Trainer Butler, Suspended for Having Employee’s Thyro-L in Barn, Sues HISA over Definition of ‘Possession’

[Wandering Eyes]

The Illinois-based trainer Gerald Butler, who is currently suspended 20 months and was fined $10,000 after a Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA)'s arbitration panel for Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program (ADMC) matters ruled in February that he possessed the banned substance levothyroxine (Thyro-L) in his Fairmount Park barn last summer, sued HISA in federal court July 3, seeking a stay of his penalties in a case that challenges the  definition of the word “possession.”

According to the sequence of events described in the arbitrator's decision, on June 13, 2024, the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU), which enforces the ADMC rules for HISA, received an anonymous tip stating that Butler, a licensed trainer since 1991, was administering Thyro-L to his horses.

Eight days later, on June 21, four HIWU investigators conducted a search of Butler's premises in Barn I.

The search turned up a powder form of Thyro-L in the trainer's feed room.

Butler denied the Thyro-L was his or that he had been administering it to his horses.

A part-time worker at Butler's stable, Tory Hughes, subsequently said that the Thyro-L belonged to her, and that she used it for her non-HISA-covered ponies that were stabled nearby.

Eight months later, on Feb. 13, 2025, the arbitrator ruled that, “there is no evidence that Trainer Butler had actual, physical possession or that he had had 'exclusive control over the Prohibited Substance.'”

The arbitrator also wrote that, “Trainer Butler presented credible evidence by way of his own testimony, as well as the testimony of Assistant Trainer [Stacy] Muskopf, Ms. Hughes, and Dr. [Donald] McCrosky, a veterinarian from whom Ms. Hughes' brother had purchased Thyro-L in July 2022 for Ms. Hughes' pony horse, that the Thyro-L belonged to Ms. Hughes.”

The arbitrator further wrote that, “There is no evidence that Trainer Butler ever administered Thyro-L to any Covered Horse after the ADMC Program came into effect. In other words, there is no evidence that Trainer Butler intended to cheat or did cheat.”

But, the arbitrator continued, the totality of those points of evidence still wasn't enough to get Butler off the hook for the possession penalty.

Although the arbitrator's final decision did shave four months off of what could have been a 24-month suspension, and Butler's fine was reduced to $10,000 from a possible $25,000, the HISA arbitrator wrote that, “there can be no doubt that Trainer Butler had exclusive control over the premises where the Thyro-L was found [and that] it is undisputed that Trainer Butler was in charge of, and had control over, Barn I, including the feed room where the Thyro-L was found.”

Now, five months later, Butler has initiated litigation against HISA in United States District Court (Southern District of Illinois), seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining HISA from enforcing the arbitration decision.

“This decision imposes severe and irreparable sanctions,” Butler's civil complaint stated, noting that the charge has cost him an additional $5,000 in adjudication costs. “Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that the arbitration decision, based on HISA's definition and application of 'Possession' under Rule 3214(a) and Rule 1020, violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process.

“The rule, as applied, imposes strict liability for unknowing possession of a banned substance, even when that substance belongs to a third party and Plaintiff was unaware of its presence, thereby failing to provide fair notice or safeguard against arbitrary enforcement,” the lawsuit stated.

Butler's lawsuit asserted that, “the balance of equities tips in Plaintiff's favor, as the harm to Plaintiff from immediate enforcement far outweighs any prejudice to HISA from a temporary stay.”

Butler's suit further contended that, “An injunction serves the public interest by ensuring that administrative decisions made under federal authority adhere to constitutional protections and promote fairness within the horse racing industry.”

The complaint also stated that the requested injunction “is narrowly tailored [and] seeks to enjoin HISA from enforcing the specific arbitration decision only as it applies to Plaintiff Gerald Butler, without seeking to broadly invalidate HISA rules or affect other parties.”

On July 7, a spokesperson for HISA acknowledged an emailed request from TDN asking for the Authority's side of the story regarding Butler's lawsuit, but declined the opportunity to comment.

Butler's lawsuit explained his case like this:

“Although structured as a private organization, HISA exercises authority delegated by Congress under the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, and is thus subject to constitutional constraints, including the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Due process requires, at a minimum, fair notice of prohibited conduct and safeguards against arbitrary enforcement.

“In this case, HISA's Rule 3214(a) on 'Possession,' as defined in Rule 1020 and applied by the arbitration panel, fails to meet these fundamental due process requirements. Rule 1020 defines 'Possession' to include 'constructive possession (which shall be found only if the Covered Person has exclusive control or intends to exercise exclusive control over the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or the premises in which a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method exists),'” the lawsuit stated.

“The Arbitrator explicitly found that Plaintiff had 'exclusive control over the premises (his barn) and that, under HISA's rule, Plaintiff's lack of awareness of the Thyro-L's presence was 'of no legal consequence,'” the lawsuit stated.

“This strict liability interpretation, which holds a trainer accountable for a banned substance found on their premises even when they have no knowledge of its presence and it belongs to a third party, is unconstitutional as applied.

“It creates a punitive regime where an individual can be subjected to severe professional and financial penalties without any showing of intent. Such a standard is particularly egregious when applied to a rule that purports to regulate 'possession,' a term that inherently implies some degree of knowledge or control in common legal understanding,” the lawsuit stated.

“Furthermore, while the Arbitrator assessed 'significant fault' against Plaintiff for failing to inquire about substances Ms. Hughes was bringing onto his premises, this 'utmost caution' standard, when coupled with strict liability for unknowing possession, creates an impossible and arbitrary burden.

“It effectively requires trainers to constantly police every item brought onto their property by any individual with access, regardless of their relationship or the nature of the items, to avoid a violation,” the lawsuit stated.

“This places an unreasonable and unpredictable burden on individuals, leading to potentially arbitrary enforcement and a lack of fair notice regarding the precise conduct that constitutes a violation,” the lawsuit stated.

“The application of HISA Rule 3214(a) through its definition of 'Possession' under Rule 1020 is also unconstitutionally vague and overbroad,” the lawsuit stated.

“A regulation is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits.

“It is overbroad if it prohibits a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. While the latter may not be directly applicable here, the vagueness argument is potent,” the lawsuit stated.

The post Trainer Butler, Suspended for Having Employee’s Thyro-L in Barn, Sues HISA over Definition of ‘Possession’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

View the full article