Question on Protests

[zorro]

Can anyone provide the revised placings in this hypothetical case.
Horse A 1st
Horse B 2nd
Horses C & D dead-heat for 3rd
Horse C then protests successfully against Horse B.

Are the revised placings
1st A
=2nd C,D
4th B
or

1st A
2nd C
3rd B
4th D

or, or ??

Anyway I look at it the result seems unfair.

And yes it was the result in the Magic Millions 2Yr race that got me thinking.

[Filante]

I think in Australia it would go A, C, B, D; in America A, C, D.

[Shaun]

My understanding would be A-C-B&D....you wouldn't move D up with C because that horse did not protest

[La Mer]

Can anyone provide the revised placings in this hypothetical case.
Horse A 1st
Horse B 2nd
Horses C & D dead-heat for 3rd
Horse C then protests successfully against Horse B.
Are the revised placings
1st A
=2nd C,D
4th B

Most definitely this would be the result. The Australian Rules of Racing state:

"If a placed horse or its rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule to another placed horse, and the stewards are of the opinion that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred, they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with. "

In other words in your example B would be relegated behind C and as D dead-heated with C, in this case B would also be placed behind it as well.

D dead-heated with C and had nothing to do with the interference nor the protest and therefore retains is dead-heat status.

[zorro]

Thanks for the input guys - it seems everyone has a slightly different interpretation of the rules.
It suggests to me that the Yanks have the right idea - if you cause interference you're disqualified, not just relegated.
Filante, in the US wouldn't the result be 1st A , =2nd C & D??

[Filante]

Zorro,

Sorry...ignore my comments above. The other guys have it right.

Cheers,

F

[Mark]

The result becomes A-1st, C-2nd, B-3rd, D-4th.
Horses do not move up in protests, the losers get moved back.
So on losing the protest, B finsishes behind C, but still ahead of D.

[La Mer]

The result becomes A-1st, C-2nd, B-3rd, D-4th.
Horses do not move up in protests, the losers get moved back.
So on losing the protest, B finishes behind C, but still ahead of D.

That's incorrect Mark, it would be the same as if the horses finished past the post in A, B, C, D order. If D successfully protested against B then the finishing order would become A, C, D, B. In effect B would be relegated behind D but as C finished in front of D it would retain that ranking - it's no different to the scenario re the dead-heat, one dead-heater can not lose its ranking if the other dead-heater successfully protests - it simply gains the advantage of moving up in the rankings retaining it equal dead-heat ranking by default.

[Mark]

Sorry La Mer, just got off the phone with an old friend of mine who is a Steward. The order would be A,C,B,D. The reasoning is, that if there was no interference to C, then D would have finished 4th. B interfered with C so is relegated to behind C & any runner that finished in between, which does not include D. As B finished ahead of D on its merits & D did not finish ahead of C, then B is placed behind C & ahead of D. D is not penalised by being placed 4th as that is where he would have finished if there was no interference.

Of course he could be wrong, but I doubt it. An interesting scenario all the same.

[Shaun]

So because of the protest D losses it's third place deadheating position that sux as D had done mothing wrong it shouldn't lose anything

[Mark]

That's right Shaun, but as explained, if there was no interference D would have finished 4th anyway.

[La Mer]

Sorry La Mer, just got off the phone with an old friend of mine who is a Steward. The order would be A,C,B,D. The reasoning is, that if there was no interference to C, then D would have finished 4th. B interfered with C so is relegated to behind C & any runner that finished in between, which does not include D. As B finished ahead of D on its merits & D did not finish ahead of C, then B is placed behind C & ahead of D. D is not penalised by being placed 4th as that is where he would have finished if there was no interference.

Of course he could be wrong, but I doubt it. An interesting scenario all the same.

Mark read my scenario again - I never mentioned B interfering with C at all, I stated D successfully protested against B. You even state yourself that a horse is relegated behind any runner that finished in between therefore in my scenario of D (4th) protesting against B (2nd) then C would be promoted to 2nd, D to 3rd and B relegated to 4th, exactly as I stated.

[Mark]

I was replying to the original question.

[La Mer]

I was replying to the original question.

Mark, there is nothing in the Australian Rules of Racing that allows the stewards to relegate a horse from equal 3rd position to 4th that has not been directly involved with any protest - it's as simple as that and your friend the steward may not understood the scenario. Perhaps he or yourself can indicate which breach of the rules of racing a horse (or its jockey) in is in breach of in such circumstances. Stewards do not and can not make their own rules on such issues: they can only follow what the rules state and apply them according to their discretion, but there is no discretion if a horse or its jockey is not in breach of any of the rules as is the case in the original question.

[Mark]

Merely relaying what I was told.

[Shaun]

Mark

Not saying you are wrong but if i was the owner of that 4th placed horse in a $1,000.000 race i sure would have somthing to say about my horse being dropped from equal third to 4th.....and it wouldn't be plesant

[system]

guys 2nd horse goes to 4th protest horse moves to 2nd other stays were it is

[TheAvenger]

I think the U.S. placings would be A, C, B, D. but I'm not totally sure. I have sent the question to a friend who was a placing judge at Hawthorne here in the States. I have never had anyone better at calling a finish at the track with me. Tough in Australia. Here, we have universal colors for post postions, with the riders cap and saddle cloth matching same, which helps a great deal. Weights don't matter; posts are drawn totally at random. Not better, just different. But, I digress. My friend's response to follow later.

