Waikato BOP H 3 July 2025 – R5 – (heard 10 July 2025 at Cambridge) – Monika Ranger

Summary of Facts:

Following the running of Race 5 on the 3rd of July 2025, the Respondent M Ranger, defended a breach of Rule 869(3)(b); namely that she drove carelessly approaching the 100m, by shifting her gelding inwards, which resulted in contact to JACCKA OPA, with that runner pacing roughly as a result.

The Respondent endorsed the Information ‘I do not admit the breach of the rule’ and confirmed she understood the Rule and the nature of the charge. Ms Ranger was supported by Mr S Abernethy.

Rule 869(3)(b) provides:

No driver in any race shall drive carelessly.

Stewards’ Evidence

Mr Mulcay opened the hearing by presenting into evidence, the Stewards Report from the night of the 3rd of July. Specifically, Mr Mulcay referred to r5, and in particular, an incident passing the 100m that may have given grounds for a protest. Mr Mulcay said that after Stewards had viewed the films, they believed that there were no grounds to proceed with a protest, which was also agreed by the relevant participants.

Mr Mulcay identified the horses involved in the incident, namely OHOKA ACHILLES, driven by Monika Ranger and JACCKA OPA, driven by Kate Coppins. Mr Mulcay said that OHOKA ACHILLES mounted a run from the rear of the field, racing a little wider (looser) than normal. He said that as the field continued down the home straight, JACCKA OPA, who was on the back of SAVARNA, shifts to its outside (which is to the inside of OHOKA ACHILLES). Mr Mulcay said at this point, there was a gap between OHOKA ACHILLES and SAVARNA for JACCKA OPA, however this gap was never wide enough for JACCKA OPA to get its sulky through. Mr Mulcay said that in the Stewards’ opinion, JACCKA OPA was entitled to be in the gap, in anticipation of it widening and a full run becoming available to it. Mr Mulcay said that OHOKA ACHILLES then shifted down, making contact with JACCKA OPA.

Mr Mulcay referred to Rules 869.7, and 868.2; he referenced these in relation to Ms Coppins’ drive on JACCKA OPA, in that she both maintained a straight course down the home straight, gave her drive every opportunity to finish in the best placing and did so with safety.

K Coppins – Witness

Ms Coppins outlined her interpretation of the incident. She told the Adjudicative Committee that she looked to take a gap between OHOKA ACHILLES and SAVARNA; she said that she got her legs into the gap before realising there was no room for her cart to go through, so sat there (awaiting the potential that it may open). She said that OHOKA ACHILLES drifted down and made contact with her offside front and she had to take a hold. Ms Coppins confirmed to the Stewards that there was enough room for her legs to be there and her drive didn’t contribute to the incident. In answering a question from the Stewards, Ms Coppins said that OHOKA ACHILLE’s head was turned inwards, prior to it shifting down and making contact with her drive. She said, as a result of the contact from OHOKA ACHILLES, she may have also contacted SAVARNA. Ms Coppins confirmed to the Stewards and the Adjudicative Committee, that at no stage, did she try and shift OHOKA ACHILLES out.

In response to a question from Mr Abernethy, Ms Coppins confirmed that she thought she might lock wheels and may have taken a hold just before the interference occurred.

M Ranger’s Evidence

Mr Abernethy told the Adjudicative Committee that Ms Coppins could not look to push Ms Ranger’s drive wider on the track, as it never held an advantage over her and suggested that Ms Coppins should not have looked to take the run between the two horses, as it was never a full run.  Ms Ranger said that she yelled to Ms Coppins, that there wasn’t room for her. Mr Abernethy said that the conditions on the night were poor and everyone was racing a little looser than normal; he said it was a racing incident and Ms Coppins should never have tried to chase her horse through the gap.

Ms Ranger said that Ms Coppins left it too late to present herself into the gap, and that she shouldn’t have anticipated getting a run when she couldn’t get her cart through the gap.

Summing up:

Mr Mulcay said that had OHOKA ACHILLES not shifted JACCKA OPA down the track, then interference would not have occurred. He submitted that JACCKA OPA may have gone to the line untested, but it wouldn’t have been interfered with. He said Ms Ranger had taken it upon herself to try and close the gap, which resulted in interference.

In summing up, Mr Abernethy raised that contact may have occurred between SAVARNA and JACCKA OPA, before OHOKA ACHILLES made contact with JACCKA OPA.

Ms Ranger speculated as to what may have happened, if OHOKA ACHILLES didn’t shift inwards.

The Adjudicative Committee reminded the participants that they should be speaking to the video and the incident, not speculating as to what may have happened, given different circumstances.

Decision:

In making a decision as to the merits of this particular charge, the Adjudicative Committee needed to be comfortably satisfied that Ms Ranger had driven in a careless manner, which resulted in interference to JACCKA OPA. The requisite standard in determining the charge is on the balance of probabilities.

The Adjudicative Committee took some time to view the films on numerous occasions independently, before deliberating and making a decision.

The Adjudicative Committee found Ms Coppins to be a very credible and articulate witness. Ms Coppins made comment on several occasions, that Ms Ranger’s drive shifted down onto her, causing interference; she never waivered from this. This assertion was clearly evidenced on the head on video films. While it is evident that Ms Coppins did present her runner into a tight gap in anticipating a run, had Ms Ranger’s drive maintained a straight line, interference would not have occurred.  On that basis, the Adjudicative Committee have to uphold the charge.

The Adjudicative Committee observed that Ms Ranger’s drive moved in for approximately 3-4 strides, shifting inwards up to ½ metre and contacted JACCKA OPA.

Having considered the evidence of all parties, in combination with the video evidence, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that the charge is proven to the requisite standard.

Submissions for Penalty:

Stipendiary Steward S Mulcay produced the Respondent’s record, which indicated 1 previous breach within the reset period.

Mr Mulcay submitted the Guidelines pointed to a starting point of a 3 day suspension.

The Stewards saw the breach in the low range.

Ms Ranger request a deferment until after racing on the 18th of July.

Reasons for Penalty:

The Penalty Guide provides a penalty starting point of a 3 day suspension.

In assessing an appropriate penalty, the Adjudicative Committee identified that this was a low level breach. The Adjudicative Committee had regard for the fact that the shift inwards was minor, the racing conditions on the night were poor and Ms Ranger’s Driver status (Junior). As a result, it was determined that a 1 day discount off the starting point, was appropriate.

Conclusion:

Ms Ranger is suspended for 2 Northern Driving Days.

The days of suspension are:

24th July – Cambridge

25th July – Auckland