A hearing officer assigned by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) has cleared the way for that regulatory body to provisionally suspend New York-based trainer Rudy Rodriguez while a final adjudication plays out stemming from a series of alleged rule violations related to “cruelty, mistreatment, neglect or abuse” of Thoroughbreds.
The decision, dated Monday, Dec. 15, and made public Tuesday, Dec. 16, was written up following a Friday, Dec. 12, hearing at which Rodriguez testified that “all [of his] horses were well cared for.”
His legal team also presented testimony and affidavits from seven other people involved with the stable who vouched on Rodriguez's behalf, including two veterinarians.
Armand Leone, the hearing officer, didn't agree. He wrote in his report that Rodriguez “failed to follow the standard of care required for a Trainer and endangered the welfare of his horses.”
Leone's decision continued: “Accordingly, upon review of all the exhibits and testimony and considering the arguments of counsel, the Authority has demonstrated good cause to the comfortable satisfaction of the Hearing Officer that the Request for Provisional Suspension of the Respondent pending a final adjudication should be GRANTED.”
Clark Brewster, an attorney for Rodriguez, told TDN Tuesday afternoon that he has not received any formal notice yet from HISA as to when the trainer's provisional suspension goes into effect.
Brewster also said he is not aware of any contingency plans Rodriguez might be contemplating regarding the transfer of his racing stable during the suspension.
“I have not had the kind of conversation that I need to have in that regard with Mr. Rodriguez yet because I've been tied up in other hearings. But I'm sure that's something we'll discuss,” Brewster said.
Asked about the next steps in the process, Brewster said, “The next step in the process, for me, always is to thoroughly understand the ruling and to discuss the potential for resolution with the other side and also discuss what my client wants to do, then try to be the best advocate I can.”
Back on Nov. 21, HISA served Rodriguez, who has between 50 and 60 horses in training on the New York Racing Association circuit, with a “notice of violation and show cause” that could result in serious penalties for the 53-year-old former jockey who has consistently ranked near the top of the New York trainer standings for the past 15 years.
Citing examples of 16 different Thoroughbreds, the HISA notice stated that “since Nov. 22, 2024, you have been the Responsible Person for at least 15 Covered Horses that have been placed on the Veterinarians' List. Based on entries to the HISA Portal, none of these horses have had a lameness evaluation or diagnostic work performed since being placed on the Veterinarians' List.
“Moreover, you have been the Responsible Person of at least 4 Covered Horses that have suffered catastrophic musculoskeletal injuries since Dec. 13, 2024,” the notice stated.
“Taken together, the Authority has reasonable grounds to believe that your actions or inactions present an imminent danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Covered Horses of Riders arising from specific violations of the Authority's Racetrack safety or accreditation rules,” the notice stated.
According to the hearing officer's summary of the Dec. 12, 2025, hearing, Rodriguez's legal team attempted to show that “all 16 horses were routinely evaluated and cared for, and all horses were given an opportunity to rest after being placed on the Vet List. The four breakdowns occurred in horses that were all determined after veterinarian evaluation to be fit for racing…
“Breakdowns are not exclusively attributable to pre-existing injury,” Rodriguez's legal team summarized at the hearing, according to the hearing officer's written report. “No amount of care can protect a horse against a hole or rock on the track. The Authority has not articulated a cognizable theory of imminent danger as to any of the identified horses.
“There are no allegations of non-compliance with procedures by Respondent, the Attending Veterinarian or Regulatory Veterinarians,” the hearing officer continued in his report, summarizing Rodriguez's response. “There is no allegation that Respondent circumvented these procedures with the intent to work or race unsound horses. The only complaint is that such evaluations must have been uploaded to the Portal, but the rules only require the Attending Veterinarian to submit proof of examination to the Regulatory Veterinarian. The Authority fails to explain how compliance with its own rules presents a danger to horses.”
