Evidentiary Standards, Challenges, and Practical Strategies
Words - Peter J. Sacopulos
A trainer receives notice that a horse has tested positive for a prohibited substance. The laboratory result appears conclusive. Then, while reviewing the records, something seems wrong. A custody form is incomplete. A sample remained in storage overnight with no recorded time of transfer. Two witnesses disagree about who handled the evidence. The paperwork does not clearly establish how the sample moved from the horse to the laboratory.
For someone familiar with criminal trials, the natural question may be whether the evidence can be thrown out. However, the answer under the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority’s (HISA) Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program is more complicated. Chain of custody serves the same basic purpose in almost every legal setting in that it provides confidence that the evidence eventually tested or presented is the same evidence originally collected and that its integrity was preserved along the way.
The consequences of a problem in that chain depend heavily on the legal forum in which the evidence is being introduced. Federal courts apply constitutional protections and the Federal Rules of Evidence. HISA/HIWU proceedings operate under a specialized regulatory system with their own evidentiary standards, presumptions, and burdens of proof. Understanding that distinction is critical in attempting to challenge physical evidence in a HISA/HIWU proceeding.
Chain of Custody in Federal Court
In federal court, chain of custody is principally an issue of authentication. Federal Rule of Evidence 901 requires the party offering an item into evidence to produce sufficient evidence for a finding that the item “is what the proponent claims it is.” For physical evidence that changes hands several times, the chain of custody helps establish that foundation. Separate but related requirements appear in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which regulates government searches and seizures.
Under the Fourth Amendment, searches and seizures may only be conducted on grounds of probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Evidence obtained through an unconstitutional government search may be subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule. Once physical evidence has been lawfully obtained, however, questions about what happened to it afterward generally concern authentication and reliability.
The difference between illegally obtained evidence and chain of custody issues is evident in their legal remedies. A successful Fourth Amendment challenge can prevent unlawfully obtained evidence from being introduced into legal proceedings at all, while defects in the chain of custody usually receive more forgiving treatment. Federal courts generally admit evidence when there is enough information to establish its identity, leaving deficiencies in the chain for the jury to consider when deciding how much weight to give it.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals explained this principle recently in United States v. Perry. There, the defendant challenged marijuana admitted against him because the government had not established a perfect chain of custody.
The court characterized chain of custody as one method of satisfying Rule 901 and explained that a missing link does not necessarily prevent authentication where the evidence establishes that substitution or tampering is improbable. The Eleventh Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Varazo, where a book bag containing drugs and a firearm passed through several people before reaching law enforcement. Two of the people involved in discovering the bag did not testify. The court nonetheless held that chain-of-custody problems generally concern the weight of the evidence and found that circumstantial evidence sufficiently connected the bag to the defendant. In sum, a federal chain-of-custody challenge requires more than identifying imperfect paperwork. A serious authentication challenge ordinarily requires evidence suggesting that the identity or integrity of the item is genuinely uncertain.
HISA Uses a Different Evidentiary Framework
Under HISA rule 3122, identifying a departure form laboratory standards is not enough to overturn an adverse analytical finding. The challenge must also show that the departure could reasonably have caused the result, making the link between procedural errors and the outcome crucial.
HISA presents a different regulatory structure. Congress recognized HISA as a “private, independent, self-regulatory, nonprofit corporation” responsible for developing and implementing national rules governing Thoroughbred racing, subject to Federal Trade Commission oversight. The Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU) administers and enforces HISA’s Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program. HISA’s Testing and Investigations Standards expressly provide that target testing does not require reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The rules instead authorize testing according to the regulatory system established for covered horses and covered persons.
HISA hearings also operate under evidentiary rules that are considerably more flexible than the Federal Rules of Evidence. HISA Rule 7260 gives the arbitrator authority to determine admissibility, relevance, and materiality and expressly states that conformity with formal legal rules of evidence is unnecessary. The Rule notes that the Federal Rules of Evidence may be used for guidance, and that hearsay may also be admitted.
HISA nevertheless has detailed rules intended to protect the integrity of collected samples. Rule 5510 requires samples to be stored in a manner protecting their identity, integrity, and security. When blood or urine is not transported to the laboratory on the day of collection, the rules require documentation of the storage location and the times the sample entered and left storage. The collection officer must also document who has custody of the samples or access to them. Rule 5520 further requires secure transportation designed to protect the sample from degradation and provides that the Agency may consider voiding a sample if its identity or integrity was compromised during transportation.
For someone challenging a test result, the crucial provision is Rule 3122. Laboratories are presumed to have conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with applicable laboratory standards. A covered person seeking to overcome that presumption must establish a departure from the applicable standards and show that the departure could reasonably have caused the adverse analytical finding.
Horses selected for testing are handled under controlled procedures designed to safeguard sample collection and the integrity of the evidence. strict protocols help preserve the reliability of the testing process and support the subsequent review of any disputed findings.
If that showing is made, the burden shifts to HIWU to establish that the departure did not cause the finding. This creates an important distinction for anyone reviewing a HISA/HIWU case. Finding a procedural error is only the first part of the analysis. The challenge becomes substantially stronger when the error is connected to the identity, contamination, degradation, substitution, or analytical reliability of the sample.
What the HISA Cases Tell Us
Developing HISA caselaw shows how much the causal connection matters. In HIWU v. Pineda, trainer Milton Pineda challenged the chain of custody associated with samples from several horses that tested positive for Diisopropylamine. The arbitrator applied Rules 3122(c) and (d) and concluded that Pineda failed at the first step because he had not established a departure from the governing laboratory standards. His chain-of-custody challenge therefore failed.
Wong v. FTC,provides an even clearer example. Jonathan Wong’s horse, Heaven and Earth, tested positive for Metformin after winning a race in Indiana. Wong pursued additional testing and later identified numerous alleged errors in the testing and custody process. An administrative law judge actually found a departure from Rule 5510 concerning chain-of-custody documentation.
The problem for Wong was causation. He allegedly did not provide evidence showing how the departure could reasonably have produced an incorrect Metformin finding. The federal district court therefore upheld the FTC’s decision and explained that a departure alone did not invalidate the result.
In a 2026 incident, Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission investigators searched Felissa Dunn’s barn and recovered syringes, two of which later tested positive for banned substances. HIWU originally relied on witness statements indicating that one investigator had conducted the search and seizure.
Shortly before the hearing, HIWU learned that another investigator intended to testify that two investigators had actually participated. The new account conflicted materially with the evidence HIWU had relied upon to establish possession and transfer of the syringes. Ultimately, HIWU concluded that it could no longer rely on an unbroken chain of custody and withdrew the charge.
Together, Pineda, Wong, and the Dunn investigation offer useful analysis. Minor irregularities, unsupported allegations, and procedural departures with no demonstrated relationship to the test result are unlikely to defeat a charge. Contradictory evidence that creates a genuine question about what was seized, who possessed it, or whether the tested item can reliably be traced back to its source, however, presents a much more serious evidentiary challenge.
What Constitutes a Meaningful Chain-of-Custody Problem?
The review of an evidentiary challenge in a HISA/HIWU case usually begins by reconstructing the movement of the evidence from beginning to end. For samples, that means identifying who collected material, how containers were labeled and sealed, where they were stored, who had access to them, when they were removed from storage, who transported them, when they reached the laboratory, and what happened after arrival.
Warning signs include missing custody records, unexplained periods of possession, inconsistent sample identification numbers, damaged or unexplained seals, undocumented storage, conflicting times, discrepancies concerning who handled a sample, transportation outside required conditions, or witness accounts that conflict with the written chain.
The final question is usually the most important: What could this problem have changed?
A missing signature may establish a technical departure. A missing twelve-hour period of custody during which the location and persons with access to the sample are unknown raises a different concern. Evidence showing that a sample was stored under conditions capable of degrading it creates another. Conflicting testimony that leaves uncertainty about whether the tested item is the item originally seized can reach the core purpose of the chain of custody itself.
Addressing the Problem Before the Hearing
HISA Rule 7260 permits a party to request production of documents that are relevant and material to the dispute and permits an arbitrator to issue subpoenas for witnesses, documents, and other evidence. However, the same rule limits broad or disproportionate discovery requests. In Wong, the arbitrator rejected a request for twenty-four categories of documents as overly broad, while expressly permitting Wong to return with specific and particularized requests. The federal district court later relied on that history in rejecting his challenge to the discovery process.
Samples must be carefully collected, stored and documented to preserve their identity and integrity. Any gaps in the chain of custody, from collection through laboratory analysis, can become significant when the reliability of a test result is challenged in HISA/HIWU proceedings.
A targeted request is therefore likely to be more effective than demanding every record relating to testing. The request should identify the particular link at issue: the collection record, electronic chain log, storage log, shipping record, laboratory receipt, seal documentation, instrument record, or testimony from the person responsible for the disputed transfer.
Where the facts support the argument, the covered person can ask the arbitrator for an evidentiary ruling excluding the evidence or contend that HIWU cannot establish the alleged violation. Rule 7280 allows interim rulings and measures during the proceeding. Any objection should be made promptly and in writing. Rule 7320 provides that a party who knows a requirement has not been followed and continues with the adjudication without a written objection waives the right to object.
That waiver provision makes preservation especially important, and a chain-of-custody concern discovered before the hearing should become part of the written record immediately.
If the Evidence Comes In
Admission of the evidence does not end the chain-of-custody inquiry. The issue can still become central to the hearing. Cross-examination can establish exactly where the documentation stops matching the witnesses’ recollections. Laboratory personnel can be questioned about what their procedures require, whether the records demonstrate compliance, and what consequences could follow from the identified departure. Collection personnel can be questioned about seals, storage, transfers, timing, and access.
Expert testimony may be especially important when the challenge involves sample degradation, contamination, laboratory handling, or analytical reliability. Wong illustrates the danger of identifying a deviation without providing evidence explaining how it could have affected the result. A qualified expert may supply that missing causal link. The goal is to move the argument from claiming that a rule was broken to demonstrating that a particular failure creates a reasonable mechanism by which the reported result could be wrong. This is the point at which Rule 3122’s burden-shifting framework comes into play.
Finally, the objection must remain preserved throughout the administrative process. A person aggrieved by a final HISA/HIWU civil sanction generally has thirty days to seek de novo review before an FTC administrative law judge. A subsequent application for Commission review also carries a thirty-day deadline. Review does not automatically stay the sanction. Federal judicial review may follow final agency action, as Wong itself demonstrates.
Chain of custody therefore deserves attention from the moment evidence is collected. HISA’s/HIWU’s rules provide detailed safeguards for sample identity and integrity, while its evidentiary framework places a significant burden on the person challenging the evidence.
The cases decided so far suggest that the most successful challenge will identify the precise break, document it carefully, explain how it threatens the reliability or identity of the evidence, and preserve that explanation at every stage of review.