Harbour v. Colorado State Racing Commission, 72--117
Decision Date | 09 January 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 72--117,72--117 |
Citation | 32 Colo.App. 1,505 P.2d 22 |
Parties | Delmer HARBOUR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The COLORADO STATE RACING COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee, F. Richard Hite et al., Defendants. . I |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Vranesic & Right, Paul E. Vranesic, Ben Klein, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., J. K. Kreutz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellee Colorado State Racing Commission.
Plaintiff, holder of an owner and trainer license issued by the Colorado Racing Commission, appeals a judgment of the district court affirming a ruling of the Colorado Racing Commission whereby plaintiff's license was suspended for a period of twelve months. Plaintiff's horse, 'Snazzy Man,' was the winner of the tenth race at the Rocky Mountain Quarter Racing Association on October 18, 1969. An analysis of a urine sample taken from the horse following the race was found to contain apomorphine, a drug which is a narcotic and a stimulant. The State Veterinarian testified that apomorphine is a drug which may not be administered to horses racing in the state of Colorado and that its use was contrary to the rules and regulations of the Colorado Racing Commission. The Commission found that the horse 'Snazzy Man' had been stimulated with a forbidden narcotic, and that because there was no evidence indicating that plaintiff was without fault or blameless in the administration of the drug, plaintiff was in violation of Rules 11.14 and 11.15, as adopted by the Colorado Racing Commission. These rules are as follows:
'11.15--The owner, trainer, groom or any other person having charge, custody or care of the horse is obligated to protect the horse properly and guard it against such administration or attempted administration, and if the Stewards shall find that any such person has failed to show proper protection and guarding of the horse, or if the Stewards find that any owner or trainer is guilty of negligence with respect thereto, they shall impose such punishment and take such other action as they deem proper under any of the rules including reference to the Commission.'
Plaintiff contends that the Racing Comsion failed to comply with certain provisions of the Administrative Code and that Rules 11.14 and 11.15 of the Racing Commission are unconstitutional delegations of power. Plaintiff concludes that therefore the Commission was without authority to suspend his license. We disagree, and affirm the judgment of the district court.
The plaintiff asserts several alleged violations of the Administrative Code. He complains of the absence of a sworn complaint setting forth the details of the charges against the plaintiff. 1969 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 3--16--3(5), provides that proceedings for the suspension of a license may be commenced by the agency upon its own motion or by the filing of a written complaint with the agency. The Racing Commission was authorized to proceed by ordering a hearing solely on its own motion. Colorado Racing Commission v. Conner, 30 Colo.App. 72, 490 P.2d 75.
The hearing before the Racing Commission was subsequent to hearing before the Board of Stewards wherein plaintiff appeared and was apprised of the charges. The Board of Stewards suspended plaintiff, and plaintiff, by his attorney, requested a hearing 'at as early a date as possible concerning said suspension' before the Racing Commission. That request was granted and plaintiff's attorney was notified of the time, date and place of the hearing as well as the rules of the Racing Commission which plaintiff was charged with violating. The plaintiff had adequate notice of the hearing and its purpose. Since the promptness of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
PNGI Charles Town Gaming, LLC v. Reynolds
...power of the legislature to regulate or even abolish horse racing is, of course, well established. See Harbour v. Colorado State Racing Commission, 32 Colo.App. 1, 505 P.2d 22 (1973); Tweel v. West Virginia Racing Commission, 138 W.Va. 531, 76 S.E.2d 874 (1953); State ex rel. Morris v. West......
-
Hubel v. West Virginia Racing Commission
...power of the legislature to regulate or even abolish horse racing is, of course, well established. See Harbour v. Colorado State Racing Commission, 32 Colo.App. 1, 505 P.2d 22 (1973); Tweel v. West Virginia Racing Commission, 138 W.Va. 531, 76 S.E.2d 874 (1953); State ex rel. Morris v. West......
-
Casse v. New York State Racing and Wagering Bd.
...has been so where the rule at issue contained a rebuttable presumption such as that in this State (see, e.g., Harbour v. Colorado State Racing Commn., 32 Colo.App. 1, 505 P.2d 22; see, discussion in Cooney v. American Horse Shows Assn., supra), and even where the presumption was irrebuttabl......
-
Seely v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Com'n
...to rebut the prima facie case, is not violative of the due process clause. See, 52 A.L.R.3d 206; Harbour v. Colorado State Racing Commission, 32 Colo.App. 1, 505 P.2d 22 (1973); Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 99 S.Ct. 2642, 61 L.Ed.2d 365 (1979). Indeed, even the absolute insurer rule has wi......