“The Authority is alleging that the mere failure to record a 'diagnostic or lameness evaluation' in the HISA Portal warrants a Provisional Suspension without alleging any violations of record-keeping,” the hearing officer's summary of Rodriguez's response continued. “Instead, the Authority tries to argue that omissions in record-keeping constitute a 'deprivation' of 'necessary' care…
“All of Respondent's 16 horses were continuously assessed and evaluated, as shown by the Racing Activities sheets, the HISA Portal entries, [and] the Permission to Work forms” that were presented as evidence exhibits, the hearing officer wrote, summarizing Rodriguez's response. “Respondent's horses underwent over 100 diagnostic or lameness evaluations, in addition to day-to-day assessment by the Attending Veterinarian, Respondent and his staff,” the hearing officer wrote, referring to what Rodriguez's team presented at the hearing.
Rodriguez is alleged to have violated HISA Rule 2215(a), which states:
“No Covered Person acting alone or in concert with another person shall compromise the welfare of a Covered Horse for competitive or commercial reasons or subject or permit any Covered Horse under their control, custody or supervision to be subjected to or incur the following: (1) any form of cruelty, mistreatment, neglect, or abuse; (2) abandonment, injury, maiming, or killing (except for euthanasia for humane reasons and in a manner consistent with the current version of the American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals); (3) administration of any noxious substance; or (4) deprivation of necessary care, sustenance, shelter, or veterinary care.”
The notice of violation explained that, “One of the reasons behind HISA's Veterinarians' List rules is to provide a safety net for horses flagged by regulatory veterinarians in the course of their duties who require further veterinary evaluation. Such evaluation is meant to be provided by the trainer's attending veterinarian as outlined in [rules] 2242(b) and (d). As demonstrated [in the notice of violation], such evaluations were not always performed.”
Rodriguez could be facing additional penalization as his case moves through the HISA administrative process.
Beyond the provisional suspension, the Nov. 21 notice of violation stated that, “If it is agreed or determined that one or more Rule 2215(a) violations have occurred, HISA may, in addition to the provisional suspension, seek to impose one or more of the sanctions outlined in Rule 8200 as deemed appropriate by HISA in keeping with the seriousness of the violation and the facts of the case, and that is consistent with the safety, welfare, and integrity of Covered Horses, Covered Persons, and Covered Horseraces.”
The hearing officer wrote that, “Mr. Rodriguez states he is not entirely sure what the allegations against him are, but believes he does his best, including instructing his doctors to file all necessary paperwork for HISA records.”
The hearing officer then explained his rationale for allowing the provisional suspension to go into effect.
“The Authority's basis for suspension is that there is an absence of veterinarian treatment records for multiple covered horses concerning lameness evaluations or diagnostic treatments after being placed on the Vet List in the HISA Portal or produced to the Authority request…” Leone wrote.
“The Authority chose to bring its Request for Provisional Suspension solely based on a violation of Rule 2215(a)(4), which prohibits deprivation of necessary care, sustenance, shelter or veterinarian care,” the hearing officer wrote.
“Although the conduct in this case could potentially have violated other aspects of the Rule, the Authority limited its charge to this subsection. Accordingly, the decision shall depend only upon an analysis of 2215(a)(4),” the hearing officer wrote.
“Rule 2215(a) is a two-part rule. The first sentence is a general prohibition against compromising the welfare of a Covered Horse for competitive or commercial reasons. It establishes a broad duty of care to not engage in any action (or inaction) that endangers the horse's physical, mental, or overall health and safety. This part of the rule does not enumerate the specific acts or omissions required but just requires a showing of facts that the conduct endangered horse welfare for competitive or commercial advantage,” the hearing officer wrote.
“Rule 2215(a)(1-4) enumerates specific categories of abuse and endangerment. Intent to endanger horse welfare for competitive or commercial reasons is not required, as this part of the rule rests on strict liability for the enumerated actions,” the hearing officer wrote.
