new summer jai alai permit pursuant to section 550.0745(1). The parties stipulate that, at all times material hereto, Calder was a qualified applicant as to all statutory requirements, but for the dispute as to whether a summer jai alai permit was "made available" pursuant to the second sentence in section 550.0745(1). Section 550.0745(1) provides in pertinent part as follows: 550.0745 Conversion of pari-mutuel permit to summer jai alai permit.- The owner or operator of a pari-mutuel permit who is authorized by the division to conduct pari- mutuel pools on exhibition sports in any county having five or more such pari-mutuel permits and whose mutual play from the operation of such pari- mutuel pools for the 2 consecutive years next prior to filing an application under this section has had the smallest play or total pool within the county may apply to the division to convert its permit to a permit to conduct a summer jai alai fronton in such county during the summer season commencing on May 1 and ending on November 30 of each year on such dates as may be selected by such permittee for the same number of days and performances as are allowed and granted to winter jai alai frontons within such county. If a permittee who is eligible under this section to convert a permit declines to convert, a new permit is hereby made available in that permittee’s county to conduct summer jai alai games as provided by this section, notwithstanding mileage and permit ratification requirements. Accompanying Calder’s application was a cover letter stating that the application was for the summer jai alai permit associated with state fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. The determination of whether the Division properly granted Calder a new summer jai alai permit pursuant to section 550.0745(1) turns on whether a new summer jai alai permit was "made available" for issuance in Miami- Dade County associated with state fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. Whether a new summer jai alai permit was made available, in turn, centers on whether there was a single pari-mutuel permitholder with the "smallest play or total pool" within the county for the two consecutive fiscal years of 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. FHBPA, FTBOA, and OBS maintain that no new summer jai alai permit was made available for issuance in Miami-Dade County for state fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007, because there was no single Miami-Dade permitholder that had the "smallest play or total pool" in Miami-Dade County during those two consecutive fiscal years. The disagreement between the parties concerning the existence of an available permit with the "smallest play or total pool" in Miami-Dade for the fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 centers on their different methods of interpreting section 550.0745(1) and disagreement regarding the types of wagers the Division must use in its calculation of a permitholder’s "play or total pool" pursuant to section 550.0745(1). For purposes of this case, the various types of wagers are summarized as follows: Wagers placed at a permitholder’s facility into the pool conducted by the permitholder on its own live performance are called "live on-track wagers." In addition to wagers placed at a particular facility on its live races or games, bettors may place wagers on races or games occurring offsite through intertrack wagering, which allows bettors at a guest-permit facility in Florida to bet on a race or game transmitted from and performed live at another host- permit facility in Florida. The facility holding the live event is referred to as the "host" track, and the facility taking the wager on the event being held elsewhere is referred to as the "guest" track. Wagers placed at the facility of an out-of-state entity on a live event conducted by a Florida host-permitholder are called "simulcast export wagers." Wagers placed at the facility of a Florida permitholder on a live event occurring at an out-of-state facility are called "simulcast import wagers." Wagers placed at the facility of a Florida guest permitholder on a live event, conducted at an out-of-state facility that is being rebroadcast through a Florida host permitholder’s facility to the Florida guest-permitholder’s facility, are called "intertrack simulcast as a guest." The Florida facility rebroadcasting the out-of-state signal is the intertrack simulcast in-state host. The Division’s calculations of "smallest play or total pool" of permit holders in Miami-Dade County for the two consecutive fiscal years of 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 included the following three types of wagers, only: (1) live wagers; (2) intertrack wagers (a/k/a intertrack wagers as a host); and (3) simulcast export wagers. The Division did not include intertrack wagers as a guest, simulcast import wagers, simulcast intertrack as a guest wagers, or simulcast intertrack as a host wagers in its calculations. In the state fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007, five or more pari- mutuel permitholders were authorized and licensed by the Division to conduct pari-mutuel pools on exhibition sports in Miami-Dade County. None of them applied to convert their permits to summer jai alai permits. The Division initially determined that West Flagler had the "smallest play or total pool" of permit holders in Miami-Dade County for the state fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007; and, therefore, concluded that a summer jai alai permit was made available in Miami-Dade County. On February 9, 2018, based on the Division’s determination that Calder was a qualified applicant under chapter 550, and the rules promulgated thereto, and that a permit was available in Miami-Dade County, the Division approved Calder’s application and issued Calder a summer jai alai permit. On November 18, 2018, Calder received an operating license to conduct a full schedule of summer jai alai performances in May and June 2019. On December 9, 2018, the Division received an e-mail from FHBPA’s counsel regarding "Bet Miami," a greyhound dog racing permitholder located in Miami-Dade County, which was authorized to conduct pari-mutuel pools on exhibition sports in both Miami-Dade and Broward Counties in the state fiscal year 2005/2006, and in Miami-Dade County in the state fiscal year 2006/2007. In response to this e-mail, the Division reviewed its records, confirmed the dates that "Bet Miami" operated in Miami-Dade County in the state fiscal year 2005/2006, and calculated the amount that "Bet Miami" pooled in Miami-Dade County in this fiscal year. The Division also reviewed the operating licenses for each of the permitholders in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties and confirmed that "Bet Miami" operated in Miami-Dade County during the entire fiscal year of 2006/2007.1 The Division corrected its data to reflect that "Bet Miami," in fact, had the "smallest play or total pool" in Miami-Dade County for the fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. The Division now takes the position that "Bet Miami" had the "smallest play or total pool" in Miami-Dade County for the fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. "Bet Miami" declined to convert its greyhound dog racing permit to a summer jai alai permit. The "Bet Miami" permit was never converted nor was an application to convert the "Bet Miami" permit to a summer jai alai permit pursuant to section 550.0745 ever received by the Division. Calder built a jai alai fronton in Miami-Dade County and conducted its first jai alai meet in May and June 2019, pursuant to its operating license. On May 15, 2019, Calder received an operating license to conduct a full schedule of jai alai performances in August and September 2019. FHBPA, FTBOA, and OBS contend that the Division erred in failing to consider all the various types of wagers in its calculation of "smallest play or total pool." According to FHBPA, FTBOA, and OBS, had the Division considered all the various types of wagers, no permit would be available for the fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. 1 There is no dispute over the authenticity and accuracy of the financial information supplied by the Division’s annual reports or of the authenticity and accuracy of the "simulcast export" figures supplied by the Division. As set forth in the Recommended Order issued by the undersigned in DOAH Case No. 19-1617, the persuasive evidence presented at hearing established that the Division properly considered only live on-track wagers, intertrack wagers, and simulcast export wagers in its calculations of"smallest play or total pool" under section 550.0745(1). This is because pari-mutuel pools are only formed at the host permitholder’s track where the live race is conducted, pursuant to the annual license that authorizes that permitholder to conduct pari-mutuel pools in that county. Had the Division included the other types of wagers (i.e., intertrack wagers as a guest, simulcast import wagers, simulcast intertrack as a guest wagers, or simulcast intertrack as a host wagers) in its calculations, the handle for these various wager types would be counted twice--at the host and guest tracks. Double-counting the wagering handle would result in the Division substantially overstating the amount of handle received by permitholders.2 As set forth in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 19-1617, the Division properly found that "Bet Miami" had the "smallest play or total pool" based on its calculation of the permit holders’ in Miami-Dade County live wagers, intertrack wagers as a host, and simulcast export wagers for the two consecutive fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007.3 2 All wagering data is compiled by a totalizator system, such as AmTote, which calculates the overall amount of "handle" collected by each pari-mutuel facility for each transaction. The Division utilizes a sub-system called "Central Monitoring System" ("CMS"), which captures the totalizator wagering data and applies it to a racing monitoring system to calculate the overall handle from each pari-mutuel facility. The Division uses the CMS report to calculate the total amount of wagering handle pooled by a facility in state fiscal years, and together with a review of the pari-mutuel licenses, determines whether a summer jai alai permit was "made available" in that county for the purpose of section 550.0745(1). "'Handle' means the aggregate contributions to pari-mutuel pools." § 550.002(13), Fla. Stat. Handle is not equivalent to revenue or profitability, and a facility’s revenue has no impact on the calculation of a facility’s "play or total pool." 3 As discussed more fully in the Conclusions of Law below, the Division’s method of calculating the "smallest play or total pool" for purposes of section 550.0745(1) is consistent with the clear, unambiguous, and plain language of section 550.0745(1), and Florida appellate decisions.
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 Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a veterinarian licensed in the State of Florida. On October 8, 1990, Respondent received pari-mutuel wagering occupational license number 0364610-1046 from the Petitioner. Respondent held this pari-mutuel wagering occupational license at all times pertinent to this proceeding. Petitioner is the State agency responsible for the regulation of the horse racing industry in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent worked as a racetrack veterinarian at Pompano Harness Track (Pompano Track) in Pompano Beach, Florida. James Gabriel is a sixteen year veteran of the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Police Department. During the latter part of 1992, Officer Gabriel began an undercover investigation at Pompano Track as part of his duties with the Metropolitan Organized Crime Intelligence Unit. Officer Gabriel posed as a convicted felon who was the owner of the horse Yankee Roughneck. Horse owner Herman Berger registered Yankee Roughneck in his (Berger's) name since as a convicted felon, Officer Gabriel's undercover persona would not be allowed to register as the true owner. Mr. Berger was a target of Officer Gabriel's undercover investigation and did not know that Officer Gabriel was in fact a police officer. Officer Gabriel and Mr. Berger were in contact with one another on almost a daily basis between November 1992 and May 1993. Mr. Berger owned the horse You've Got The Time. Officer Gabriel's undercover investigation lasted approximately one year and was electronically monitored so that conversations in which Officer Gabriel was a part were tape recorded without the knowledge of the other participants in the conversation. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Yankee Roughneck and You've Got The Time were standard bred horses that raced at Pompano Track. On the morning of May 24, 1993, Officer Gabriel met with Mr. Berger and discussed having Respondent give Yankee Roughneck a substance to make him run faster. Mr. Berger referred to the substance to be given to Yankee Roughneck as being a "malt". A malt is also known as a "milkshake" and as an "ionic boost". Later that same day Officer Gabriel came into contact with Respondent when Respondent arrived at Pompano Track at the stable of Charlie Giamanco, the trainer of Yankee Roughneck. Respondent was at the stable to treat Yankee Roughneck for an injury that occurred when the rail of a jog cart broke and a splinter stabbed Yankee Roughneck in the shoulder. Officer Gabriel was in the presence of Mr. Berger and Mr. Giamanco when Respondent arrived at the stable. Respondent did not know Officer Gabriel, but he knew that Officer Gabriel was a colleague of Mr. Berger. Officer Gabriel engaged in a conversation with Respondent which was electronically monitored by equipment in good working order. The following conversation among Respondent (P.P.), Officer Gabriel (J.G.), Mr. Berger (H.B.), and Mr. Giamanco (C.G.) was taped. This conversation pertains to racing Yankee Roughneck and ways to enhance the horse's performance. P.P.: If the horse the ah, had he been milkshaked before did he race well when he was milkshaked? Not every horse races well when they get bagged. (Unintelligible.) H.B.: He came, he raced but not the way he supposed (sic) to. P.P.: I'll speak with Charlie tomorrow morning. Well the only thing to do is to try it one start. H.B.: Yes. P.P.: Not (sic) that expensive to do. (Unintelligible.) H.B.: Exactly. P.P.: If the horse improves. H.B.: Alright (sic). J.G.: How long does it take before we do something like that for (unintelligible). P.P.: Two and a half hours before the race. Thereafter, Respondent made the following statement: P.P.: OK, the same thing that we used to, when we used to pass the tube, you know, but now, we can't pass the tube. What we're doing is giving it orally. Mix the stuff up put it in their dose syringe. Put it on the back of their tongue a hundred and eighty c.c. and (unintelligible) even in the states where they have the black box, it won't test positive, pass the stomach tube and dump that whole big load in him shows on the box. Subsequently in the conversation, the following dialogue occurred: H.B.: And we going (sic) to do for Yankee Roughneck (unintelligible). J.G.: Well, what day do we want to do that? When we find out when he's, I think he's in Thursday. P.P.: Okay. H.B.: We'll find out today. P.P.: (Unintelligible) check with Charlie and the day he gets in. H.B.: Yeah. The milkshake referred to by Respondent and by the other participants in this conversation is a liquid concoction that includes a mixture of sodium bicarbonate. As described by Respondent, the mixture would thereafter be given the horse by dose syringe. This mixture is given to a racehorse in the hopes of enhancing the horse's performance during the race. In the amounts discussed by Respondent, sodium bicarbonate meets the definition of a "medicine" within the meaning of Section 550.235(2), and Section 550.2415(1)(a) and (8), Florida Statutes. The evidence established that sodium bicarbonate raises the ph level in the horse beyond the normal physiological range and can be expected to delay muscle fatigue in a horse by buffering the buildup of lactic acid in the muscle during periods of exercise. The horse can be expected to run faster because the onset of fatigue will be delayed. An improvement of one to two seconds can be expected in the horse's racing time, which equates to approximately five lengths in a harness race. Sodium bicarbonate is also administered to racehorses to prevent a condition