The Issue Whether Respondents have violated the provisions of section 550.2415(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Division of Pari-Mutual Wagering is the state agency charged with the regulation of pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to section 20.165 and chapter 550, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaints, Respondent Richard Alves held a pari- mutuel wagering greyhound trainer license, number 1053205-1021, issued by Petitioner. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaints, Respondent Casey Alves was also licensed as a greyhound trainer by Petitioner, having been issued license number 2015868-1021. At all times material hereto, Daytona Beach Kennel Club (DBKC) has been a licensed Florida pari-mutuel facility authorized to conduct pari-mutuel wagering. The Respondents trained greyhounds that were entered to race at DBKC. Cocaine is a local anesthetic and a Class One drug under the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, as promulgated by the Association of Racing Commissioners, Inc. It is a prohibited medication pursuant to section 550.2415(10(a). At all times material hereto, Respondent Richard Alves was the trainer of record for greyhounds named "Flying Car," "Goldie's Trey," and "Iruska Direct." At all times material hereto, Respondent Casey Alves was the trainer of record for greyhounds named "Kelsos Jalopy," "Wild Mia," "Mani Appeal," and "Fuzzy's Big Shot." Flying Car On April 27, 2010, Flying Car was entered in the third race at DBKC. Flying Car finished sixth in the third race that day. Flying Car was subject to pre-race testing, and prior to the start of the race, urine sample 610687 was collected from Flying Car. The urine sample was processed in accordance with established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. Richard Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because according to John Decker, DBPR Investigations Supervisor, trainers are not permitted to be on the track when greyhounds are there for the race. Trainers are required to drop the animals off at the track approximately one and a half hours prior to the racing schedule and leave them there until after the dog's race is over. Depending on when the dog races, the trainer has no contact with the racing animal from two to approximately five hours. Richard Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Flying Car, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample number 610687 and found that it contained Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. Goldie's Trey Respondent Richard Alves was the trainer of record for racing greyhound Goldie's Trey on August 5, 2010. On August 5, 2010, Goldie's Trey was entered in the tenth race at DBKC. Goldie's Trey finished sixth in the tenth race. Goldie's Trey was subject to pre-race testing, and prior to the start of the race, urine sample 603139 was collected from Goldie's Trey. The urine sample was processed in accordance with established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. Richard Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because trainers of greyhounds are not permitted to be on the track at that time. Richard Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Goldie's Trey, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample 60319 and found that it contained cocaine, plus Benzoylecgonine and Ecgonine Methyl Ester, metabolites of Cocaine. Iruska Direct Respondent Richard Alves was the trainer of record for the greyhound, Iruska Direct. On November 26, 2010, Iruska Direct was entered in the 15th race at DBKC. Iruska Direct finished sixth in the 15th race. Iruska Direct was subject to pre-race testing, and prior to the start of the race, urine sample 662039 was collected from Iruska Direct and processed in accordance with established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. Richard Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because trainers for greyhounds are not permitted to be on the track when the animals are there for the race. Richard Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Iruska Direct, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample number 662039 and found that it contained Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. Kelsos Jalopy Respondent Casey Alves was the trainer of record for the racing greyhound Kelsos Jalopy. On November 10, 2010, Kelsos Jalopy was entered in the seventh race at DBCK. The dog finished second in the seventh race. Kelsos Jalopy was subject to pre-race testing, and prior to the start of the race, urine sample 661859 was collected from Kelsos Jalopy and processed in accordance with the established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. Casey Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because trainers for greyhounds are not permitted to be on the track when the animals are there for the race. Casey Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Kelsos Jalopy, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample number 661859 and found that it contained Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. Mani Appeal Respondent Casey Alves was the trainer of record for the racing greyhound Mani Appeal on November 6, 2010. On November 6, 2010, Mani Appeal was entered in the second race at DBKC. Mani Appeal finished fourth. Mani Appeal was subject to pre-race testing, and prior to the start of the race, urine sample 661795 was collected from Mani Appeal and processed in accordance with established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. Casey Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because