Back to decisions search

Archive Decision

This decision has been migrated from the JCA website. Information is accurate but formatting may differ from contemporary decisions. Please contact us for any further enquiries.

Non Raceday Inquiry – LK Cropp

ID: JCA19466

Hearing Type:
Old Hearing

Rules:
520.4.b

Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing

Decision: --

Miss Cropp is charged with a breach of Rule 520(4)(b) namely, that on diverse dates between about the 10th January 2005 and the 18th January 2005 she did commit a breach of Rule 520(4)(b) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing in that knowing she had engaged herself on the 3rd day of January 2005 to ride CLEAN SWEEP in the Telegraph Handicap at the Wellington Racing Club meeting on the 22nd January 2005



----------
--

Miss Cropp is charged with a breach of Rule 520(4)(b) namely, that on diverse dates between about the 10th January 2005 and the 18th January 2005 she did commit a breach of Rule 520(4)(b) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing in that knowing she had engaged herself on the 3rd day of January 2005 to ride CLEAN SWEEP in the Telegraph Handicap at the Wellington Racing Club meeting on the 22nd January 2005 she did fail to communicate the said riding engagement to Mr Leonard Goord, her registered riders agent, and that on about the 10th day of January 2005 her agent engaged her to ride the horse SHASTRI in the same race, and that by her omission to inform her agent of the engagement of CLEAN SWEEP she did therefore permit herself to be engaged for the said two horses in the said race.

--

--

She denied the charge and did not seek legal representation.

--

--

Mr Oatham called one witness, Racecourse Inspector Mr B F McKenzie, who produced agreed Statement of Facts including documentary exhibits.

--

--

The agreed Statement of Facts is as follows:

--

--

The matter before the Judicial Committee concerns a double riding engagement by licensed jockey L K Cropp for the Group One ING (NZ) Ltd Telegraph Handicap at the Wellington Racing Club's meeting for the 22nd January 2005.

--

--

It is of relevance to this hearing that jockey Cropp has a registered riders agent pursuant to the New Zealand Rules of Racing, he being Mr Leonard Goord. A copy of the NZTR notice dated 6th December 2004 to Mr Goord and jockey Cropp confirming the registration is produced.

--

--

The matter first came to light as a result of media reports in the week leading up to this event. It had been reported in the media and attributed to jockey Cropp that she was riding the horse CLEAN SWEEP trained by the Moroney/Scott stable in that event. Further publicity revealed that jockey Cropp had also been engaged, through her agent, to ride the horse SHASTRI trained by John Sargent in the same race.

--

--

As a result of that publicity and subsequent discussions between the parties which did not resolve the matter, NZTR officials were requested on the 19th January 2005 to resolve the question as to what horse jockey Cropp should ride in the Telegraph Handicap on the 22nd January 2005.

--

--

This particular issue was heard before the Judicial Committee who were acting at the Waikato Racing Club meeting at Te Rapa on the 19th January 2005. Evidence was heard from licensed trainers John Sargent and Andrew Scott, and also jockey Cropp. Documentary evidence was also tabled which had been received from Mr Goord, Paul Moroney and Mr G Duff (part-owner of CLEAN SWEEP), plus a newspaper clipping from the Dominion Newspaper of the 19th January 2005. Jockey Cropp was supplied with a copy of Mr Goord's statement prior to the hearing on the 19th. All of those documents are tabled.

--

--

After hearing all evidence and submissions the Judicial Committee ruled that jockey Cropp would ride the horse CLEAN SWEEP. A copy of that decision is produced. It was not considered appropriate to deal with the question of rule breach/s on that race day.

--

--

NZTR officials then conducted further inquiries into this matter and this has led to the charge being laid against jockey Cropp. Both persons were interviewed by officials. Jockey Cropp confirmed her original statement that being that she had been engaged and had accepted an engagement to ride CLEAN SWEEP in the race in question on or about the 3rd of January 2005.

--

--

She claimed that at no time after confirming that engagement with the connection of CLEAN SWEEP did she inform her agent Mr Goord of that fact. When asked why she did not, she commented that she thought that Mr Goord would have known she was riding CLEAN SWEEP because that was the way things were between them and how things worked.

--

--

Both jockey Cropp and Mr Goord expressed their regret at the breakdown in their communication over this matter and for the problems and publicity this had caused. Jockey Cropp accepted the fact that her failure to tell Mr Goord of the CLEAN SWEEP engagement led him to accepting the ride on SHASTRI on her behalf and she admitted that as a result she did end up having two engagements to ride in the same race.

