Join now & win money today! Get Started

First Training Win for De La Cruz

---

Fernando De La Cruz notched his first win as a trainer Monday at Gulfstream Park when he saddled Smart Lisa (Audible) for a 2 3/4-length victory in the day’s second race, a mile $17,500 maiden claiming race for fillies and mares on turf.

De La Cruz, who galloped and worked as an assistant for veteran South Florida trainer Steve Dwoskin, made it to the Gulfstream winner’s circle with his ninth starter.

“I’m very happy. My friend, Steve Dwoskin, trusted me and partnered with me and gave me this filly,” said De La Cruz, who has also ponied horses at Gulfstream. “I worked hard with the filly and you see what happened today.”

The post First Training Win for De La Cruz appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Suit Challenging Definition of ‘Possession’ Gets Trial Date After Trainer’s Suspension Has Ended

---

A federal judge has set an Oct. 18, 2027, trial date for a levothyroxine (Thyro-L) case involving a Fairmount Park trainer who sued the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) last year over the definition of the word “possession” after that banned substance was found in his barn in 2024.

But the case has lingered on the court docket for over a year without significant action, and because the United States District Court (Southern District of Illinois) is setting trials as far as 14 months in the future, Gerald Butler’s original 20-month suspension–imposed in February 2025 with credit for being provisionally suspended in 2024–has already ended.

Aside from the suspension, Butler was fined $10,000 and assessed a $5,000 fee to cover costs for the case having gone through the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU)’s arbitration process.

A HIWU spokesperson confirmed Monday that while Butler’s period of ineligibility has concluded, his payments “have not been finalized.”

Butler’s July 3, 2025, lawsuit sought a stay of both the suspension and the financial penalties.

According to the arbitrator’s decision, on June 13, 2024, HIWU received an anonymous tip stating that Butler, a licensed trainer since 1991, was administering Thyro-L to his horses.

Eight days later, a HIWU search of the premises assigned to Butler 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 employee subsequently admitted that the Thyro-L belonged to her, and that she had given the drug to non-HISA-covered ponies stabled nearby.

Eight months after the allegations were first made, on Feb. 13, 2025, the arbitrator ruled that, “there is no evidence that Trainer Butler had actual, physical possession or that [he had] ever administered Thyro-L to any Covered Horse.”

But, the arbitrator continued, that lack of evidence wasn’t enough to keep Butler from being responsible for possession of the banned substance.

Although the arbitrator’s decision shaved four months off what could have been a maximum two-year suspension, and the fine was reduced from a possible $25,000, the 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.”

Five months later, Butler filed suit against HISA, seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction enjoining HISA from enforcing the arbitration decision.

“It creates a punitive regime where an individual can be subjected to severe professional and financial penalties without any showing of intent,” Butler’s complaint stated. “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.

“Furthermore, while the Arbitrator assessed ‘significant fault’ against Plaintiff for failing to inquire about substances [the employee] was bringing onto his premises, this ‘utmost caution’ standard, when coupled with strict liability for unknowing possession, creates an impossible and arbitrary burden,” Butler’s complaint stated.

HISA’s legal response, dated Aug. 8, 2025, didn’t focus on the definition of “possession.”

Instead, HISA alleged that Butler skipped crucial steps in a well-established review process.

“Plaintiff is a horse trainer who was caught with a banned substance in his barn in violation of Federal Trade Commission (FTC)-approved anti-doping and medication-control program rules. Plaintiff disputed the violation in arbitration, but he lost and did not seek FTC review. As a result, he was suspended, fined, and assessed adjudication costs. Five months later, Plaintiff [sought] a preliminary injunction that would lift those sanctions and block implementation of all FTC-approved rules under the Act.

“Plaintiff is not entitled to that extraordinary relief. His request is procedurally improper: He did not file a motion for preliminary injunction separate from his complaint, and he did not name the FTC (a necessary party) as a defendant.

“In any event, Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits. He raises a single claim under the Constitution‘s Due Process Clause, but that Clause does not apply to the private Authority. Even if it did, the FTC-approved rule prohibiting the possession of banned substances is reasonable and clear, and Plaintiff received ample opportunity to challenge its application through notice, briefing, and an evidentiary hearing.

“Moreover, Plaintiff cannot complain about a lack of due process when he failed to avail himself of the additional process that was available to him. Forgoing the de novo FTC review the Act provides, Plaintiff instead filed this suit–after sitting on his hands for five months. That course of conduct belies Plaintiff’s claim of irreparable harm,” HISA’s court response stated.

Butler’s case, when it does come up in another 14 months, won’t go before a jury. It has been ordered to be a “bench trial” heard by the judge only.