greyhounds' trainers are not permitted to be on the track at that time. Casey Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Mani Appeal, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample number 661795 and found that it contained cocaine, and Benzoylecgonine and Ecgonine Methyl Ester, metabolites for cocaine. Wild Mia Respondent Casey Alves was the trainer of record for the racing greyhound Wild Mia on November 5, 2010. On that day, Wild Mia was entered in the sixth race at DBKC. Wild Mia finished second in the sixth race. Prior to the start of the race, urine sample 661786 was collected from Wild Mia as part of pre-race testing, and processed in accordance with established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. Casey Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because greyhounds' trainers are not permitted to be on the track at that time. Casey Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Wild Mia, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample number 661786 and found that it contained cocaine, and Benzoylecgonine and Ecgonine Methyl Ester, metabolites for cocaine. Fuzzy's Big Shot Respondent Casey Alves was the trainer of record for the racing greyhound Fuzzy's Big Shot on November 17, 2010. On that day, Fuzzy's Big Shot was entered in the fifth race at DBKC and finished first. Fuzzy's Big Shot was subject to pre-race testing. Prior to the start of the race, urine sample 661943 was collected from Fuzzy's Big Shot in accordance with established procedures and forwarded to the lab for analysis. As was the case with the other racing greyhounds, Casey Alves was not present in the testing enclosure when the urine sample was taken, because greyhound trainers are not permitted to be on the track at that time. Casey Alves did not sign the sample collection form for Fuzzy's Big Shot, because he was not present when the collection was taken. The University of Florida Racing Laboratory tested urine sample 661943 and found that it contained Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. Respondents steadfastly deny giving cocaine to any of the animals discussed above. Both Casey and Richard Alves' kennels were searched in November of 2010. No drugs or illegal substances were found in the kennels. John Dekker, Investigations Supervisor for the Department for the Department, testified that the procedures were different for pre-race and post-race testing.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering enter a final order finding that Respondent Casey Alves violated section 550.2415(1)(a); impose an administrative fine of $2,000; and suspend his occupational license for a period of one year, retroactive to January 31, 2011. It is further recommended that the Department enter a final order finding that Richard Alves violated section 550.2415(1)(a); impose an administrative fine of $1,500 and suspend his occupational license for one year, retroactive to January 31, 2011. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: David Perry, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 40 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Mitchell G. Wrenn, Esquire 958 Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Milton Champion, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 The issue in this case is whether Respondent, as the trainer of record for a greyhound, Tony's Maradona, that finished first place in the thirteenth race on November 6, 2001, is legally responsible for the prohibited substance found in the greyhound's urine sample taken immediately after the race, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division), created by Subsection 20.165(2)(f), Florida Statutes, is the agency responsible for regulation of the pari-mutuel wagering industry pursuant to Section 550.0251, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, Respondent, Sardar Ahmed, was the holder of a pari-mutuel license issued by the Division. The Kennel Club is a permit holder authorized to conduct greyhound racing and pari-mutuel wagering in the State of Florida. On November 6, 2001, Respondent was the trainer of record for a greyhound, Tony's Maradona, having registered with the Kennel Club Racing Secretary and having been listed in the November 6, 2001, racing program. On November 6, 2001, greyhound Tony's Maradona finished as first (place) winner in the thirteenth race of the evening at the Kennel Club. Immediately after each race the greyhounds who finish in the win, place and show positions are taken to the "cooling off" area where urine samples are taken by the Kennel Club's veterinarian assistant and urine sample collector. On November 6, 2001, Brandy Glaspey, veterinarian assistant, collected the urine sample of greyhound, Tony's Maradona, and assigned, for identification purposes, number 738612 to Tony's Maradona's urine sample. Urine sample number 738612 was shipped to the University of Florida Racing Laboratory, Gainesville, Florida, where under the supervision of Dr. Ian R. Tebbett, Ph.D., professor and director of the racing laboratory at the University of Florida, and qualified as an expert in forensic toxicology, it tested positive for illegal substance, cocaine. Respondent testified that he did not administer the drug cocaine to the greyhound, Tony's Maradona; he had never been cited for any prior drug violation while holding a Florida occupational license; and he was not the trainer of Tony's Maradona, but was the owner of the greyhound. While this testimony was not rebutted or challenged by Petitioner and it is considered by the undersigned as true, its evidentiary value regarding the allegations in the complaint is nil. Respondent's defense to the Administrative Complaint (Election of Rights) alleging a possible breach of the "chain of custody" (from the end of the race, to bringing the dogs to the ginny pit, for sample collection, for sample labeling, sample examination and sample results) due to a lack of security was not supported by material evidence of record.