Regards,


Glenn

[Sportz]

Tough in Australia. Here, we have universal colors for post postions, with the riders cap and saddle cloth matching same, which helps a great deal. Weights don't matter; posts are drawn totally at random. Not better, just different.

I think they trialled something like that a little while ago in Melbourne with horse no.1 always having the same colour cap etc etc. It didn't really catch on.

[TheAvenger]

My mate Larry, former placing judge in Chicago, confirms my earlier thinking on the U.S. order of finish, A,C,B,D.


Regards,


Glenn

[TheAvenger]

Glenn:

your placing is correct...a,c,b,d
unless the horse interfered with both of the
horses that dead-heated.
hope you are picking winners...I havent
bet since the Breeder's Cup.


Larry A.

[Duritz]

Ok but there's an added complication to this whole protest thing.
Consider:

Suppose B has lost on protest to C, who has dead heated with D. Well, at this point A is not involved because he has won, but now when the order comes to be revised and B finds that he is being relegated, the placings must be revised and C and D, instead of splitting third and fourth prizemoney between them, now split second and third. They're happy but the owners of B are not because they took the quinella with A, for a stack with an illegal from Fiji, and now won't collect. So, they approach the owners of D, who is a bit broke because he only backed his horse to win, and anyway it's not much good (which is why it was "D" in a field of 4), and he's happy to entertain any ideas which might allow him to collect, so he protests not only against C but also against A,B, himself and his trainer on the grounds that he's not well enough fed and also against the tote because he'd backed his horse with the field in this stupid new "duet" bet and he's collected bugger all because there was only forty three dollars in the pool. So, the chief steward (being drinking mates with the owner of D) upholds all protests and the following - I think - should occur:

D ends up first
A ends up second
C ends up third
B ends up fourth
D ends up well fed
D's owner ends up in the money, but only briefly because shortly thereafter he is lumped with large medical bills as a result of being knee capped by the owners of B who paid him to protest in the first place, but not to protest against B.

Duritz.

[Mr ed]

I am fairly confident the result would be,

a, d/h c,d, b

d definately would not be displaced from d/h 3rd, either c,d would dead heat second and b 4th or b and d would d/h 3rd. The other way you could look at it is, does a horse protest against another horse or does a placing protest against another placing i.e 2nd v 1st, if this was the case then d and c would have to go up to d/h second as they share the same placing. Interesting thread someone give Des a call.

[xptdriver]

Gday All,

I am not sure of the final possies, I am thinkin that if you have not been protested against you cannot go backwards, IMHO a horse cannot be elevated over a horse that beat it over the line, if it has not been protested against that horse (confused? I sure am ) .. but ya can bet London to brick I woulda had an A/B quinella for a stack :)

[La Mer]

In other words in your example B would be relegated behind C and as D dead-heated with C, in this case B would also be placed behind it as well.

D dead-heated with C and had nothing to do with the interference nor the protest and therefore retains is dead-heat status.

I contacted the NSW stewards about this particular type of protest and their response follows:

"In short the result of protest 1 if upheld would be:
A - C/D dh – B

The principle applied comes from the power under AR 136 (2) which says in part “…they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with.” Stewards also have the power, though rarely exercised, to disqualify horses involved in interference.

Kind Regards,
Mark Brassel
Racing NSW (Australia)"

Which is exactly what I stated the outcome would be.

[Shaun]

so A-C/D-B....i just find it strange that D moves anywhere...if this is the case what would happen if you had A,B,C/D,E,F then F protests against C and it was uphelp would they do this
A,B,E,F,C/D

[La Mer]

so A-C/D-B....i just find it strange that D moves anywhere...if this is the case what would happen if you had A,B,C/D,E,F then F protests against C and it was uphelp would they do this
A,B,E,F,C/D

No, it's quite clear under the Rules of Racing in this country, that the revised placings in those circumstances would be: A,B,D,E,F and C. C would be relegated behind F which is in accordance with the powers that the Stewards are granted under rule 136 (2) that being the power to relegate. They simply DO NOT have the powers to do other than what this rule allows them to do, which means they can not relegate a horse that has not been subject to any objection (protest).

[Shaun]

So they can promote a horse but can't relegate....in the first example D ended up in a better position because of C winningthe protest

[La Mer]

So they can promote a horse but can't relegate....in the first example D ended up in a better position because of C winningthe protest

They can only promote by default as in the case with your example. Leaving aside dead-heats it would be the same if the finishing order (over the line) was A, B, C, D, E, F and F then successfully protested against B, the outcome would be that C, D, E, and F would all be promoted up one placing with B being relegated (in accordance with rule 136 (2) behind F.

[zorro]

Thanks La Mer,
It looks like you have the definitive answer.
If only one of the dead-heaters in the MM had protested against Emit Time I would have had the trifecta twice!

[moeee]

I remember one!
A beats B and C finishes 3rd.
B protests against A and C protests against A and B.
All protests are upheld.
What happens now?

[Mark]

C-B-A

[zorro]

C-B-A
You can bank on that one!