October
JuneGo to the video
I couldn’t agree more with just about everything Richard Callander expressed on the subject of protests (5/6). To add a little to his case, I’d like to convey how protests/objections are dealt with in the Americas. (I must stress that the process is not uniform in all jurisdictions.)
To begin with, in nearly every place I’ve witnessed a protest hearing — Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Canada, New York state, LA and Chicago — the procedure primarily involves the riders and stewards. Trainers are only allowed to sit in on the hearing and to say their piece quickly. Or, if it involves an inexperienced apprentice, the trainer can speak on his or her behalf. Owners are permitted to observe, if they’re lucky, and their views are not considered.
The obvious reason for this is to expedite matters, rather than waste time listening to the opinions of an owner — or trainer, for that matter — who is being ruled by emotions and by the lure of extra loot to be gained if the objection is upheld.
At the seven protest hearings I witnessed in the USA, the average time for a decision — from the moment the parties take their places in the stewards room — is seven minutes.
While I’m on the USA, the stewards there often lodge their own protests. In one such case, at Belmont in October 2002, the third placegetter shifted out abruptly at the 200m point and poleaxed the fourth runner. Before the runners had even got back to the scales, the stewards had not only lodged their own protest but altered the result! Unlike here, where it could take up to 20 minutes for the obvious (one way or the other) to transpire.
Unfortunately, in these days of political correctness, every man and his mutt are afforded the opportunity to have their say — even though it will, as Richie suggests, have little to no bearing on the stewards’ final decision.
Surry Hills (NSW)