“For example, Rule 2215(a)(1) prohibits any form of cruelty, mistreatment, neglect of abuse. Proper fitness conditioning is important to prevent catastrophic injury in Covered Horses. The fatality investigations raised questions about the sufficiency of care exercised in the conditioning programs for Respondent's Covered Horses prior to workouts or races,” the hearing officer wrote.
The hearing officer then focused on two of the 16 horses identified in the notice of violation:
One was the Rodriguez-trained Jemography, who, according to HISA's notice of violation, “was the subject of a void claim on Mar. 24, 2024, and, as a result, was placed on the Veterinarians' List as unsound. Jemography failed a Veterinarians' List workout for unsoundness on Apr. 29, 2024, and again on Aug. 2, 2024. On Dec. 13, 2024, roughly four months after the last failed workout, Jemography died during or following the eighth race at Aqueduct. There are no diagnostic or lameness evaluations recorded in the HISA Portal for Jemography for 2024.”
The other was Secret Rules, who, according to HISA's notice of violation, was “placed on the Veterinarians' List as unsound on Dec. 14, 2024. Secret Rules failed a Veterinarians' List workout for unsoundness on Jan. 11, 2025. The Regulatory Veterinarian required diagnostic imaging following the failed workout. Eight days after failing the workout, Secret Rules died during or following a workout at Belmont Racetrack. There are no diagnostic or lameness evaluations recorded in the HISA Portal for Secret Rules since the horse was placed on the Veterinarians' List on Dec. 14, 2024.”
The hearing officer wrote that “Jemography had a pattern of very light training in order to get the horse sound enough to pass the vet. After removal from the Vet List, the horse's training significantly intensified in the time leading up to its catastrophic injury.”
Secret Rules “galloped immediately after a 7-day stand down,” the hearing officer wrote.
The hearing officer wrote that “Rule 2251 is clear that a veterinary examination is a required reporting event and applies to all veterinarians, both Attending and Regulatory Veterinarians.
“However, it appears that Regulatory Veterinarians do not file Pre-Race Inspections for Assessment of Racing Soundness in the HISA Portal as set forth under Rule 2142 but file them in Encompass. Trainer Communication Records are not filed in the HISA Portal. While there may be deficiencies in the reporting system as to where different reports are filed, it is irrelevant to the decision in this case. No timely lameness evaluations were made to be filed. Respondent and his veterinarian were unable to produce any such report,” the hearing officer wrote.
“Under Rule 2215(a)(4), the Authority has demonstrated a pattern of failure to have Covered Horses placed on the Vet List timely examined by Attending Veterinarians to assess lameness and prevent further injury. The lack of records in the Portal reflects lack of necessary veterinarian care,” the hearing officer wrote.
“Rule 2251(b) is clear that every veterinarian who examines or treats a Covered Horse shall, within 24 hours, submit a report to the Authority,” the hearing officer wrote.
The hearing officer then noted that Reyn Andrews, an attending veterinarian for Rodriguez, “acknowledged this requirement and stated that he creates records for examinations and treatments as contemporaneously as possible throughout the day.”
The hearing officer continued, drawing upon Andrews's testimony: “If a trainer informs [Andrews] a horse is on the vet's list, he typically examines the horse right away. A delay of a week between a horse being placed on the vet's list and his performing an examination would be because the trainer waited a week to inform him.
“There are no timely lameness examinations documented by Dr. Andrews of these horses while on the Vet List,” the hearing officer wrote. “The only reports are soundness evaluations on Veterinarian Work Request forms. There was not one diagnostic evaluation for unsoundness for even one of these Covered Horses while on the Vet List. There was no demonstration that Dr. Andrews examined any Covered Horse while still lame.”
That's because, the hearing officer wrote, Rodriguez “never requested” those types of exams.
The hearing officer's decision continued: “Respondent's habit was to let the horse rest. If after rest, the horse appeared healthy and sound, nothing further was done and the horse would not be examined until he needed a veterinarian evaluation for a work request.
“This failure to have horses on the Vet List assessed by the Attending Veterinarian to identify the lameness while still lame creates an unacceptable risk of serious injury or death to Covered Horses,” the hearing officer wrote.
