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.

__________________
There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear.

Retired or retarded? Much the same. I'm retired...

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.

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.

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

__________________
Good luck and good punting

xptdriver@hotmail.com

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.

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).

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.

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!