Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v LK Cropp – Decision dated 19 December 2014

hearingid: 8e708c89f2242f513cdfdf75b0bd0dd2

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 13/01/2015

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v LK Cropp - Decision dated 19 December 2014

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE
JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing

BETWEEN THE RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

INFORMANT

AND LISA CROPP, Licenced Jockey/Trainer

DEFENDANT

Judicial Committee: Mr Murray McKechnie, Chairman and Mrs Nikki Moffatt, Committee Member

Present: Mr Andy Cruickshank, Investigator on behalf of RIU - Mr Philip Cornege, Advocate for Ms Cropp

DECISION OF RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

DATED THIS 19 DAY OF DECEMBER 2014

1. THE INFORMATIONS

1.1 Ms Cropp faces two (2) informations; the first numbered A7105 is as follows:

1.1 On the 27th day of November 2014 at Te Awamutu, Lisa Cropp being a licenced Class A Jockey hindered and obstructed NZTR, namely Bryan James Oliver Investigator as Agent for NZTR from carrying out a proceeding in connections with racing, namely that having supplied a urine sample for drug analysis as required by that Agent she subsequently destroyed that sample.

1.2 The second information A7106 is as follows:

1.2 On the 27th day of November 2014 at Te Awamutu, Lisa Cropp being a licenced Class A Jockey wilfully failed to perform an act ordered by an Investigator, to be performed by her, namely that she was directed to remain on the Waipa Racecourse at Te Awamutu until released by an Investigator.

1.3 These informations were laid following events at the Waipa Racing Club meeting at Te Awamutu on 27 November 2014. Ms Cropp is a licenced jockey and trainer. She is today represented by Mr Cornege. Earlier Mr Rodney Schick, one of the principals of Windsor Park Stud at Cambridge had indicated that he was going to be a Lay Advocate for Ms Cropp. In circumstances which have been explained to the Committee Mr Schick is unable to be here and Mr Cornege, who is a barrister in practice in Hamilton, has today appeared as Ms Cropp’s counsel.

1.4 Mr Cruickshank for the RUI has prepared detailed submissions. Detailed submissions have also been prepared for Ms Cropp and were made available to the JCA yesterday. Those, we are told, were prepared by a Mr Murray Osmond of Cambridge formerly a member of the legal profession. Mr Osmond is not present at the hearing today. The circumstances which led to Mr Osmond’s departure from the legal profession are known to the Committee.

2. PLEAS
2.1 Ms Cropp indicated by Mr Schick at the earlier telephone conference that she would be entering pleas of guilty to both charges and that has today been confirmed by Mr Cornege. Formal pleas of guilty are entered in respect of both informations.

3. SUMMARY OF FACTS
3.1 A summary of facts was earlier made available by Mr Cruickshank to Mr Schick and that has reached Mr Cornege. No issues are taken with that. A copy of that summary of facts is attached to and is to be read as part of this decision.

4. SUBMISSIONS FOR RIU
4.1 The RIU submission concentrated upon the need to denunciate the use of drugs in and around the racing industry. The submissions pointed to Ms Cropp’s previous involvement with drugs. More will be said of that later. Attention was drawn to a number of previously decided cases. The Committee is familiar with these. They include RIU v I (4/11/2013), NZTR v B & H (31/10/2008) and NZTR v H (30/03/2010).

4.2 The submissions made reference to Ms Cropp’s public apology on 28 November 2014 and this being widely reported in the media. That public apology was in the following terms:
“I would like to personally apologise to all my supporters and to all industry participants for my actions during and after my failed drug test at the Waipa Racing Club Meeting on Thursday November 27 2014. With the support of my family and friends I will face this issue head on and get the necessary help and rehabilitation I need to move forward with my life and career in a positive way”.

4.3 The RIU submissions explained Ms Cropp’s recent employment at Windsor Park Stud and the support which she had received from her employer.

4.4 It appears to be accepted that the information A7105 which is with reference to Rule 801(1)(g) is the more serious charge. In respect of that the RIU proposed a disqualification of three (3) years. In respect of the second information A7016 it was proposed that there be a disqualification for a period of one (1) year.