The Issue The Petitioner has accused the Respondent, Vaz Rolando Street, with a violation of Rule 7E-1.06(11)(a), Florida Administrative Code which reads: a) The ruining 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 punish- ment 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 he 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 Street is accused under facts that allege that on November 15, 1978, the horse, Turn To Chance, trained by the Respondent, did race in the sixth race at Tropical Park, Inc., finishing in the first position. Subsequent to the race, and on the same date, a urine specimen was taken from the horse, Turn To Chance, and assigned sample number S90559A and the specimen was allegedly analyzed by the Petitioner's laboratory. It is further alleged that on February 13, 1979, the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering laboratory reported the results of the test. That report showed that the urine sample contained Despropionyl 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 Vaz Rolando Street. At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, Vaz Rolando Street was the holder of license No. K-2282 issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent, Vaz Rolando Street, to operate as a horse trainer (authorized agent) 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 agent 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 the body are Rules 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. The facts in this case show that the Respondent, Vaz Rolando Street, was operating in his capacity as horse trainer, on November 15, 1978, at Tropical Park, Inc., located in the State of Florida. On that date, a horse for which he was the trainer, namely, Turn To Chance, ran in the sixth race and finished in first place. The post time for that race was 3:21 p.m. and subsequent to the race, the horse was taken to the detention barn at 3:38 p.m. for purposes of obtaining a urine sample. This sample was assigned specimen number S09559A. Subsequently, the sample was subjected to a series of analytical tests and the tests revealed that the urine sample contained Despropionyl Fentanyl, which is classified as a derivative of Fentanyl, a narcotic. The narcotic, Fentanyl, metabolizes to become the substance, Despropionyl Fentanyl, a central nervous system stimulant in horses. The trade name of Fentanyl is Sublimaze. The circumstances of the race event and the subsequent testing, show that the horse, Turn To Chance, was running under the influence of Despropionyl Fentanyl when he raced in the sixth race at Tropical Park, Inc., on November 15, 1978, and finished in first position. During the course of the hearing, no testimony was given concerning the Respondent, knowledge of the fact that his horse, Turn to Chance, was competing while under the influence of Despropionyl Fentanyl.
Recommendation It is recommended that Respondent, Vaz Rolando Street, have his license, No. K-2282, suspended for a period of one (1) year in view of the violations established through this Notice to Show Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 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, Richman and Greer, P.A. One Biscayne Tower, 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 David M. Maloney, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Vaz Rolando Street 261 Hibiscus Drive Apartment No. 6 Miami Springs, Florida 33166
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated section 550.2415(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held a pari-mutuel wagering thoroughbred trainer license, number 260970-1021, issued by the Division in 2001. On August 29, 2008, and at all times material hereto, Respondent was the trainer of record for "Cardiac Output," a thoroughbred racehorse. On August 29, 2008, Cardiac Output was entered, and finished second, in the fifth race at Calder Race Course. Approximately thirty minutes after the conclusion of the race, and in accordance with established procedures, a Division employee collected urine and blood samples from Cardiac Output. The blood and urine samples were assigned numbers 421716B and 421716U, respectively. Cardiac Output's race day specimens were analyzed by the University of Florida Racing Laboratory (the lab), which is retained by the Division to test urine and blood samples from animals racing at pari-mutuel facilities in Florida. The Lab, following applicable procedures, found that the blood and urine specimens contained caffeine, which acts as a central nervous system stimulant and is categorized as a Class Two drug pursuant to the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances.1 In addition, the Lab detected oxilofrine, a cardiac stimulant, in the urine sample. Although oxilofrine is a non-classified drug, it has the potential to cause injury to racehorses, particularly when administered in combination with caffeine. Subsequently, pursuant to section 550.2415(5)(a), the Division split Cardiac Output's race day specimens into primary samples and secondary ("split") samples. The split samples were then forwarded to the Louisiana State University (LSU) School of Veterinary Medicine for confirmatory testing. On July 15, 2009, LSU submitted a report confirming the presence of caffeine and oxilofrine. During the final hearing, Respondent testified that he did not knowingly administer any prohibited substances to Cardiac Output. The undersigned finds Respondent's testimony to be credible. Nevertheless, the "absolute insurer rule," which is described in detail below, requires the undersigned to find as a matter of ultimate fact that Respondent violated section 550.2415(1)(a).