New York Commission Describes Reasons For Not Reopening Dutrow Case

by | 08.09.2018 | 2:51pm
Rick Dutrow, shown during a 2014 interview with NBC News

The New York State Gaming Commission released a 16-page ruling this week detailing its refusal to reopen the case of controversial former trainer Rick Dutrow. Dutrow, whose license was revoked for 10 years in 2011, had applied to have his case reopened and his penalty shortened based upon evidence he argued would have changed the outcome of the case.

The commission voted 4-2 against reopening the case.

Dutrow was hit with a $50,000 fine and permanent license revocation after officials discovered three syringes in his barn, a positive drug test for butorphanol, and Dutrow's history of medication and other rules violations in various racing jurisdictions. The permanent ban was later shortened to 10 years.

In his application to have the case reopened, Dutrow cast doubt on the circumstances surrounding the search which turned up the syringes (which contained xylazine), claimed butorphanol is now permitted within the timeframe he administered it, alleged he has never heard of butorphanol or xylazine, and asserted he has shifted his priorities through work with an equine charity.

The commission's ruling explained it requires three standards for reopening a case: evidence challenging the appropriateness of the penalty (rather than the respondent's guilt or innocence), new evidence which was unavailable to the respondent at the time of the hearing, or evidence which would have been more likely than not to impact the outcome of the original proceeding.

“Significantly, Dutrow does not seek to reopen this proceeding in regard to culpability. For the purposes of this application, he accepts that culpability for his violations of New York law has been established,” the ruling reads.

“Dutrow's application fails to demonstrate that there is any newly discovered evidence that was not available to him at the time of the hearing despite his diligence,” the ruling continues on a later page. “To the contrary, the evidence he now proffers as newly discovered could have been presented at his hearing had he been diligent to discover it. The alleged new evidence also does not constitute a sufficient basis to reopen or modify his penalty.”

See the full ruling here.

Twitter Twitter
Paulick Report on Instagram