USTA RESPONDS TO "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" CLAIM REGARDING SANCTIONS

COLUMBUS, OH -- March 24, 2025 -- Forty-eight United States Trotting Association directors met on the afternoon of March 8, 2025, during the USTA’s annual meeting to receive and discuss the report of the board’s ad hoc investigative committee. In the course of a 2-1/2 hour meeting, the board found the violations and imposed the penalties that have since been reported to the membership. The vote was overwhelming. People inside and outside the harness racing industry have paid close attention to these board actions. However, discussion in the media raised the following points that need correction or clarification.

The investigative committee sifted through a mountain of information and carefully considered all evidence. Every person and organization that was the subject of possible board action was given advance notice of their possible rule violations and all the evidence on which violations might be based. All investigated members were permitted to be represented by an attorney and afforded a hearing before the investigative committee, at which they could present evidence and argue their interpretation of the evidence. As a result of the hearing process, the investigative committee was persuaded to modify its initial recommendations in most cases, generally in favor of the investigated member. The evidence and committee’s recommendations were kept confidential until presented to the board. In addition, the USTA board accepted and considered written material from investigated members at the time the committee’s recommendations were considered.

It is well known that a private association like the USTA is not subject to constitutional requirements of due process. Nevertheless, the process afforded to those members subject to sanctions by the board exceeded fundamental principles of fairness and due process. Suggestions to the contrary are baseless.

The USTA board of directors is a neutral decision-making body and the best authority to decide cases of this type. No one has produced the slightest evidence of bias or prejudice on any director’s part. “Conflict of interest” is an incantation frequently heard after someone receives an unfavorable result, and this board decision is no exception. The term has appeared in the racing media recently, including in quotes attributed to a sanctioned USTA member, but its invocation regarding this board decision falls flat.

All USTA directors (except the five committee members) and all USTA staff members were excluded from the investigative process. Russell Williams, Joe Faraldo, and every other USTA director who participated in the board’s decision to impose sanctions had no knowledge of specific allegations or the evidence on which those allegations were founded until the March 8 meeting.

The board met in executive session to consider the investigative committee report. Our purpose was to avoid exposing to the public any information about the people and organizations involved except for the final decision. A complete record of the investigative committee’s work has been preserved. There may be curiosity among members of the public about the record, but the “court of public opinion” is not the proper place for this information unless one or more of the subjects of the investigation chooses to have it disclosed by making claims that require factual rebuttal.

A recent opinion piece asserted that sanctions against Adam Bowden and Diamond Creek Farm were tainted by a particular conflict of interest based on the premise that the USTA’s president, Russell Williams, held the power to punish and sanction his competitor (Mr. Bowden) through a secret investigative process. That assertion is also baseless. The investigative process was not carried out in secret. While it may have incorporated confidentiality for the protection of those being investigated, those individuals, including Mr. Bowden, were afforded extensive notice and an almost unlimited opportunity to be heard on the allegations against them. The fact is that Russell Williams had no special knowledge or power over the investigation or its outcome. Indeed, the process was designed to eliminate the possibility of undue influence by any individual over the outcome, whether a board member, a target of the investigation, or a member of the public.

The USTA, as an industry association directed by individuals in similar or competing lines of work, has robust conflict-of-interest policies expressed in its rules and bylaws. Independent legal counsel advised the USTA and carefully monitored the investigation committee process. Williams had one vote among 48 votes from a group of directors that included several other Standardbred breeders. In voting to apply USTA rules, Williams was on the same footing as any other director regarding knowledge of the investigations. In every instance, the penalties followed the conduct at issue.

The USTA has renewed its commitment to investigating and enforcing violations of its rules and bylaws, including through its alliance with the Standardbred Racing Investigative Fund. This initiative is not being imposed on the USTA from an outside entity or regulator — it has been demanded internally by its membership. In carrying out this mandate, the Association has demonstrated its commitment to fairness and professionalism and will continue to do so in investigations to come.