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 550.2415(1)(a), as described in this Recommended Order; suspending Respondent's license for a period of 30 days from the date of the final order; and imposing a fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 11th day of January, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent licensee should be disciplined for allegedly violating F.A.C. Rule 61D-1.002(22).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, David A. Held, has been in the business of training racing greyhounds in Florida, with the appropriate State of Florida licensure, for approximately 15 years. On or about August 25, 1993, he applied for renewal of his license, and on September 9, 1993, his occupational license as an unrestricted professional greyhound trainer was renewed for another year. By all accounts, during the entirety of the Respondent's career as a professional greyhound trainer, up until the incidents involved in this case, the Respondent did a creditable job both training and caring for the animals in his care. In early September, 1993, a series of stressful events in the Respondent's life built to a level of stress with which the Respondent no longer could cope effectively. First, for some time, the Respondent had been divorced and had primary responsibility for the care of his young son (with assistance from his parents.) He also was caring for and training a number of racing greyhounds at a kennel in the Tampa compound in Plant City, Florida. He leased the kennel from Charles Marriott, who paid him $100 a month to "finish" each greyhound Marriott placed in the Respondent's care. Marriott also paid the cost of schooling his greyhounds at the track in Sarasota every Monday and Thursday morning and paid the cost of any veterinarian services needed for his greyhounds. He also received $700 in approximately August, 1993, for "finishing" seven greyhounds owned by Lamar Porter and being trained by Dorothy Weekley during that month. But, in addition to Marriott's 16 greyhounds and Porter's seven, the Respondent also had approximately 21 others in the kennel in early September, 1993. Twenty were owned by an individual named "Jim," who stopped paying the Respondent. Without any income from "Jim," the Respondent began having serious financial difficulties covering the expenses of caring for and maintaining all of the animals in his charge, much less also providing living expenses for him and his son. For reasons not fully explained at the hearing, the Respondent always bought the meat in Clearwater. Due to his financial difficulties, the Respondent lost his credit at the place where he was purchasing frozen meat for the greyhounds in his kennel. As a result, he had to pay cash and buy the meat daily. The additional time spent buying meat on a daily basis put additional stress on the Respondent. To make matters worse, the roof of his kennel collapsed in early September, 1993. He had to move all of the greyhounds in his charge to a temporary kennel. Anticipating flea and tick and other problems from using the temporary kennel, he mowed the grass in the "turn-out" area of the temporary kennel and even tilled the soil. Despite those precautions, he began having worse than normal flea and tick problems. In addition, many of his greyhounds began to develop a skin disease characterized by multiple lesions. (The Respondent referred to it as "the Alabama rot.") Meanwhile, while trying to attend to all of the other responsibilities he had, the Respondent also had to re-roof and re-paint his kennel. While this was going on, his equipment was scattered in various places in the two kennel locations, and there was construction debris on the grounds as well. His operation appeared to be and was in fact in a state of chaos. While trying to cope with all of the unusual problems he was having, the Respondent still managed to continue to care for the greyhounds in his care. He cared for and fed the animals, turned them out to urinate and excrete feces and exercise several times a day, "finished" them (i.e., prepared them for race training at a track), and met Marriott at the track in Sarasota every Monday and Thursday to "school" his greyhounds. On September 8, 1993, the Respondent had to be at the dog track in St. Petersburg in the late afternoon. He also had to "turn his dogs out" and buy meat for them. He decided that, instead of driving all the way back to Plant City to "turn out" at 5:30 p.m., the normal time for the next "turn-out," he would first go directly to Clearwater to buy the meat. He did not get back to his kennel until later in the evening. Meanwhile, the owner of one of the dogs at his kennel, a Lamar Porter, was driving by the Tampa compound in Plant City and decided to check on his dogs. He was told at the security gate that the Respondent had not been there to "turn out." Porter tried to reach the Respondent by telephone and got his mother at his parents' home. Porter told her that the Respondent had not "turned out" and could not be located and made the statement that someone had better "turn out." Based on Porter's statement, the Respondent's mother decided that she and her husband should take it upon themselves to try to "turn out" for her son. They drove to the compound, went to the Respondent's