4.5 Significantly the RIU submission contained a reference to Rule 1015. This rule was recently the subject of comment by the Appeals Tribunal in the case of W v RIU (10/12/2014). The rule provides that a person who is disqualified can make an application at any time twelve (12) months after the disqualification has been imposed for the cancellation of the balance of the term of disqualification. The RIU has here said that if Ms Cropp were to successfully achieve rehabilitation for her admitted drug abuse then the RIU would not oppose such an application under Rule 1015 if that were made after two (2) years of disqualification had been served. This is a positive proposal by the RIU and ought to encourage Ms Cropp to seek the rehabilitation which she spoke of in her public apology and to which reference will be made later in this decision.

5. THE CASE FOR MS CROPP
5.1 On behalf of Ms Cropp Mr Cornege emphasised that her whole life has centred around horses and that she has no qualifications outside the wider thoroughbred racing industry.

5.2 When asked by the Committee to explain events in the recent career of Ms Cropp Mr Cruickshank put before the Committee a summary and timeline outlining Ms Cropp’s more recent involvement in the industry. This has relevance to the number of drug tests that have taken place, the location of those tests and the results. The Committee notes that between July 2012 and November 2014, a period of almost 2½ years, Ms Cropp did not ride in any races.

5.3 Reference was made to the support from Windsor Park Stud and a letter was furnished from Mr Rodney Schick. This spoke, inter alia, of a strict zero tolerance policy for drugs at that establishment.

5.4 The timeline earlier referred to shows that Ms Cropp was tested in New Zealand once between January 2012 and June 2012. During that time she had 147 rides. She resumed riding in New Zealand in early November of 2014 and the only test that has been attempted since then was that at the Waipa Racing Club which led to the events that bring Ms Cropp before the Committee. Between January 2012 and July 2012 Ms Cropp was licenced in both Australia and New Zealand and rode principally in Australia. All the tests in Australia proved negative.

5.5 It emerged from questions directed to Mr Cruickshank and with help from Mr Godber the head of RIU who was present at this hearing that all the testing of Ms Cropp has been urine testing. Further that when Ms Cropp returned from riding in Australia there were no independent tests or inquiries undertaken by the RIU in New Zealand. Reference was made to the clear tests which had been returned in Australia.

6. PAST EVENTS AND THE FUTURE
6.1 On 7 March 2005 Ms Cropp was required to provide a urine sample here at this track at Te Rapa for drug testing. That led to a protracted dispute between NZTR as it then was and Ms Cropp which continued for many years and involved Court proceedings which ultimately reached the highest Court in the land the Supreme Court of New Zealand in March 2008. The Court gave judgment on 17 June 2008. Thereafter the Non-raceday Judicial Committee resumed its hearing and ultimately delivered a decision on 11 March 2009. Throughout that period Ms Cropp denied any involvement which illicit drugs. Further under the rules as they were then framed Ms Cropp was able to continue riding throughout that extended period. This she did with considerable success. The Non-raceday Judicial Committee delivered its penalty decision on 5 June 2009. Under the rule as it then stood Ms Cropp was disqualified for nine (9) months. The maximum available penalty at that time was twelve (12) months. Ms Cropp was ordered to pay a substantial sum in costs of $92,000. Together with the disqualification for nine (9) months Ms Cropp was fined the sum of $7,500.

6.2 Mr Cornege for Ms Cropp emphasised that between 2005 and the events which we are concerned all the tests which Ms Cropp has been required to undertake have proved negative.

6.3 The Committee questioned Mr Cruickshank concerning whether or not the RIU in New Zealand had ever undertaken the testing of hair follicles for prohibited drugs. This seems to have happened on very few occasions. It is within the Committee’s knowledge that it is widely accepted that hair follicle testing is more sophisticated, more accurate and in particular has better historical results than does urine testing.

6.4 Following on from what has just been spoken of Ms Cropp was asked whether in the future she would be prepared to undertake a hair follicle testing regime if that were required by the RIU. She indicated that she would. This Committee cannot impose such a regime. We are here to determine charges that are brought before us and not to police the Rules of Racing. However we think it is positive that Ms Cropp has responded in the way she has and we would trust that both the RIU and Ms Cropp follow this up.

6.5 Ms Cropp and her counsel (both addressed the Committee) spoke of her seeking medical assistance for her admitted drug abuse and that she proposes to undertake rehabilitation. It has to be said that this is in the very early stages. Ms Cropp said that it was difficult to obtain professional assistance in the Waikato. The extent of Ms Cropp’s commitment to medical assistance and rehabilitation will be evidenced by what happens over the coming months and indeed over a longer period than that.

