Videos, in the words of an administrative law judge, showed a “series of races involving --- as a rule --- tired, reluctant, skittish, or disinterested horses moving at a slow pace down the dust-choked path.”
But an appeals court Tuesday said regulators were wrong to try to punish a tiny North Florida pari-mutuel facility that in 2014 turned to slow-motion, two-horse races as it tried to meet the requirements of its state license.
A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal, in a 12-page ruling, said the state Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering improperly found Hamilton Downs in violation of its license. The division last year rejected findings of an administrative law judge, who had ruled in favor of the Hamilton County track --- but who also described a bizarre scene in which the “races must be seen to be believed.”
“Horses often simply stood at the starting line before slowly plodding down the track,” Administrative Law Judge E. Gary Early wrote last year. “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.”
Tuesday's appeals-court ruling said the legal dispute focused, at least in part, on the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering's arguments that Hamilton Downs had violated its license because of a race in which betting could not occur. In that race, both of the horses were owned by the same person --- what is known as a “coupled entry.”
The ruling said there can be no “meaningful betting on such a race” and a “bet placed on one horse is necessarily a bet placed on both horses, so every betting patron wins.”
Months after the race was run, regulators filed a complaint alleging that Hamilton Downs had failed to operate all of the scheduled races in its operating license. But the appeals court said regulators failed to prove a violation because Hamilton Downs had run a race --- not just a race with betting allowed.
“Here, it is undisputed that the … race occurred on a licensed, approved course,” said the ruling, written by appeals-court Judge Harvey Jay and joined by Chief Judge Brad Thomas and Judge James Wolf. “Furthermore, it is undisputed that the race occurred between two horses in the presence of duly appointed racing officials. Finally, the evidence demonstrated that the winner of each race received a purse of $100, and second place received a purse of $50. Therefore, the … race satisfied the definition of a `race' for purposes of determining whether Hamilton Downs committed the alleged violation.”
Also, the court said track owner Glenn Richards had offered to take steps to resolve concerns that racing officials might have had about the “flag drop” race. But it said officials assured him nothing was wrong, and the race was declared official. The Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering filed the complaint months later.
Hamilton Downs is one of several pari-mutuels across the state that have sought in recent years to add slot machines after voter referendums. Like a track in Gadsden County, it had planned to run controversial barrel races but had to change plans for the 2014 meet after a state rule allowing barrel racing at pari-mutuel facilities was deemed invalid, the appeals court said.
Hamilton Downs then decided to hold flag-drop races. But three weeks before the 2014 meet, an organization that Hamilton Downs relied on for horses and riders pulled out of the event, Tuesday's ruling said.
“Resolving that the show must go on, Richards made alternative arrangements,” the ruling said. “He rounded up college students for riders and an elderly herd of untrained horses as their racing steeds. The 2014 meet went off on schedule. Each race consisted of two horses.”
READ MORE FROM SUNSHINE STATE NEWS
Scott Suspends Tolls as Florida Gears Up for Category 5 Hurricane Irma