“The events surrounding the fatality of Secret Rules are illustrative of this pervasive problem. Dr. Andrews was never told that Secret Rules was placed on the Vet List on Dec. 14. When Respondent asked Dr. Andrews to evaluate Secret Rules on Dec. 30 for the request to work, the horse was sound from rest and light work,” the hearing officer wrote.
“Dr. Andrews was completely unaware that it was the right front limb for which the horse was found grade 2/5 unsound on Dec. 14. His examination was blind and simply documented that the horse 'walks good and jogs good.' There was no focused examination of the right front limb. Dr. Andrews testified that, if the Respondent told him a horse was on the list, he would examine the horse right away. That did not happen for Secret Rules in December 2024.”
The hearing officer continued: “[Rodriguez] is an experienced horseman and, as he testified, 90% of lameness goes away with rest without the need for veterinarian treatment. It appears that with rest and time, Secret Rules's symptoms of the acute lameness in the right front subsided by Dec. 30. However, seemingly mild lameness can be a symptom of a more serious underlying soft tissue or bony injury.
“Hairline fractures are known to exhibit lameness that can subside with rest in days. Although the lameness may subside, the underlying fracture still exists and is susceptible to complete fracture if stressed prior to healing,” the hearing officer wrote.
“The lack of an Attending Veterinarian examination of Secret Rules within 48-72 hours of being placed on the Vet List on Dec. 14 prevented targeted examination of Secret Rules['s] right leg. Dr. Andrews has a mobile practice and can take radiographs and ultrasounds at the barn. The only reason a vet examination of Secret Rules did not occur at that time was that the Respondent didn't request one.
“Respondent is not a veterinarian, yet he chooses to self-diagnose and self-treat his Covered Horses, such as occurred with Secret Rules,” the hearing officer wrote.
“If Dr. Andrews had assessed Secret Rules or participated in his treatment for the Dec. 14 lameness, a record would have been generated, and a correct diagnosis could have been made,” the hearing officer wrote.
“[Rodriguez] created an unacceptable risk that an underlying injury would be masked by rest and minimal work, which would then go undetected during the Attending Veterinarian examination for a Veterinarian Work Request…” the hearing officer wrote.
“The unacceptable risks of serious injury or death from [Rodriguez's] failures to have his horses examined by an Attending Veterinarian after being placed on the Vet list caused Secret Rules' catastrophic injury,” the hearing officer wrote.
Rodriguez's attorney summed up the hearing officer's decision this way:
“The one issue that the judge seemed to be hanging any decision on was the need for attending vets to examine a horse's place on the vets' list promptly to the time that it was placed on the vets' list, and then document it in the HISA portal,” Brewster said. “The attending vet in this instance documented the examinations in the HISA portal, but the judge wanted the examinations to be closer in time to the time that the horse was placed on the vets' list. And that's, in essence, the way I clearly see the ruling in this case.
“The problem is, that's just not something that's very clear in the HISA rules at all,” Brewster said. “And as we go through this labyrinth of rules and certainly work through some of this, as to what they expect, and what a trainer needs to know that he should be doing with regard to examinations placed on the portal closer in time to when a horse is placed on the vets' list, that's how we work out the kinks and have better collaboration and communication.
“But one thing that was clear, and that there was a consensus on, [is] that Rudy is an exemplary caretaker,” Brewster said. “I mean, the regulatory vets said they've never had an instance where they thought he wasn't, you know, caring and dutiful and a great caretaker.
“It's just a matter of trying to work together, collaborate, and try to make sure that on the work end of this industry, the regulatory end sees the checks and balances, the T crossings, that timely recordkeeping would produce,” Brewster said.
“We're working through this with the lawyers on the other side and hopefully we'll find a resolution that accomplishes all those goals,” Brewster said.
The post Hearing Officer Rules That HISA Can Provisionally Suspend Trainer Rodriguez While ‘Cruelty’ Case Plays Out appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.
