Lisa Cropp in the supreme court

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/4/story.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10497946

Hadn't heard much about this for ages but it seems to have been drawn out for far too long - well beyond common sense.

She took drugs, got caught and then blatantly tried to contaminate her urine sample. When that didn't work out as planned she took legal action saying the testing rules (not the process) were wrong.

Ideas?

R

Sorry... the crux of it is: she's arguing that 'random drug tests breach a fundamental right to bodily privacy and integrity'.

This despite signing on as a jockey and accepting competing by the rules of racing.

R

Is methamphetamine performance enhancing for a jockey?

Well there is case law now (the AirNZ drug screening case) which broadly agrees with that - it placed limits around when random drug testing was allowed, regardless of contract. So I presume they are trying to argue it along those lines, although with the other factors of performance enhancing in sport etc I can't see her getting much of a showing...

The thing about sports requirements is that basically you cannot compete unless you agree to the conditions. So she can't really complain later that they were unfair. Every time you put your name to confirming a ride you're agreeing to the terms. Like the Air NZ case I guess - but with sport it's an us vs them case instead of a safety/PR thing for the airline.

R

Yes. It helps riders keep their weight down through not eating... it also helps them concentrate during the ride when their body is badly malnourished and screaming out for nutrients. It would be very useful for a jockey.

R

I don't know how it legally applies in sport, but just signing a contract in employment doesn't mean those terms are legal. You can't put random drug testing for receptionists in a contract and then say "but they signed it" - it would be thrown out in the Employment Court.

The sports aspect of it would say: "if you want to compete, you have to agree to these rules *list*". If you don't, you can't compete. If you do, you can't complain later - which is what she's doing.

Sports don't have the employment-type issues because the athlete is almost always an independent contractor, especially in racing where they will work for different people during a single race meet. And because they operate in this nature the legalities of participation aspects are administered by the association side of things, not with each horse owner/stable.

You can actually put a drug testing provision in a receptionists contract - if you can establish why, such as it's important in crisis situations for the person to be completely sober and is the fire warden of the business etc. Granted, you can't if it was just in there as an employment condition.

Cropp agreed to compete under the rules (which include random testing) and then broke them. She's now essentially arguing the rules were wrong. Will be difficult to win since she's already rode for years and years in total acceptance of them - in writing. If she wins the rules will just get changed from random testing to testing every single rider before every race at their own cost and inconvenience.

The courts cannot tell sporting bodies how sport should be conducted. Safety is an intrinsic part of riding = sporting issue.

The crime side of it is a whole other issue.

R

Firstly, I broadly agree she won't get anywhere.

But secondly, sports can't always just put lists of their own devising in to restrict competitors. I'm pretty sure they'd be a legal challenge if the racing industry put a line in saying "no chicks or black or disabled people"
So there is legal coverage over some of these things, and it seems that's what her legal team is trying to instil here - a random drug test is a violation of individual rights that can't be overridden (YES! PUN!) by a sporting body just because they say so. I agree however, that they are likely to get turfed for it!

From the rather limited report in the Herald it seems she is challenging the Authority's power to drug test for metahamphetamine on the basis that the Racing Act does not permit it. Perfectly valid argument imo and one commonly taken in judicial review.

I don't know what her chances of success are as I am unfamiliar with the legislation and the legal issues at play but the ground appears valid.

You're right - of course not - those things are discriminatory. Being free of performance enhancing drugs is an entry requirement (in the same way men can't swim in women's event). This situation is one of establishing a level playing field which contestants accept or they simply cannot compete. There are no laws protecting anyone's right to compete however they wish.



I think she will lose in the end on this point - even if she wins the case. The racing body will just go back and change their rules to ban anyone who's failed a test at any time, in any situation. They will not lose this (morally) in the end.

Put simply. No sporting body will operate under the thumb of a court ruling which tells them how they can accept participants. Judges will be very reluctant to delve into it either.

Formula One had a similar thing a few years ago - a poorer team (Minardi) went to the courts in Australian arguing it could use it's last years cars despite them not being valid entries anymore (since technical rules had changed).. The boss of F1 turned up at court and said (to the judge): if we are are ruled against managing our own sport - the Australian Grand Prix will not go ahead tomorrow. Your call.

Judge = pwnd.

Horse racing in NZ will just modify it's rules to the detriment of every jockey if Cropp wins any ruling which allows her to continue with impunity.

R

As was probably always coming... Lisa Cropp has lost her human rights case.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1851350

The jockey association is now free to rule on her drug-test failure however they wish... A one-year ban is their stated punishment for what she did.

R

So double espresso would be banned too then?