Auckland TC 21 February 2025 – R9 – Monica Ranger

Summary of Facts:

Following the running of Race 9, the Respondent (M Ranger) defended a breach of Rule 869(3)(b); namely that  she allowed her gelding ITAINTNECESSARILYSO to shift inwards when insufficiently clear of VORONOV (L Chin), which was checked and broke near the 2450m.

Ms Ranger was assisted in the hearing by Mr Hackett.

Rule 869(3)(b) provides:

No Driver in any race shall drive carelessly.

Using available video footage, Stipendiary Steward (S Mulcay) identified the horses involved in the incident namely, ITAINTNECESSARILYSO driven by M Ranger, VORONOV driven by L Chin and TAYLAD TO USE driven by T Macfarlane.

Mr Mulcay said that ITAINTNECESSARILYSO galloped off the front mark, which allowed VORONOV (10m) to get in front of it. He said as the horses entered the bend, VORONOV was in a one off position, with TAYLAD TO USE to its inside and ITAINTNECESSARILYSO improving around the outer. The Stewards alleged that while M Ranger was improving forward, she allowed her drive to shift inwards, placing VORONOV in restricted room, causing it to break and contact the sulky wheel of ITAINTNECESSARILYSO. Mr Mulcay showed both the side on film and back straight camera, to support the Stewards’ proposition. He said that just prior to the interference, it was evident that ITAINTNECESSARILYSO was looking to get in and M Ranger was trying to correct it, by turning its head to the outside. He said that while VORONOV did lose ground, it recovered to finish in 2nd placing, and the interference may not have caused it a better placing, as the winner won very well.

Mr Mulcay called Mr Chin as a witness. Mr Chin confirmed he was crowded by the runner to his outside (ITAINTNECESSARILYSO) and as a result, galloped. In response to a question from Mr Mulcay, Mr Chin confirmed that he did not move up the track.

Mr Hackett, supporting Ms Ranger, commenced by asking Mr Mulcay as to whether VORONOV was galloping prior to contacting the sulky. Mr Mulcay confirmed that it was, but re-iterated that the Stewards believed VORONOV was galloping, due to the crowding it received from ITAINTNECESSARILYSO.

Ms Ranger said that she believed she held a 3 wide position prior to the contact to her sulky from VORONOV and that there was plenty of room inside of VORONOV; in that regard she asserted that he wasn’t tightened. Mr Hackett suggested that if Mr Chin was being tightened, he should have yelled out.

In summing up, Mr Mulcay said that on the balance of probabilities, that charge should be proved, as Ms Ranger has failed to maintain a 3 wide position, shifting down the track and tightened VORONOV, who broke.

Ms Ranger said that the initial contact was after VORONOV had galloped and she hadn’t squeezed him (Mr Chin) up too much, when her horse was trying to get in. She said she tried to straighten her mount and she felt that maybe there was still a lot of room inside Mr Chin. She also added that Mr Chin did not yell out, so she just carried on forward, eventually feeling contact to her sulky wheel.

Decision:

The Adjudicative Committee viewed the video footage independently and during the hearing. It is clear that Ms Ranger’s drive improves past Mr Chin’s drive from a 3 wide position and quickly establishes itself on the running line soon after clearing VORONOV, which gallops. Both the video evidence and the evidence provided by Mr Chin, support the Stewards’ supposition that Mr Chin was placed in restricted room by Ms Ranger’s drive.

Ms Ranger’s drive was looking to lay in toward the running line and Ms Ranger was looking to straighten it. Mr Chin had a runner to his inside, so had to maintain a 2 out position. The onus lies with the Driver shifting ground, to ensure that any movement is done safely, without any impact on other runners.  Quite simply, Ms Ranger had not cleared Mr Chin’s drive adequately, before continuing to move down to the rail, placing him in restricted room, causing him to break.

Having considered all contributing factors, the Adjudicative Committee finds the charge proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Stipendiary Steward Mr Mulcay produced Ms Ranger’s record, which was clear.

He said that the Stewards viewed the breach in the mid range, which had a starting point of a 2 day suspension or a $500 fine. He said that there may be some mitigation, in that Ms Ranger’s drive did want to shift in.

Ms Ranger said she would prefer a suspension and would look to take that immediately.

Reasons for Penalty:

The Penalty Guide provides a penalty starting point of 2 days for a mid range breach.

After taking into account the submissions of both the Applicant and Respondent; noting the race film and the resultant impact on the affected runner, the Adjudicative Committee assessed the breach as low-mid range and adopted a 2 day suspension as the starting point. (Both a low range penalty and a mid range penalty under this Rule have a 2 day suspension as their starting point.)

The starting point for a careless driving breach also takes into consideration a Driver’s record.

Having considered all the pertinent factors, the Adjudicative Committee determined that a 2 days suspension was the appropriate penalty.

Conclusion:

Ms Ranger was suspended for 2 Northern Days, commencing immediately.

These days include:

28/2/25 – Auckland

4/3/25 – Waikato