KY Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Regulator Vs. Motion

In a decision that backs the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission's power to define equine medication thresholds and supports the regulator's absolute insurer rule, the Kentucky Court of Appeals has overturned a circuit court ruling and said the KHRC should reinstate penalties against trainer Graham Motion and owner George Strawbridge Jr.

In August 2017, Franklin (Ky.) Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate ruled that a methocarbamol positive against Motion following a post-race positive against Strawbridge-owned Kitten's Point after her win in the 2015 Bewitch Stakes (G3T) at Keeneland should be thrown out. In doing so, Wingate called into question Kentucky's adoption of medication threshold guidelines, crafted by the industry's Racing Medication and Testing Consortium.

When the circuit court ruled in favor of Motion, it said threshold guidelines need to be based in science. Furthermore, the circuit court's decision also found the state's "absolute insurer rule," which places ultimate responsibility for what's in a horse's system on the trainer, to be unconstitutional because it deprived a trainer of due process.

In a decision rendered Dec. 21, the appeals court overturned the circuit court's decision and disagreed with both findings. 

Craig Robertson III, attorney for Motion, said they would likely appeal the most recent decision, either requesting the appeals court to reconsider its Dec. 21 ruling or appealing to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

The appeals court decision, written by Judge Gene Smallwood, found that the 1.0 nanograms per milliliter rule for methocarbamol (an anti-inflammatory, and an RMTC-approved controlled therapeutic medication), is not unconstitutional nor arbitrary. It noted that limiting the amount of a not fully understood drug in a horse's system is a rational reason for a low threshold, especially in light of the broad powers given to the commission.

"By limiting the amount of medications and drugs given to horses, the commission is protecting the health of horses and ensuring the integrity of racing itself," said the appeals court decision. "These are significant rational reasons to uphold the regulation as constitutional; therefore, we reverse the circuit court as to this issue."

The appeals court ruled that the KHRC acted within its powers, which it noted are broad. 

The appeals court also disagreed with the circuit court's determination that the state's absolute insurer rule was unconstitutional because it deprived a trainer of due process. The appeals court said it agrees with the commission's argument that the rule does not violate due process because the regulator must still prove a violation occurred before the trainer is penalized. 

The appeals court also noted that the absolute insurer standard is in place in a number of states.

The circuit court had agreed with Motion's attorney, who argued that a hearing officer who recommended that the full commission uphold the stewards' finding of a positive should have allowed Motion's arguments as to the non-scientific reasons the RMTC recommended the 1.0 threshold. The circuit court ruled that that prohibition amounted to the petitioner not receiving sufficient due process during the administrative hearing.

"The hearing officer, by limiting the evidence at the hearing to merely that which related to Kitten's Point's drug violation, curtailed petitioners' ability to present a meaningful challenge to the regulation," Wingate wrote.

But the appeals court determined that the hearing officer acted properly, noting a decision to exclude evidence was proper because an administrative body cannot decide constitutional issues. Furthermore, the appeals court found, "Appellees were allowed to introduce substantial evidence at the administrative level that the threshold was too low. In fact, it was their primary argument. It is also clear that the circuit court considered appellees' avowal evidence based on statements it made in its final order. … Due process was satisfied in this case; therefore we reverse the circuit court."

The appeals court cited a previous ruling that a reviewing court, in this case the circuit court, "should refrain from reversing or overturning an administrative agency's decision simply because it does not agree with the agency's wisdom."

At the time of the circuit court's decision, Robertson said the trainer easily could have accepted the relatively light penalty, which saw the stewards impose a five-day suspension, but Motion opted to fight the ruling on principle. The owner sanction is a disqualification of Kitten's Point's win and loss of purse.

The KHRC said in September 2017 it would appeal the circuit court rulings.

The circuit court ruling did put some changes in Kentucky in motion. In September, as part of a comprehensive update of its rules, the KHRC approved a change that specifically will allow trainers with a medication positive to provide rebuttal during hearings.