formally known as exertional rhabdomyolisis and informally referred to as "tying up". The onetime administration of sodium bicarbonate shortly before race time under the facts of this case was to enhance the horse's performance and not to prevent tying up. If the prevention of tying up had been the goal, small amounts of sodium bicarbonate would had been added to the horse's food over an extended period of time. The Respondent's reference to the "black box" in the taped conversation is to a device employed by many race tracks to test whether a horse has been "milkshaked" or otherwise improperly medicated. Pompano Track did not use a blackbox. The Respondent's reference to "tubing" a horse is a prohibited practice whereby a stomach tube is passed through the horse's mouth and into the stomach. The "milkshake" is thereby pumped directly into the horse's stomach. The tubing of a race horses is a practice prohibited by rule adopted by Petitioner. The tubing rule was adopted by Petitioner in an effort to stop the practice of tubing horses by grooms or trainers who have inadequate training and to prevent the practice of milkshaking horses. Typically, more of the concoction would be administered by tubing than by using the dose syringe. The evidence established that the amount of sodium bicarbonate discussed by Respondent is sufficient to enhance the horse's performance. Administering the "milkshake" by syringe, as Respondent said he would do, would not violate Petitioner's rule against tubing a horse. Administering the "milkshake" by syringe, as Respondent said he would do, would constitute the administration of a medication within twenty-four hours of a race in violation of Section 550.2415(8), Florida Statutes. The Thursday referred to in the conversation is May 27, 1993, the day that Yankee Roughneck was next scheduled to race. On May 27, 1993, Dr. Michael Carinda, a veterinarian who was in practice with Respondent, brought a "milkshake" to Yankee Roughneck's stable. A groom thereafter administered the milkshake to Yankee Roughneck in the manner described by Respondent. Yankee Roughneck placed third in his race, but he ran slightly slower than he had in his previous race. The evidence did not establish that Respondent agreed to "milkshake" the horse You've Got The Time within twenty-four hours of a race.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Final Order find Respondent not guilty of the offenses alleged in Counts One, Four, Five, and Six of the Amended Administrative Complaint. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Final Order find Respondent guilty of the offenses alleged in Counts Two and Three, suspend Respondent's occupational license for a period of one year, and assess against Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1994, 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 12th day of December 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5993 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 26, and 30 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 36 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 40 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected in part as being argument that is subordinate to the findings made. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, and 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5 and 8 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The composition of the concoction referred to as a "milkshake" was described in the Amended Administrative Complaint and was established at the formal hearing. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8, 12, and 13 are rejected as being argument. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9 and 10 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached or as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 14 and 16 are rejected as being argument that is contrary to the conclusions reached or to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Grumberg, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Karen C. Amlong, Esquire William Amlong, Esquire Amlong and Amlong 500 Northeast 4th Street, 2nd Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Dr. Paul R. Plante 1450 Southwest Third Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 William E. Tabor, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Frank D. Inserra, violated Section 550.105(7), Florida Statutes (2007), as alleged in Count I of an Amended Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, on October 15, 2007, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his Florida pari-mutuel wagering occupational license.
Findings Of Fact 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 Chapter 550, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Frank D. Inserra, is, and was at the times material to this matter, the holder of a pari-mutuel occupational license, number 115731-1021, issued by the Division. On or about June 14, 2005, a Complaint was filed by Kenneth Posco against Mr. Inserra in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Posco Complaint”). In relevant part, the Posco Complaint alleged the following: This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. At all times material hereto, Posco was and is an individual residing in Fitchburg, Massachusetts. At all times material hereto, Inserra was and is an individual residing in Broward County and is otherwise sui juris. . . . . On or about November 11, 2004, after a negotiated agreement for the purchase of certain thoroughbred racehorses was not