--

--

The new rules relating to the role of registered riders agents are currently under review.

--

--

Miss Cropp gave evidence and she did not challenge any of the informant's evidence, but sought to explain that there was a breakdown in communication between herself and riding agent Mr Goord.

--

--

After hearing all the evidence, which was not disputed by Miss Cropp, we are satisfied that the charge has been proven.

--

--

PENALTY:

--

After hearing submissions from Miss Cropp and Mr Oatham on matters of penalty we determine that a fine is the appropriate penalty.

--

--

We accept and adopt the submissions by Mr Oatham which were:

--

--
    --

    --

  • The fact that the race in question was a Group One Race and one of this country's most prestigious events.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • There was fixed odds betting taking place on this event in the weeks leading up to the 22 January 2005.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • The riding engagement dispute was played out in the media in a manner that could be seen as being detrimental to the image of the industry.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • That the actions of jockey Cropp caused great inconvenience to Mr Sargent and the connections of SHASTRI as a result of the ruling of the Judicial Committee, they having previously booked jockey Cropp to ride their horse in accordance with the Rules and normal procedures.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • Her action also meant the connections of CLEAN SWEEP were forced to take time out to prepare submissions in support of their claim of having booked jockey Cropp to ride as from the 3 January 2005, a claim supported throughout by the jockey.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • Her obvious negligence in terms of the business dealings with Mr Goord in this matter.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • The fact that jockey Cropp is currently one of the leading jockeys in terms of the number of race rides she has and the number of winners she has ridden this season.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • The penalty imposed must not only appropriately punish jockey Cropp for her offending, but also send a clear message and warning, and to act as a deterrent to others in the industry, and is such that clearly signals that there is a serious responsibility placed on riders and their agents to act professionally in these matters.
    • --

--

--

Miss Cropp has provided an explanation that this whole unfortunate incident was brought about by lack of communication between trainers, jockey and jockey agent. However, the Committee has difficulty with that explanation. The jockey has the clear obligation to confirm any engagements with her agent.

--

--

Accordingly we impose a fine of $1,250 and we order costs of $550.

--

--

Charges were also laid against Mr Goord ? they have been withdrawn by leave.

--

--

 

--

 

--

Decision Date: 01/01/2001

Publish Date: 01/01/2001

JCA Decision Fields (raw)

Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.

Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.

hearingid: 5d4643dab9d683f003d1a7b68f54981b

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - LK Cropp

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

--

Miss Cropp is charged with a breach of Rule 520(4)(b) namely, that on diverse dates between about the 10th January 2005 and the 18th January 2005 she did commit a breach of Rule 520(4)(b) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing in that knowing she had engaged herself on the 3rd day of January 2005 to ride CLEAN SWEEP in the Telegraph Handicap at the Wellington Racing Club meeting on the 22nd January 2005



----------
--

Miss Cropp is charged with a breach of Rule 520(4)(b) namely, that on diverse dates between about the 10th January 2005 and the 18th January 2005 she did commit a breach of Rule 520(4)(b) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing in that knowing she had engaged herself on the 3rd day of January 2005 to ride CLEAN SWEEP in the Telegraph Handicap at the Wellington Racing Club meeting on the 22nd January 2005 she did fail to communicate the said riding engagement to Mr Leonard Goord, her registered riders agent, and that on about the 10th day of January 2005 her agent engaged her to ride the horse SHASTRI in the same race, and that by her omission to inform her agent of the engagement of CLEAN SWEEP she did therefore permit herself to be engaged for the said two horses in the said race.

--

--

She denied the charge and did not seek legal representation.

--

--

Mr Oatham called one witness, Racecourse Inspector Mr B F McKenzie, who produced agreed Statement of Facts including documentary exhibits.

--

--

The agreed Statement of Facts is as follows:

--

--

The matter before the Judicial Committee concerns a double riding engagement by licensed jockey L K Cropp for the Group One ING (NZ) Ltd Telegraph Handicap at the Wellington Racing Club's meeting for the 22nd January 2005.

--

--

It is of relevance to this hearing that jockey Cropp has a registered riders agent pursuant to the New Zealand Rules of Racing, he being Mr Leonard Goord. A copy of the NZTR notice dated 6th December 2004 to Mr Goord and jockey Cropp confirming the registration is produced.