The post Suit Challenging Definition of ‘Possession’ Gets Trial Date After Trainer’s Suspension Has Ended appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

First Training Win for De La Cruz

---

Fernando De La Cruz notched his first win as a trainer Monday at Gulfstream Park when he saddled Smart Lisa (Audible) for a 2 3/4-length victory in the day’s second race, a mile $17,500 maiden claiming race for fillies and mares on turf.

De La Cruz, who galloped and worked as an assistant for veteran South Florida trainer Steve Dwoskin, made it to the Gulfstream winner’s circle with his ninth starter.

“I’m very happy. My friend, Steve Dwoskin, trusted me and partnered with me and gave me this filly,” said De La Cruz, who has also ponied horses at Gulfstream. “I worked hard with the filly and you see what happened today.”

The post First Training Win for De La Cruz appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Suit Challenging Definition of ‘Possession’ Gets Trial Date After Trainer’s Suspension Has Ended

---

A federal judge has set an Oct. 18, 2027, trial date for a levothyroxine (Thyro-L) case involving a Fairmount Park trainer who sued the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) last year over the definition of the word “possession” after that banned substance was found in his barn in 2024.

But the case has lingered on the court docket for over a year without significant action, and because the United States District Court (Southern District of Illinois) is setting trials as far as 14 months in the future, Gerald Butler’s original 20-month suspension–imposed in February 2025 with credit for being provisionally suspended in 2024–has already ended.

Aside from the suspension, Butler was fined $10,000 and assessed a $5,000 fee to cover costs for the case having gone through the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU)’s arbitration process.

A HIWU spokesperson confirmed Monday that while Butler’s period of ineligibility has concluded, his payments “have not been finalized.”

Butler’s July 3, 2025, lawsuit sought a stay of both the suspension and the financial penalties.

According to the arbitrator’s decision, on June 13, 2024, HIWU received an anonymous tip stating that Butler, a licensed trainer since 1991, was administering Thyro-L to his horses.

Eight days later, a HIWU search of the premises assigned to Butler 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 employee subsequently admitted that the Thyro-L belonged to her, and that she had given the drug to non-HISA-covered ponies stabled nearby.

Eight months after the allegations were first made, on Feb. 13, 2025, the arbitrator ruled that, “there is no evidence that Trainer Butler had actual, physical possession or that [he had] ever administered Thyro-L to any Covered Horse.”

But, the arbitrator continued, that lack of evidence wasn’t enough to keep Butler from being responsible for possession of the banned substance.

Although the arbitrator’s decision shaved four months off what could have been a maximum two-year suspension, and the fine was reduced from a possible $25,000, the 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.”

Five months later, Butler filed suit against HISA, seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction enjoining HISA from enforcing the arbitration decision.

“It creates a punitive regime where an individual can be subjected to severe professional and financial penalties without any showing of intent,” Butler’s complaint stated. “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.

“Furthermore, while the Arbitrator assessed ‘significant fault’ against Plaintiff for failing to inquire about substances [the employee] was bringing onto his premises, this ‘utmost caution’ standard, when coupled with strict liability for unknowing possession, creates an impossible and arbitrary burden,” Butler’s complaint stated.

HISA’s legal response, dated Aug. 8, 2025, didn’t focus on the definition of “possession.”

Instead, HISA alleged that Butler skipped crucial steps in a well-established review process.

“Plaintiff is a horse trainer who was caught with a banned substance in his barn in violation of Federal Trade Commission (FTC)-approved anti-doping and medication-control program rules. Plaintiff disputed the violation in arbitration, but he lost and did not seek FTC review. As a result, he was suspended, fined, and assessed adjudication costs. Five months later, Plaintiff [sought] a preliminary injunction that would lift those sanctions and block implementation of all FTC-approved rules under the Act.

“Plaintiff is not entitled to that extraordinary relief. His request is procedurally improper: He did not file a motion for preliminary injunction separate from his complaint, and he did not name the FTC (a necessary party) as a defendant.

“In any event, Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits. He raises a single claim under the Constitution‘s Due Process Clause, but that Clause does not apply to the private Authority. Even if it did, the FTC-approved rule prohibiting the possession of banned substances is reasonable and clear, and Plaintiff received ample opportunity to challenge its application through notice, briefing, and an evidentiary hearing.

“Moreover, Plaintiff cannot complain about a lack of due process when he failed to avail himself of the additional process that was available to him. Forgoing the de novo FTC review the Act provides, Plaintiff instead filed this suit–after sitting on his hands for five months. That course of conduct belies Plaintiff’s claim of irreparable harm,” HISA’s court response stated.

Butler’s case, when it does come up in another 14 months, won’t go before a jury. It has been ordered to be a “bench trial” heard by the judge only.

The post Suit Challenging Definition of ‘Possession’ Gets Trial Date After Trainer’s Suspension Has Ended appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.