kennel, and began to "turn out." During the "turning out," the Respondent's parents "turned out" dogs that should not have been "turned out" together and "turned out" too many dogs at once. Some of the dogs began fighting, and the Respondent's parents were unable to stop the fighting. The situation quickly was out of control, and the Respondent's parents sent for help. By the time help arrived, several of the dogs were injured, some seriously; one was killed. The next morning, Thursday, September 9, 1993, the Respondent met Marriott at the track in Sarasota, as scheduled. Marriott's greyhounds looked good and performed well in the schooling. Up to then, Marriott was "very satisfied" with the Respondent. Some of his best greyhounds at the St. Petersburg track, where he raced his dogs, were "finished" by the Respondent. On September 9, 10 or 11, 1993, the Respondent also delivered seven of Porter's dogs to Dorothy Weekley. Weekley also is a racing greyhound trainer. She had agreed with Porter to train and race his greyhounds in return for a 65 percent interest in them. Through Porter, she paid the Respondent $700 to "finish" the seven greyhounds for her during the preceding month. When the Respondent delivered the greyhounds to Weekley at an "unofficial schooling," they were in poor condition. Weekley testified that they appeared to be underfed and poorly cared for. She testified that they were underweight and out-of-condition and that they were infested with ticks and fleas. While it is not inconceivable, in light of the problems the Respondent was having with the "turn-out" pen at his temporary kennel, that the Porter greyhounds had worse than usual ticks and fleas, there does not appear to be any reason why they would have more ticks and fleas than Marriott's greyhounds, which looked fine to him, or why the skin disease afflicting the dogs would have afflicted Porter's greyhounds more than Marriott's. There also does not appear to be any reason why Marriott's greyhounds would have been better fed or exercised than Porter's. However, it is quite possible that Porter's greyhounds were more involved in and more affected by the dog fight the previous evening than Marriott's. In any event, it is curious that Weekley never complained to the Respondent about the condition of the dogs, and the evidence did not clearly explain the reasons for the poor condition of the Porter greyhounds when the Respondent delivered them to Weekley. On September 10, 1993, the Respondent took one of his dogs with the worst skin lesions from "the Alabama rot" to the local veterinarian who specialized in the care of racing greyhounds for treatment and for advice on how to treat the other dogs that also had developed the skin problem. The Respondent planned to worm his greyhounds on Sunday, September 12, 1993. The Respondent uses worm pills that require the dogs to have an empty stomach so they are not fed the day before. Although the veterinarian who testified at the hearing explained that he prefers another method that does not require the dogs to skip a feeding, there was no evidence that the method used by the Respondent was inappropriate. (It is how the Respondent always has wormed greyhounds in his charge.) The Respondent did not feed the dogs on the evening of Saturday, September 11, and planned to feed them on the evening of Sunday, September 12, 1993. He wormed the dogs, as planned, earlier on Sunday, September 12, 1993, but when he went to feed them later that evening, he discovered that the meat was spoiled. He thought at the time that he had taken the meat out too early to thaw although it is possible that the meat was spoiled before it was frozen for sale. At that point, on Sunday evening, September 12, 1993, the Respondent was unable to cope with any more adversity. (In view of his poor mental and emotional condition, the Respondent probably was not caring for the dogs as well as he normally would have throughout the weekend.) Nor was he able or willing to seek help in meeting his responsibilities. In extreme emotional distress, he simply walked away from the kennel and his responsibilities. By the next morning, Monday, September 13, 1993, the Respondent was considering suicide. He telephoned his parents to tell them. He asked them to telephone Marriott to tell him what was happening so that he could arrange to take care of the dogs. A short time later, the Respondent's father found the Respondent collapsed and unconscious on the seat of his truck. The Respondent's father turned off the engine, and the Respondent survived. His parents got him help at a local crisis intervention center. Before Marriott was able to reach the Respondent by telephone to find out why the Respondent had missed the scheduled schooling in Sarasota that morning (the Respondent's cellular telephone Marriott was calling had been stolen), he got a telephone call from the Respondent's mother. Marriott immediately telephoned Lamar Porter and asked him to look in on and take care of the dogs in the Respondent's kennel until he could get there. When Porter arrived along with some neighboring kennel operators, the Respondent's kennel still was in deplorable condition (primarily as a result of the unfinished refurbishing and the requirement to contemporaneously use the temporary kennel), and his dogs already were in terrible shape. They had not eaten since the evening of Friday, September 10, 1993, and had not been watered or turned out since some time on Sunday. It does not take more than a few days without food and water for greyhounds to develop serious health problems. In addition, the worming process used by the Respondent tends to dehydrate the