6.7 As to the appropriate penalty that might be imposed upon Ms Cropp Mr Cornege acknowledged that a period of disqualification was inevitable. By reference to the decisions referred to earlier he proposed that an appropriate starting point would be eighteen (18) months. He further submitted that by reference to Rule 801(2) as it is now framed a period of disqualification could be followed by a period of suspension. This he contented would allow Ms Cropp to return to work within the industry, albeit not raceday riding, within a shorter period than would be the case if there were a disqualification and no suspension.

6.8 Further it was contended on Ms Cropp’s behalf that the offending in the cases of H & B and in H was worse than is the case here in as much that each involved a degree of planning which Mr Cornege contended was not present here. He said that Ms Cropp had simply “panicked” and had not planned to do as she did.

7. DISCUSSION AS TO PENALTY
7.1 As a result of what occurred at Te Awamutu and what has been said by Ms Cropp since it is an inevitable inference that the urine sample which she was required to give would almost certainly have tested positive for methamphetamine. Even if that were not so by her own admission she had used methamphetamine only a few days (some seven days) before the race meeting.

7.2 Ms Cropp was asked by the Committee why it had taken her so long to acknowledge the difficulties with drugs. Attention was drawn to the fact that the first time she was required to provide a urine sample where drugs were suspected was as long ago as 7 May 2005. Without detailing all of what Ms Cropp said on this subject she pointed to the legal advice she had received at that time. A criticism of this advice also appeared in the written submissions prepared by Mr Osmond. It is difficult for the Committee to accept that between 2005 and November 2014 Ms Cropp has not been using methamphetamine even although she may in that time have returned a number of clear urine tests.

7.3 The Committee is not attracted to the idea of a disqualification followed by a period of suspension. In our view the best chance of Ms Cropp returning to make a positive contribution to the industry is for her to undertake the rehabilitation which she has outlined, commit herself to the hair follicle testing regime which we have spoken of and avail herself of the RIU’s offer to consider the cancellation of any outstanding period of disqualification if, after two (2) years, she has satisfied the RIU that the problems which she presently has have been satisfactorily addressed.

7.4 In our judgement it is very important to make it plain to all in the racing industry that the use of drugs by persons who are licenced to ride and/or train is unacceptable. It is even more unacceptable at a Class A level. While there is no positive proof that the sample destroyed by Ms Cropp would have returned a positive for methamphetamine it is, for the reasons explained earlier, highly likely. In any event nobody who is using methamphetamine on whatever day of the week it might be should be riding horses in trials or on raceday. Nor should they be riding in training because as is accepted by all concerned the use of such drugs impairs judgment and puts health at risk – both human health and animal health.

7.5 The second information in relation to disobeying the instruction to stay on the racecourse is less serious and that will be reflected in the penalty which follows.

7.6 What has happened here is somewhat unique. Ms Cropp has for years been denying that she has had a problem with drugs. Now she has owned up to it. What is more the RIU have said that having owned up to it if she can demonstrate to them that she has got it fixed they will not stand in her way.

7.7 On the charge A7105 Ms Cropp will be disqualified for three (3) years. That will commence immediately. On the information A7106 Ms Cropp will be disqualified for one (1) year. That will commence immediately and those two periods of disqualification will run concurrently – that is to say side by side.

7.8 The Committee would hope that the steps that have been outlined in this decision are taken both by Ms Cropp and by the RIU but it is Ms Cropp who must move first. If she does and moves in the right direction the RIU will assist her.

8. COSTS
8.1 The RIU does not seek costs. For Ms Cropp her financial position is said to be difficult. We were told that this is in large part as a result of the legal costs incurred in the earlier proceedings under the Rules of Racing. It was proposed for Ms Cropp that she pay some contribution towards costs and that she be given time to pay.

8.2 The usual position which Non-raceday Judicial Committees take when a significant period of disqualification is imposed and that this necessarily impacts upon the employment position of the licence holder and may cause difficulty in meeting the costs award. That may well be the case in the present circumstances. Ms Cropp will pay $1,200 towards the costs of the JCA and can negotiate with the JCA a time payment regime for that. There will be no costs awarded in favour of the RIU and that is yet another gesture of goodwill on the RIU’s behalf towards Ms Cropp

DATED THIS 19 DAY OF DECEMBER 2014

__________________________________________
MURRAY MCKECHNIE
Chairman
Signed pursuant to Rule 920(5)

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules:

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: