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 ************ 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.