--

--

The matter first came to light as a result of media reports in the week leading up to this event. It had been reported in the media and attributed to jockey Cropp that she was riding the horse CLEAN SWEEP trained by the Moroney/Scott stable in that event. Further publicity revealed that jockey Cropp had also been engaged, through her agent, to ride the horse SHASTRI trained by John Sargent in the same race.

--

--

As a result of that publicity and subsequent discussions between the parties which did not resolve the matter, NZTR officials were requested on the 19th January 2005 to resolve the question as to what horse jockey Cropp should ride in the Telegraph Handicap on the 22nd January 2005.--

--

This particular issue was heard before the Judicial Committee who were acting at the Waikato Racing Club meeting at Te Rapa on the 19th January 2005. Evidence was heard from licensed trainers John Sargent and Andrew Scott, and also jockey Cropp. Documentary evidence was also tabled which had been received from Mr Goord, Paul Moroney and Mr G Duff (part-owner of CLEAN SWEEP), plus a newspaper clipping from the Dominion Newspaper of the 19th January 2005. Jockey Cropp was supplied with a copy of Mr Goord's statement prior to the hearing on the 19th. All of those documents are tabled.

--

--

After hearing all evidence and submissions the Judicial Committee ruled that jockey Cropp would ride the horse CLEAN SWEEP. A copy of that decision is produced. It was not considered appropriate to deal with the question of rule breach/s on that race day.

--

--

NZTR officials then conducted further inquiries into this matter and this has led to the charge being laid against jockey Cropp. Both persons were interviewed by officials. Jockey Cropp confirmed her original statement that being that she had been engaged and had accepted an engagement to ride CLEAN SWEEP in the race in question on or about the 3rd of January 2005.

--

--

She claimed that at no time after confirming that engagement with the connection of CLEAN SWEEP did she inform her agent Mr Goord of that fact. When asked why she did not, she commented that she thought that Mr Goord would have known she was riding CLEAN SWEEP because that was the way things were between them and how things worked.

--

--

Both jockey Cropp and Mr Goord expressed their regret at the breakdown in their communication over this matter and for the problems and publicity this had caused. Jockey Cropp accepted the fact that her failure to tell Mr Goord of the CLEAN SWEEP engagement led him to accepting the ride on SHASTRI on her behalf and she admitted that as a result she did end up having two engagements to ride in the same race.

--

--

The new rules relating to the role of registered riders agents are currently under review.

--

--

Miss Cropp gave evidence and she did not challenge any of the informant's evidence, but sought to explain that there was a breakdown in communication between herself and riding agent Mr Goord.

--

--

After hearing all the evidence, which was not disputed by Miss Cropp, we are satisfied that the charge has been proven.

--

--

PENALTY:

--

After hearing submissions from Miss Cropp and Mr Oatham on matters of penalty we determine that a fine is the appropriate penalty.

--

--

We accept and adopt the submissions by Mr Oatham which were:

--

--
    --

    --

  • The fact that the race in question was a Group One Race and one of this country's most prestigious events.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • There was fixed odds betting taking place on this event in the weeks leading up to the 22 January 2005.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • The riding engagement dispute was played out in the media in a manner that could be seen as being detrimental to the image of the industry.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • That the actions of jockey Cropp caused great inconvenience to Mr Sargent and the connections of SHASTRI as a result of the ruling of the Judicial Committee, they having previously booked jockey Cropp to ride their horse in accordance with the Rules and normal procedures.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • Her action also meant the connections of CLEAN SWEEP were forced to take time out to prepare submissions in support of their claim of having booked jockey Cropp to ride as from the 3 January 2005, a claim supported throughout by the jockey.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • Her obvious negligence in terms of the business dealings with Mr Goord in this matter.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • The fact that jockey Cropp is currently one of the leading jockeys in terms of the number of race rides she has and the number of winners she has ridden this season.
    • --

--

--
    --

    --

  • The penalty imposed must not only appropriately punish jockey Cropp for her offending, but also send a clear message and warning, and to act as a deterrent to others in the industry, and is such that clearly signals that there is a serious responsibility placed on riders and their agents to act professionally in these matters.
    • --

--

--

Miss Cropp has provided an explanation that this whole unfortunate incident was brought about by lack of communication between trainers, jockey and jockey agent. However, the Committee has difficulty with that explanation. The jockey has the clear obligation to confirm any engagements with her agent.

--

--

Accordingly we impose a fine of $1,250 and we order costs of $550.

--

--

Charges were also laid against Mr Goord ? they have been withdrawn by leave.

--

--

 

--

 

--

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 520.4.b

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: