Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v MR Cropp 28 August 2012 – Decision dated 30 August 2012
ID: JCA17223
Decision:
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
HELD AT HAMILTON
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
BETWEEN Mr R Neal – Chief Stipendiary Steward
Informant
AND Mr M Cropp – Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class D)
Respondent
Information No: A3163
Rule: 636(1)(b)
Venue: Te Rapa Racecourse, Hamilton
Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley. Chairman - Mr R Seabrook, Committee Member
Appearing: Mr R Manning - Trainer assisting Mr Cropp.
Registrar: Mr L Tidmarsh – Trainee Stipendiary Steward
Plea: Not admitted
Date of Hearing: 28 August 2012
Charge:
An information was filed pursuant to Rule 636(1)(b). The informant, Mr R Neal, alleged that on Thursday 5th July 2012 in Race 7 at Waverley Racecourse Mr Cropp committed a breach of Rule 636(1)(b) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing. Being that, in his riding of STORMIN NORMAN, he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that STORMIN NORMAN was given full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible finishing place. And that he is therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon him pursuant to the provisions of rule 803 of the said Rules.
The particulars of the charge being, that passing the 400 metres, Mr Cropp permitted his mount to shift significant ground outwards and as a consequence of him failing to correct this movement, he detrimentally affected STORMIN NORMAN's chances of finishing in a higher placing.
The Informant, Mr R Neal served an Information on Mr M Cropp on 11 July 2012 at the Counties Racing Club. Mr Manning advised Mr Neal that he would like to read the transcript from the Waverley Race Meeting and was therefore seeking an adjournment to the hearing. The committee on 11 July granted an adjournment to the hearing to allow the Informant time to produce the transcript for the Respondent.
The charge was denied and subsequently heard as a Non Raceday Inquiry on the 28th August 2012, at Te Rapa Racecourse Hamilton.
The Rule:
Rule 636 of the Rules of Racing provides as follows:
(1) A person:
(b) being the Rider of a horse in a Race, must take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the Race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the Race or to obtain the best possible finishing place.
Mr Neal produced a letter from Mr M Godber, Operations Manager for the Racing Integrity Unit, pursuant to Rule 903(2) (d), giving permission to the filing of the information.
Mr Neal read the rule and Mr Cropp acknowledged that he understood it. He confirmed to the committee he was denying the charge.
Evidence for Informant:
Before demonstrating the incident on the video films, Mr Neal explained to the committee the circumstances regarding the charge. He said that passing the 600 metres, STORMIN NORMAN was racing at the rear of the field. He said that once the horse had rounded the home turn STORMIN NORMAN went up on the outside of Ms Allpress’ mount and continued to shift out towards the outside running rail. He said this caused STORMIN NORMAN to lose contact with the field.
Mr Neal demonstrated the incident on the video films. He pointed out to the committee the manner in which STORMIN NORMAN raced over the final 600 metres. While conceding the track was very wet, Mr Neal said that all runners on the day were finishing in the middle of the track. He explained that the running rails are not parallel and if a horse was to follow the outside rail it would be in trouble. He submitted that this was not a satisfactory ride by Mr Cropp, as the chances of his mount were significantly affected. This was caused by Mr Cropp continuing to push his mount forward when on an outward movement towards the outside rail. He submitted it was not an excuse for Mr Cropp to ride in this manner when other measures were available. Mr Neal concluded his submissions by saying that Mr Cropp was riding the favourite in the race and believed if he had maintained a straight line and showed greater judgement he would have finished in a higher placing.
Mr Neal informed the committee that as part of their investigations, the Stipendiary Stewards interviewed Mr Cropp in the company of Mr K Gray, Licensed Trainer, on raceday and their evidence was recorded. The respondent and the committee had read the transcript prior to the hearing.
Mr Neal explained that he had no issue with the horse being ridden cold, the concern he had was the lack of control by Mr Cropp in keeping his mount on a straighter line to the finish.
Mr Neal advised the committee that STORMIN NORMAN was vet checked post race with no abnormalities found.
Evidence for Respondent:
Mr Manning opened his submissions by saying if this charge today was found proved it would be opening up a huge can of worms. He said that this type of riding occurs every race day when varying judgement is displayed. Mr Manning said that he has since contacted Mr Patterson, trainer of STORMIN NORMAN, who confirmed he wanted his horse ridden cold and he was not unhappy with the ride. Mr Manning said that in his opinion it was a pretty good ride as Mr Cropp followed Ms Allpress, putting his horse in the race at the 600 metre mark. He conceded that STORMIN NORMAN did shift ground out towards the outside rail. However, Mr Manning then asked the question should Mr Cropp have stopped riding at this point and check his mount or should he have kept up his momentum in the heavy ground. He further stated that, it is not Mr Cropp's fault the outside running rail veers out and he believed the horse actually performed better when adjacent to the rail. He informed the committee that STORMIN NORMAN at his next 2 starts ran 12th of 14 runners, then last of 6 runners.
Mr Manning expressed his concerns to some parts of the transcript, which in his opinion, were not of assistance to Mr Cropp.
Mr Manning reminded the committee of similar rides over the past season in which riders were not charged and as Mr Cropp's employer and as an experienced trainer, he was quite happy with the ride.
In response to questions from the committee, Mr Cropp said STORMIN NORMAN was hanging out in the final straight and he was placing pressure on the left rein in an attempt to straighten his mount. He also advised that he was fully aware he was racing wide out on the track and had not directed his mount to be there in search of better ground.
Summary / Submissions for Informant:
Mr Neal in summing up said that all horses had finished down the centre of the track that day and firmly believed had STORMIN NORMAN been straightened up it would have finished in a better position.
Summary / Submissions by Respondent:
Mr Manning in summing up said, that Mr Cropp was a 3kg claimer and possibly made an error of judgement. He said riders often have to make a call and Mr Cropp did what he thought was right on the day. He then said it was a fine line as to whether to stop and straighten his mount or maintain his momentum in the heavy ground. Obviously he chose the latter, which in Mr Manning’s view was hard to dispute.
At the completion of all the submissions both parties acknowledged they had been giving a fair hearing.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee carefully listened to, and independently assessed the evidence of both parties and reviewed the video films several times, concentrating on the points highlighted by each party.
From our observations we are satisfied of the following:
1. Before the home turn, STORMIN NORMAN was being ridden up with the whip when at the rear of the field.
2. STORMIN NORMAN was making a run at the 400 metre when being pushed forward by Mr Cropp.
3. At approximately the 300 metre mark, Mr Cropp was racing 2 horse widths to the outside of Ms Allpress’ mount.
4. Within the next 2 strides, STORMIN NORMAN has shifted out quite abruptly, which we believe to be 3 horse widths.
5. STORMIN NORMAN does continue to shift out until near the 150 metres. The video films show that Mr Cropp did stop riding his mount briefly in an attempt to straighten it up.
6. STORMIN NORMAN did appear to be hanging outward with Mr Cropp carrying his whip in the right hand.
7. As Mr Manning has conceded it could be said that Mr Cropp has made a possible error of judgement.
8. However, it is the opinion of this committee that this was more a case of STORMIN NORMAN shifting out 3 horse widths in a matter of a few strides which Mr Cropp could do little about. At this stage, the video films showed the horse to be hanging out, which Mr Cropp was trying to correct by placing pressure on the left rein.
9. Although we concede STORMIN NORMAN did move out, Mr Cropp did stop riding briefly on 3 occasions in the final straight in an endeavour to straighten his mount.
10. In conclusion, over the final 150 metres STORMIN NORMAN has continued to make ground when being ridden forward, running in a straight line wide out on the track. The horse finished in 5th placing, less than one length from the winner.
Decision:
Accordingly, we are satisfied that STORMIN NORMAN was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible finishing place.
Therefore, we find the charge against Mr Cropp dismissed.
AJ Dooley R Seabrook
Chairman Committee Member
30 August 2012
Penalty:
Not applicable.
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 19/08/2012
Publish Date: 19/08/2012
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: ec9ef16f834c99ee888850e6c5007e3e
informantnumber: A3163
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 19/08/2012
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v MR Cropp 28 August 2012 - Decision dated 30 August 2012
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
HELD AT HAMILTON
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
BETWEEN Mr R Neal – Chief Stipendiary Steward
Informant
AND Mr M Cropp – Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class D)
Respondent
Information No: A3163
Rule: 636(1)(b)
Venue: Te Rapa Racecourse, Hamilton
Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley. Chairman - Mr R Seabrook, Committee Member
Appearing: Mr R Manning - Trainer assisting Mr Cropp.
Registrar: Mr L Tidmarsh – Trainee Stipendiary Steward
Plea: Not admitted
Date of Hearing: 28 August 2012
Charge:
An information was filed pursuant to Rule 636(1)(b). The informant, Mr R Neal, alleged that on Thursday 5th July 2012 in Race 7 at Waverley Racecourse Mr Cropp committed a breach of Rule 636(1)(b) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing. Being that, in his riding of STORMIN NORMAN, he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that STORMIN NORMAN was given full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible finishing place. And that he is therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon him pursuant to the provisions of rule 803 of the said Rules.
The particulars of the charge being, that passing the 400 metres, Mr Cropp permitted his mount to shift significant ground outwards and as a consequence of him failing to correct this movement, he detrimentally affected STORMIN NORMAN's chances of finishing in a higher placing.
The Informant, Mr R Neal served an Information on Mr M Cropp on 11 July 2012 at the Counties Racing Club. Mr Manning advised Mr Neal that he would like to read the transcript from the Waverley Race Meeting and was therefore seeking an adjournment to the hearing. The committee on 11 July granted an adjournment to the hearing to allow the Informant time to produce the transcript for the Respondent.
The charge was denied and subsequently heard as a Non Raceday Inquiry on the 28th August 2012, at Te Rapa Racecourse Hamilton.
The Rule:
Rule 636 of the Rules of Racing provides as follows:
(1) A person:
(b) being the Rider of a horse in a Race, must take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the Race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the Race or to obtain the best possible finishing place.
Mr Neal produced a letter from Mr M Godber, Operations Manager for the Racing Integrity Unit, pursuant to Rule 903(2) (d), giving permission to the filing of the information.
Mr Neal read the rule and Mr Cropp acknowledged that he understood it. He confirmed to the committee he was denying the charge.
Evidence for Informant:
Before demonstrating the incident on the video films, Mr Neal explained to the committee the circumstances regarding the charge. He said that passing the 600 metres, STORMIN NORMAN was racing at the rear of the field. He said that once the horse had rounded the home turn STORMIN NORMAN went up on the outside of Ms Allpress’ mount and continued to shift out towards the outside running rail. He said this caused STORMIN NORMAN to lose contact with the field.
Mr Neal demonstrated the incident on the video films. He pointed out to the committee the manner in which STORMIN NORMAN raced over the final 600 metres. While conceding the track was very wet, Mr Neal said that all runners on the day were finishing in the middle of the track. He explained that the running rails are not parallel and if a horse was to follow the outside rail it would be in trouble. He submitted that this was not a satisfactory ride by Mr Cropp, as the chances of his mount were significantly affected. This was caused by Mr Cropp continuing to push his mount forward when on an outward movement towards the outside rail. He submitted it was not an excuse for Mr Cropp to ride in this manner when other measures were available. Mr Neal concluded his submissions by saying that Mr Cropp was riding the favourite in the race and believed if he had maintained a straight line and showed greater judgement he would have finished in a higher placing.
Mr Neal informed the committee that as part of their investigations, the Stipendiary Stewards interviewed Mr Cropp in the company of Mr K Gray, Licensed Trainer, on raceday and their evidence was recorded. The respondent and the committee had read the transcript prior to the hearing.
Mr Neal explained that he had no issue with the horse being ridden cold, the concern he had was the lack of control by Mr Cropp in keeping his mount on a straighter line to the finish.
Mr Neal advised the committee that STORMIN NORMAN was vet checked post race with no abnormalities found.
Evidence for Respondent:
Mr Manning opened his submissions by saying if this charge today was found proved it would be opening up a huge can of worms. He said that this type of riding occurs every race day when varying judgement is displayed. Mr Manning said that he has since contacted Mr Patterson, trainer of STORMIN NORMAN, who confirmed he wanted his horse ridden cold and he was not unhappy with the ride. Mr Manning said that in his opinion it was a pretty good ride as Mr Cropp followed Ms Allpress, putting his horse in the race at the 600 metre mark. He conceded that STORMIN NORMAN did shift ground out towards the outside rail. However, Mr Manning then asked the question should Mr Cropp have stopped riding at this point and check his mount or should he have kept up his momentum in the heavy ground. He further stated that, it is not Mr Cropp's fault the outside running rail veers out and he believed the horse actually performed better when adjacent to the rail. He informed the committee that STORMIN NORMAN at his next 2 starts ran 12th of 14 runners, then last of 6 runners.
Mr Manning expressed his concerns to some parts of the transcript, which in his opinion, were not of assistance to Mr Cropp.
Mr Manning reminded the committee of similar rides over the past season in which riders were not charged and as Mr Cropp's employer and as an experienced trainer, he was quite happy with the ride.
In response to questions from the committee, Mr Cropp said STORMIN NORMAN was hanging out in the final straight and he was placing pressure on the left rein in an attempt to straighten his mount. He also advised that he was fully aware he was racing wide out on the track and had not directed his mount to be there in search of better ground.
Summary / Submissions for Informant:
Mr Neal in summing up said that all horses had finished down the centre of the track that day and firmly believed had STORMIN NORMAN been straightened up it would have finished in a better position.
Summary / Submissions by Respondent:
Mr Manning in summing up said, that Mr Cropp was a 3kg claimer and possibly made an error of judgement. He said riders often have to make a call and Mr Cropp did what he thought was right on the day. He then said it was a fine line as to whether to stop and straighten his mount or maintain his momentum in the heavy ground. Obviously he chose the latter, which in Mr Manning’s view was hard to dispute.
At the completion of all the submissions both parties acknowledged they had been giving a fair hearing.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee carefully listened to, and independently assessed the evidence of both parties and reviewed the video films several times, concentrating on the points highlighted by each party.
From our observations we are satisfied of the following:
1. Before the home turn, STORMIN NORMAN was being ridden up with the whip when at the rear of the field.
2. STORMIN NORMAN was making a run at the 400 metre when being pushed forward by Mr Cropp.
3. At approximately the 300 metre mark, Mr Cropp was racing 2 horse widths to the outside of Ms Allpress’ mount.
4. Within the next 2 strides, STORMIN NORMAN has shifted out quite abruptly, which we believe to be 3 horse widths.
5. STORMIN NORMAN does continue to shift out until near the 150 metres. The video films show that Mr Cropp did stop riding his mount briefly in an attempt to straighten it up.
6. STORMIN NORMAN did appear to be hanging outward with Mr Cropp carrying his whip in the right hand.
7. As Mr Manning has conceded it could be said that Mr Cropp has made a possible error of judgement.
8. However, it is the opinion of this committee that this was more a case of STORMIN NORMAN shifting out 3 horse widths in a matter of a few strides which Mr Cropp could do little about. At this stage, the video films showed the horse to be hanging out, which Mr Cropp was trying to correct by placing pressure on the left rein.
9. Although we concede STORMIN NORMAN did move out, Mr Cropp did stop riding briefly on 3 occasions in the final straight in an endeavour to straighten his mount.
10. In conclusion, over the final 150 metres STORMIN NORMAN has continued to make ground when being ridden forward, running in a straight line wide out on the track. The horse finished in 5th placing, less than one length from the winner.
Decision:
Accordingly, we are satisfied that STORMIN NORMAN was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible finishing place.
Therefore, we find the charge against Mr Cropp dismissed.
AJ Dooley R Seabrook
Chairman Committee Member
30 August 2012
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
Not applicable.
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 636(1)(b)
Informant: Mr R Neal - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr R Manning - Trianer assisting Mr Cropp, Mr L Tidmarsh - Trainee Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr MR Cropp - Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class D)
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: