This appeal requires review of a Superior Court ruling reversing a decision by the Delaware Harness Racing Commission (hereinafter “Commission”), ordering a 10-day suspension of the appellee driver.

I.

Duane Mitchell, a harness race driver, drove in a race at Dover Downs and finished third. During the race, the judges perceived what they believed to be a failure by Mitchell to make any attempt to improve the position of his horse during the last quarter of the race. The judges conferred and unanimously found Mitchell’s performance unsatisfactory due to “indifference,” in violation of Commission Rule 18 § 5.1 Mitchell appealed to the Commission.

During the hearing, the Commission reviewed the video tape of the race and heard testimony from Mitchell, the racing judges, and another driver called in rebuttal by Mitchell. The Commission unanimously affirmed Mitchell’s “suspension for lack of effort” in the specified race. Mitchell appealed to the Superior Court under 28 Del.C. § 525.2

The Superior Court reversed the decision of the Commission. The Court held, “A review of the record in this case reveals no credible evidence to support the charge against [Mitchell]. The sum total of the evidence seems to be that the appellant failed to use his whip on the horse in the race in question, contrary to his usual driving methods. * * * ”

II.

In concluding that “this case reveals no credible evidence to support the charge” and in referring to the “sum total of the evidence,” the Superior Court obviously exceeded its authority under 28 Del.C. § 525 “to review [this case] upon questions of law only.” It appears from the record that the Superior Court weighed the evidence and made its own findings of fact.

“The standard for judicial review of a decision of an administrative body is well *79established. ‘Reversal is warranted if the administrative agency exercised its power arbitrarily or committed an error of law, or made findings of fact unsupportable by substantial evidence.’ ” Olney v. Cooch, Del.Supr., 425 A.2d 610, 612-13 (1981). “Substantial evidence has been defined to mean, ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ” Olney, 425 A.2d at 614.

Because the Superior Court violated the established rule of review of the decision of an administrative agency, and because there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding, we must reverse and order reinstated the decision of the Commission.

III.

Mitchell contends that the Commission deprived him of his right to know with particularity the substance of that with which he was being charged. In particular, he argues that he was notified that he had violated Commission Rule 18 § 5 without any indication as to the specifics of the charge. He cites Superior Ct.Crim.Rule 7(c)3 as authority supporting his right to specificity.

This contention is manifestly without merit. Mitchell is charged with violating an administrative rule; this is not a criminal proceeding. The record indicates that Mitchell was notified that he had violated Commission Rule 18 § 5; this, in itself, was sufficiently clear to satisfy any notice requirement in this case.

* * *

Reversed.