dogs. By the time the dogs were "rescued" on Monday, September 13, 1993, they were weak, dehydrated and practically starved. One was unable to stand and had its tail chewed off (probably by the dog in the adjacent kennel) and was carried to a veterinarian for treatment. When the vet telephoned the dog's owner to apprise her of the extent of the dog's injuries, the owner decided to authorize the vet to euthanize the animal. After being admitted to the crisis center, the Respondent was hospitalized for approximately a week. Marriott evicted him from the kennel, and other arrangements were made for the care of the greyhounds found there. The Respondent had no further involvement with the animals. During his hospitalization, the Respondent was diagnosed as having manic-depression and was given medication. On being discharged from the hospital, the Respondent's attending mental health professional advised that he continue a course of medication and treatment after his discharge. The Respondent has not followed that advice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, enter a final order revoking the license of the Respondent, David A. Held, for one year and declaring him ineligible for relicensure for a period of one year, with relicensure (1) conditioned upon certification by a Florida licensed mental health practitioner that he either has completed necessary mental health treatment, or that he remains on an appropriate course of treatment, and that he is mentally able to carry out the responsibilities of licensure, and (2) on probation for one year with appropriate conditions to be determined by the Division. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 3rd day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1202 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-9. Essentially accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. 10. Conclusion of total neglect for the entire time period, rejected as subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Otherwise, essentially accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. 11.-13. Essentially accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. 14. Rejected to the extent contrary to facts found. (The evidence did not clearly explain the reasons for the poor condition of the Porter greyhounds when the Respondent delivered them to Weekley. It is curious that Weekley never complained to the Respondent about the condition of the dogs.) 15.-16. Essentially accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (Several other conditions precedent to the resulting death of a dog also coincided.) Rejected as not proven that he "never" sought assistance; however, as found, except for seeking veterinarian assistance for the skin disease, the Respondent did not seek the assistance needed to cope with the situations described in the findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. In part, rejected as contrary to facts found (that Marriott had 16 dogs in the Respondent's kennel at the time) and as subordinate to facts contrary to those found (that all of the dogs in the kennel indeed "had trouble" on September 13, 1993.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. Second sentence, rejected as not supported by any evidence and as subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Fourth sentence, not clear from the evidence whether Porter was there up to the time the dogs became agitated; besides, irrelevant if he was. Fifth through eight sentences, in part rejected as not supported by any evidence (whether the dogs were muzzled) or as not clear from the evidence (whether female dogs were involved; besides, also irrelevant since the Respondent was not there and was not involved. Ninth sentence, not clear whether Porter was there when the Respondent drove up but irrelevant in any event. Tenth sentence through end of paragraph, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that Porter "interfered" rather than simply expressed normal concern for the welfare of his dogs and the others in the kennel; otherwise, rejected as being subordinate and argument. COPIES FURNISHED: John B. Fretwell, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 David A. Held 6202 South Harold Avenue Tampa, Florida 33616 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 issue in this case is whether Respondent's license should be summarily suspended in accordance with Subsection 550.2415(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2006).
Findings Of Fact The Division is the agency of the state responsible for monitoring and regulating all aspects of pari-mutuel wagering activities. One of its responsibilities is the testing of greyhound dogs for prohibited substances. Michaud holds pari-mutuel wagering license number 16293-1021 as a greyhound trainer. On June 23, 2006, Michaud was the registered trainer of a greyhound known as "Ikes Trudy." Michaud was working at the Sanford Orlando Kennel Club (also known and hereinafter referred to as "CCC Racing"). Ikes Trudy ran in the seventh race at CCC Racing on June 23, 2006, finishing fourth or fifth in that race. Upon conclusion of the race, a urine sample was taken from Ikes Trudy by a Division employee. The sample was taken in an area of CCC Racing set aside for that purpose. The testing site was not covered, i.e., it was open to the elements. However, there was no evidence of inclement weather at the time the test sample was taken. At the conclusion of each greyhound race, the winning dog is always tested. It is normal for the Division to randomly select another dog from the same race for testing as well. In this case, however, Ikes Trudy was specifically selected for testing by the Division. No other dog was randomly sampled. After the urine sample had been taken, a "Urine Sample Card" was completed by the Division employee, signed by Michaud, and placed in a coin envelope. The urine sample card identifies the greyhound as Ikes Trudy, the race track as CCC Racing, and the trainer as Michaud. The urine sample was then duly-processed and tested in accordance with procedures established by the Division. The test was performed at the University of Florida Racing Lab, a certified and accredited testing facility. David M. Tiffany supervised the testing procedure and signed the Report of Positive Result on the test sample. The test determined the presence of two metabolites of cocaine in the urine sample: Benzoylecgonine ("BZE") and Ecgonine Methyl Ester ("EME"). Cocaine is a Class 1 drug and is a prohibited substance in racing greyhounds. The BZE concentration in the sample was greater than 720 nanograms per milliliter or 720 ng/mL. The EME concentration was 62.9 ng/mL. The normal or average concentration of these metabolites, when found in a greyhound, is between 10 and 50 ng/mL. The highest level Mr. Tiffany had ever seen was approximately 120 ng/mL of BZE and that was in this same animal, Ikes Trudy. The question of how such a high concentration of these metabolites would affect an animal was not resolved at the final hearing. Michaud suggested such a level would kill the animal; Mr. Tiffany could not confirm that suggestion as factual. Mr. Tiffany did not think the extremely high concentration of metabolites in this test raised any questions about the testing process or its results.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering upholding the summary suspension of the license of Chad E. Michaud. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Stefan Thomas Hoffer, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Chad E. Michaud 27 Jackson Court Casselberry, Florida 32707 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David J. Roberts, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's Notice of Intent to Withdraw License should be granted or dismissed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held The Permit, which authorizes Respondent to conduct summer jai-alai performances in Dade County. In 1980, Respondent converted a greyhound racing permit into the Permit, as authorized by a predecessor to section 550.0745, which is discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Each year, as required by section 550.0115, Respondent has obtained an operating license under the Permit to conduct performances, which it has done at the same location named in the Permit. On December 26, 2016, Respondent filed an application for an operating license for 2017-18. This application sought a license to conduct performances in Dania, which is in Broward County. The new location is less than 35 miles from the Dade County location mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Petitioner's employee assigned to examine applications attached a large post-it note to the portion of the application advising of the change in operating location from Dade to Broward county. The note is still attached to the file, which was presented at the final hearing. The note is impossible to miss. On March 10, 2017, Petitioner granted the operating license, which authorizes Respondent to conduct summer jai-alai performances in Dania for the 2017-18 season. In reliance on the 2017-18 operating license, Respondent has terminated its lease for the Dade County facility and entered into a lease for the Dania facility. Following a complaint from the lessor of Respondent's Dade County location, the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division) concluded that it had issued the operating license in error, determined that an operating license for a converted permit must be limited to the county named in the converted permit, and issued the NOI on June 1, 2017. Directed to Respondent, the NOI does not allege that Respondent has violated any statute or rule. Instead, the NOI states only that Petitioner issued the operation license "in error as [Respondent] is not authorized to operate summer jai-alai performances via The Permit outside of Miami-Dade County." The NOI never mentions section 550.475. At one time, Petitioner construed section 550.475, which is discussed below, to allow a holder of a county-specific permit to relocate performances to a facility located within 35 miles from the facility, but in another county, and a circuit court has sustained this construction. In the past, Petitioner issued operating licenses to holders of converted or created permits that authorized performances at the licensed location or a facility leased pursuant to section 550.475. It is unclear, though, when Petitioner changed its position. Division directors changed between the issuance of the 2017-18 operating license and the NOI, and it is unlikely that the former director missed the proposed out-of-county relocation described in the application for the 2017-18 operation license. However, these two facts do not preclude a mistake of law, as Petitioner contends, so that the NOI is not necessarily a statement that represents a change in longstanding policy. The NOI states that the operating license is based on a mistake of law, but Petitioner's proposed recommended order states that the operating license is a mistake of law--the same conclusion that the Administrative Law Judge reaches in the Conclusions of Law.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Intent to Withdraw License. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2017.
