HIWU Case Against New Mexico Track Vet Raises Arbitration Process Concerns

An arbitration decision against a Sunland Park veterinarian with 26 years on New Mexico racetracks has drawn sharp criticism from a prominent industry analyst, who argues that arbitrator Hugh Hackney "took what I would consider to be some pretty significant liberties in his decision" when sanctioning Dr. Jason Scott.

Hackney issued the arbitration ruling on Feb. 12, 2026, imposing an 18-month suspension and a $25,000 civil fine after HIWU agents searched Scott's veterinary truck at Sunland Park on Feb. 13, 2025, and found injectable bottles of sarapin, an analgesic also known as Pitcher plant extract, and adenosine monophosphate (AMP), a vasodilator. Both substances are banned under HISA rules for Thoroughbred racing.

The central controversy concerns the backdating of Scott's suspension. Hackney backdated the 18-month ban to Feb. 13, 2025, the date of the truck search, with the suspension set to run through Aug. 13, 2026. The problem identified by Chelsea Hackbarth, writing in the Paulick Report, is that Scott was never actually suspended during those initial 12 months. "Dr. Scott hasn't been suspended since that search date and remained able to practice on both Thoroughbreds and Quarter Horses in New Mexico until the decision was handed down on Feb. 12, 2026," Hackbarth wrote. "Since the suspension is set to run through Aug. 13, 2026, that essentially means that Hackney gave Dr. Scott a suspension of just five months."

Hackbarth, who states she has read "every major case decision (and most minor ones) issued by HIWU since the program's inception," said the Scott case "has left me with more questions than answers." She noted there have been a handful of similar cases adjudicated by HIWU in recent years but found Scott's outcome procedurally distinct.

Scott's case also carries an unusual jurisdictional dimension. Before the arbitration concluded, Scott filed a federal lawsuit against HISA and HIWU raising anti-constitutionality claims. The civil complaint posed a specific question that separates it from other challenges to HISA's authority: what happens when a mixed-meet veterinarian is found with medications prohibited for HISA-covered Thoroughbreds, but the vet claims those substances were intended solely for Quarter Horses, which fall outside HISA's jurisdiction entirely?

U.S. District Judge Sarah Davenport, of the District of New Mexico, denied Scott's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Scott "has not established irreparable harm for any of his claims." Davenport wrote that "any costs Plaintiff incurs from defending against arbitration and the imposition of civil fines do not result in irreparable harm because Plaintiff can recover monetary damages from HIWU and HISA." She also rejected Scott's Fifth Amendment due process claim on the merits and found that he had "not identified an irreparable harm resulting from the alleged Seventh Amendment violation." Scott's reliance on precedents treating the loss of a professional license as a forfeiture requiring a jury was dismissed by Davenport as "inapposite."

The denial of the preliminary injunction allowed the underlying lawsuit to proceed and left the scheduled arbitration hearing undisturbed. The arbitration that followed produced the Feb. 12, 2026, decision now drawing scrutiny, with the backdating mechanism at its core raising questions about whether HIWU's process delivers consistent and proportionate discipline across comparable cases.