honored by Inserra, Posco and Inserra entered into and [sic] agreement for the repayment of the funds previously forwarded by Posco to Inserra for such purchase (the ”Contract”). . . . Pursuant to the Contract, Inserra was to make certain periodic payments, in order to make full payment of the agreed upon sum of $40,186.00. Inserra has failed to make any of the periodic or final payments described in the Contract. . . . . The Contract referred to in the Posco Complaint is a settlement agreement entered into between Mr. Inserra and Mr. Posco to resolve Mr. Inserra’s failure to abide by the terms of an oral contract whereby Mr. Inserra agreed to sell four thoroughbred horses to Mr. Posco which were to be used by Mr. Posco in pari-mutuel racing. The Contract was entered into by Mr. Inserra and Mr. Posco on or about November 11, 2004. Pursuant to the Contract referred to in the Posco Complaint Mr. Inserra acknowledged, in part, the following: WHEREAS, Inserra, Seller, and Posco, as Purchaser, entered into an oral agreement for the purchase of certain horses (hereinafter “Agreement”) in which Inserra agreed to furnish four (4) total horses together with all required paperwork, in exchange for $36,750.00, prepaid by Posco; and WHEREAS, a dispute has arisen concerning the performance of Inserra under the Agreement; and WHEREAS, Inserra produced Stormin Hillbilly without the required papers (Jockey Club Registration) to allow Posco to race the horse, as anticipated by the Agreement, thus Posco has paid $3,436.00 for training fees, which he now seeks to be reimbursed as the horse has never been able to race; and WHEREAS, Inserra failed to produce any of the remaining three horses; and WHEREAS, Inserra and Posco are desirous of resolving all disputes and controversies regarding the proposed sale. NOW, THEREFORE inconsideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and other valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree as follows: Inserra shall, within [30] days, pay to Posco $16,000.00. Inserra will then, within [90] days pay to Posco $10,250.00. Inserra will then, within [120] days pay to Posco $13,936.00. . . . . When Mr. Inserra failed to live up to the terms of the settlement agreement, Mr. Posco filed the Posco Complaint. On or about January 6, 2006, Mr. Posco filed Plaintiff, Keneth [sic] Posco’s Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 8, 2006, the Motion was granted and a Judgment was entered in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, against Mr. Inserra (hereinafter referred to as the “Judgment”). Mr. Inserra was ordered to pay Kenneth Posco $42,075.78. The Judgment was issued as a direct consequence of Mr. Inserra’s breach of the contract he entered into with Mr. Posco for the sale and purchase of thoroughbred racehorses in Florida, a contract which related directly to the sport of racing in pari-mutuel facilities in Florida. On June 18, 2007, the Judges/Stewards at Calder Race Course issued the following written ruling (Calder Order) against Mr. Inserra as a result of the Judgment: Judgment issued by the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, on February 8th, 2006, orders Frank D. Inserra to Pay [sic] Kenneth Posco $42,075.78 plus attorney fees. This judgment has not been satisfied. Owner Frank D. Inserra, having been afforded a formal hearing before the Board of Stewards at Calder Race Course on Monday, June 18th, 2007, is suspended sixty days or until such time as the judgment is satisfied or vacated by the court. Suspension will commence on Thursday, June 21, and continue through and including Monday, August 20th, 2007. Denied access, use, and privileges of all grounds under the jurisdiction of the Florida Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering requiring a license for admission during the term of suspension. The Calder Order was affirmed in a Final Order of the Division entered on or about August 24, 2007. As of the date of the final hearing of this matter, the obligation imposed on Mr. Inserra by the Judgment, which arose out of a transaction relating directly to the sport of racing being conducted at pari-mutuel facilities within Florida, remained unpaid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering: Dismissing Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint; Finding that Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Suspending Mr. Inserra’s pari-mutuel wagering occupational license for a period of not less than ten days and continuing until Mr. Inserra provides satisfactory proof that he has satisfied his outstanding financial obligation to Kenneth Posco as ordered in the Judgment. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 9th day of April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. “Chip” Collette Assistant General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Frank D. Inserra 2649 Sable Palm Drive Miramar, Florida 33023 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 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues for disposition in this case are whether Hamilton Downs violated section 550.01215(3), Florida Statutes (2013), by failing to operate all performances specified on its license on the date and time specified, and whether the Division should be estopped from prosecuting Hamilton Downs.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering activities in Florida pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Hamilton Downs held a Quarter Horse Racing pari- mutuel permit issued by the Division, number 0000547-1000, that authorized Hamilton Downs to conduct pari-mutuel wagering on quarter horse races pursuant to chapter 550. On or about March 15, 2013, the Division issued a Permitholder Annual License & Operating Day License (the “operating license”), number 0000547-1001, to Hamilton Downs, which authorized Hamilton Downs to perform 20 regular quarter horse performances from June 18 through 22, 2014, at a rate of four performances a day. Each performance consisted of eight individual races. Thus, the operating license authorized a total of 160 races. In 2012 and 2013, Hamilton Downs conducted licensed quarter horse barrel match races at its facility. When the 2014 operating license was issued, Hamilton Downs intended to conduct a meet consisting of barrel match races. As a result of litigation that culminated several months before the commencement of the Hamilton Downs 2014 racing meet, the Division advised Hamilton Downs that it would not be able to conduct barrel match racing under its quarter horse racing operating permit. However, Hamilton Downs was permitted to conduct “flag-drop” racing during that period of time. From June 18 through 22, 2014, Hamilton Downs conducted the quarter horse “flag drop” racing meet pursuant to its operating license. Flag drop racing as performed at Hamilton Downs involved two horses racing2/ simultaneously on a crude dirt “track” approximately 110 yards in length. The track was straight for about 100 yards, with a pronounced rightward turn to the finish line, and was haphazardly lined with white stakes. The race was started by a person who waved a red cloth tied to a stick whenever it appeared that both horses were in the general vicinity of what the starter perceived to be the “starting line.” There was no starting box or gate. The track was in the middle of an open field. There was no grandstand, though there was a covered viewing area on “stilts” from which the state steward and track stewards could observe the races. The track had one betting window and tote machine in an on-site shed. The only window in the shed was, mercifully, occupied by a window-unit air conditioner. As stated by Mr. Haskell, “nothing about Hamilton Downs is real in terms of racetrack standards.” For several years prior to the 2014 meet, Hamilton Downs shared horses and riders with the racetrack in Gretna, Florida, and the North Florida Horsemen’s Association. Several weeks prior to the commencement of the Hamilton Downs 2014 meet, a schism developed between the groups. As a result, the Gretna racetrack and North Florida Horsemen’s Association prohibited its horses and riders from competing in Hamilton Downs meets. That action stripped Hamilton Downs of most of the horses and riders that it was relying upon to perform in its meet. Mr. Richards had the permitted dates, and was required to race on those dates to remain in compliance. He was able to make arrangements for horses “way down on the eligible list.” They were, for the most part, older horses of lesser quality. Nonetheless, Hamilton Downs did its best to fulfill its permitted slate of races. The pool from which the races were set included 19 horses and six riders. The horses and riders were supplied to Hamilton Downs by the Hamilton Downs Quarter Horse Association (HDQHA). The HDQHA believed it could provide enough horses to handle the meet. The horses, and their owners, were: Precious N Fritz -- Stardust Ranch, LLC Skippers Gold Tupelo -- Stardust Ranch, LLC Business Official -- Stardust Ranch, LLC Cutter With A Twist -- Stardust Ranch, LLC Dun It Precious Gal -- Stardust Ranch, LLC Heavens Trick -- Stardust Ranch, LLC Dancer Blue Ghost -- Amie Peacock Starpion N Skip -- Amie Peacock Twist N to Stardust -- Amie Peacock Docs Lil Jose -- Amie Peacock Dandees Bay Apache -- Amie Peacock Kings Hollywood Moon -- Amie Peacock Lassies Last Chance -- Elaine Tyre Sugars Daisy Bar -- Elaine Tyre Touch of Leaguer -- Elaine Tyre Joys Winning Touch -- Elaine Tyre Jazz Potential -- Emma McGee Sonney Dees Diamond -- Emma McGee Royal King Princess -- Richard McCoy The riders were: Amie Peacock Elaine Tyre Emma McGee Richard McCoy Nicholas McCoy Christine Bradley Each of the owners was licensed by the Division. The riders were mainly local riders. The breeds of the horses complied with state law regarding horses allowed to run in quarter horse races.3/ The horses had their ownership records and identifying tattoos, and their current Coggins forms, which are required to substantiate that they have tested negative for diseases. Mr. Stallings testified that there were no problems regarding the ages of the horses since “that is not something DBPR worries about.” The animal detention areas checked out and were secure. Mr. Taylor inspected the track and found no violations of track setup under the current rules. The horses and riders had access to the track for the three days prior to the meet for purposes of training and acclimating the horses to the track. The races at Hamilton Downs during June 2014 were conducted in the presence of a state steward. The races must be seen to be believed. The 14 events for which video evidence was received show a series of races involving -- as a rule -- tired, reluctant, skittish, or disinterested horses moving at a slow pace down the dust-choked path. There was no marked starting line or finish line. The horses were often yards apart when the red rag-on-a-stick was waved. With one exception (performance 2, race 7), the gait of the “racing” horses ranged between a slow walk and a canter. Horses often simply stood at the starting line before slowly plodding down the track. In one instance, a horse actually backed up, until a bystander took it by the lead, thereafter giving the horse a congratulatory slap on the rump when it began to move in a forward direction. Mr. Haskell noted races in which riders fell off of their horses, or in which a horse left the course. He described numerous races, aptly, as non- competitive because one or both of the entrants walked, including one race (day 3, card 3, race 5) in which the racing steed took 1 minute and 45 seconds to cover the 110-yard course. The overall quality of the videotaped races was about what one would expect of an entry-level campers’ horse show held at the conclusion of a two-week YMCA summer camp. The interest in the series of races by the betting public was commensurate with the quality of the races. Wagers were of the $2.00 variety. Over the course of the 160-race meet, a total of 10 bets were placed, with two of those reportedly placed by a representative of a competing facility in an effort to substantiate wrongdoing on the part of Hamilton Downs. Given the competitive level of the races, a $20 handle seems about right. Mr. Haskell testified that the same horses just kept racing over and over. However, his steward’s report noted that he “refer[ed] to the ‘rule book’ numerous times in the five days pertaining to ages of horses, number of races a horse may race in a limited time, etc., but the rules just didn’t exist.” Mr. Taylor expressed similar concerns with the failure of the horses to “break” at the start of the races, their slow pace, and other issues. He did not make a point of them or bring them to the attention of Hamilton Downs because there was “no rule violation.” Despite the bemused, occasionally embarrassed expressions on the faces of the riders as their horses ambled slowly down the track, the witnesses, including Mr. Haskell and Mr. Taylor, uniformly testified that the riders tried to make sure the races were competitive. Thus, the poor quality of the races cannot be attributed to a lack of effort on their part. “Coupled entries” are those in which horses owned by the same owner compete against one another in the same race. On the second race of the meet, it was discovered that the two horses scheduled to race were both owned by Amie Peacock. Although the racing program had been distributed to all race officials involved, including the state steward, no one noticed the coupled entry. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the coupled entry was discovered immediately before the start of the race. The racing secretary attempted to alert the starter, but was unsuccessful. Therefore, the race was run.4/ When the coupled entry was discovered, and before the race was made official, a post-race meeting of roughly 30 minutes was held to determine how to proceed. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that the meeting participants included, among others, the state steward, the track stewards, the state investigative specialist, the racing secretary, and the track owner. During the meeting, Mr. Richards offered that the race could be “re-run,” an option that was rejected since there is no authority for re-running a race. Mr. Richards also proposed calling a “no-contest,” which would allow Hamilton Downs to request an additional race from the Division. An additional race is not a re-run of the disputed race, but is a replacement race to be conducted at a different time during the meet. Mr. Richards was familiar with the procedure for requesting an additional replacement race, and was fully prepared to do so. It is not uncommon for such requests to be made in all types of pari-mutuel activities. Mr. Haskell acknowledged the possibility of declaring a no-contest for the coupled entry, and agreed that if he had declared a no-contest, Hamilton Downs could have requested a “make-up date” to be approved by the Division. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Haskell did not declare a no-contest. Rather, he decided to make the race “official.” As a result, Hamilton Downs could not request a make-up race. Mr. Taylor discussed the incident with management of Hamilton Downs, and promised to keep an eye out to make sure a coupled entry did not recur. After the second race of the meet, there were no further instances of coupled entries. Over the course of the meet, Mr. Haskell declared all of the 160 races, including the coupled entry race, to be official, whereupon the winner of the race was determined and results were entered by an Amtote employee into the computer and transmitted to the “hub.” At that point, wagers (if any) were paid out, and the tote was allowed to roll over to the next race. During the June 2014 races at Hamilton Downs, a purse, stake, or reward was offered for the owner of each horse to cross the finish line first. Mr. Richards was frank in his admission that the 2014 race season was important because it allowed Hamilton Downs to qualify for a cardroom license and, if ultimately allowed, slot machines. However, the reason for conducting the meet is of no consequence to the outcome of this proceeding. Hamilton Downs has, subsequent to the 2014 meet, conducted flag drop races at its facility pursuant to operating permits issued by the Division. Within the past five years, the Division has never filed an administrative complaint, suspended a pari-mutuel permitholder, or fined a pari-mutuel permitholder due to a failure to conduct a race at any particular speed. Within the past five years, the Division has never suspended a pari-mutuel permitholder for a violation of section 550.01215 that pertained to a race or races that were made official by a state steward.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 2016.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Philip J. Aleong has been licensed as a veterinarian in the State of Florida, having been issued license number VM 6466. Respondent has performed an average of 200 pre-purchase examinations of horses per year for the last ten years. In April 2003, John A. Damico, through his trainer Buddy Edwards, requested Respondent to perform a pre-purchase examination of a 2-year-old thoroughbred race horse identified with OBS Hip #512 at the Ocala Breeders Sale. Respondent did so. After the pre-purchase examination was performed, Damico purchased the race horse identified as OBS Hip #512 and named the horse "C. Brooke Run." The pre-purchase examination performed by Respondent consisted of an endoscopic evaluation, an evaluation of the horse jogging, and an examination of radiographs taken by Respondent of C. Brooke Run. As a horse in a pre-purchase examination has a limited veterinarian/patient relationship, limited records are kept by the examining veterinarian. For the purpose of a pre-purchase examination, sufficient medical records could consist of the horse's Hip number, the sale date of the horse, and a few words regarding the endoscopic examination of the horse, the short jogging of the horse, and the results of the radiographs taken of the horse. It is sufficient, therefore, if appropriate that the medical records simply note that the endoscopic examination and the jogging were normal and the radiographs showed no abnormalities. The average time spent reviewing radiographs taken at a pre-purchase examination is less than 30 seconds per film. During his pre-purchase examination of C. Brooke Run, Respondent took the necessary number of radiographs to perform a proper examination, including four radiographs of C. Brooke Run's left knee. During his pre-purchase examination of C. Brooke Run, Respondent contemporaneously created a medical record by noting in a notebook the results of the pre-purchase examination. After examining the radiographs taken, observing the horse jog, and performing an endoscopic examination of C. Brooke Run, Respondent determined that the horse had no medical problems or injuries. Between April 2003, when the pre-purchase examination was performed, and September 10, 2003, Damico, the horse's owner, raced the horse on July 20, August 22, and August 29. In addition to racing the horse three times, the horse's trainer worked out the horse at least six times. The trainer would not have worked out the horse or allowed it to race if he believed the horse had an injury. On September 10, 2003, C. Brooke Run suffered a "breakdown" that was determined to be caused by fractures in the horse's left knee. After the breakdown, Damico alleged that Respondent should have detected the fractures in the horse's left knee five months earlier during the pre-purchase examination performed by Respondent and that, since Respondent did not, Damico was damaged. Without admitting any liability or negligence in performing the April 2003 pre-purchase examination of C. Brooke Run, Respondent, through his insurance carrier, paid Damico in full for all alleged damages incurred by Damico as a result of C. Brooke Run "breaking down." Petitioner's expert witness opined that any injury sustained by C. Brooke Run may very well have been sustained after the pre-purchase examination performed by Respondent and that the radiographs taken of C. Brooke Run might or might not have revealed any medical problems or injuries. Respondent cannot locate his notebook where he created his medical record on C. Brooke Run at the time of the pre- purchase examination. Further, by February 10, 2005, he was only able to produce an invoice for services rendered for the radiographs of the horse's knees, hocks, and front ankles, and for the endoscopic examination he performed. After the horse broke down, Damico requested that Respondent provide him with the radiographs Respondent took on C. Brooke Run. Respondent's secretary pulled out from the files the original radiographs and sent them to Damico, who wrote on the envelope that he received 22 radiographs. After showing those original radiographs to his local veterinarian, Damico forwarded them to the University of Florida. After the envelope was returned to Damico from there, he then sent those originals to Respondent's insurance company, assumedly as part of his claim. No evidence was presented as to where the radiographs traveled from there. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, the envelope still contained 22 radiographs. However, two of them were for a different horse than C. Brooke Run, and one of them was too dark to read.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations in Count One, guilty of the allegations in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint, issuing a reprimand, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 to be paid by a date certain. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 23rd day of January, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Bradford J. Beilly, Esquire Bradford J. Beilly, P.A. 1144 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Drew F. Winters, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Juanita Chastain, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
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.
