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.

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

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

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.

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??

Zorro,

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

Cheers,

F

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.

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.

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.

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