Question: A state legislature recently enacted a statute legalizing harness racing. The statute authorized pari-mutuel betting at certain track locations within the state. A seven-member commission was established and empowered to supervise and regulate the sport's activities. Under an inseparable provision of the statute, the commission was authorized to suspend the racing license of any trainer whose horse tested positive for illegal drugs. The statute permitted the commission to make the suspension without any prior hearing. However, suspended trainers were entitled to a prompt post- suspension hearing and decision on any issues in dispute. The racing season was inaugurated at the largest racetrack in the state. The featured race was a $1,000,000 harness race for 2-year-old trotters. After the awards presentation, the winning horse underwent a standard drug test and traces of cocaine were found in his urine sample. Immediately thereafter, the horse was disqualified and the commission suspended the horse's trainer, without a prior hearing. Without seeking a post-suspension hearing as provided by statute, the trainer brings suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the state harness racing law. The statute is probably
A: constitutional, because being granted a racing license is a privilege, not a right. 
B: constitutional, because the state's interest in suspending the license of horse trainers suspected of illegal drugging is sufficiently important to permit the suspension of any pri Provide two versions of response separated with exactly 6 asterisk symbols: ******.
user