October
MayProtest poser
There was the basis for a very controversial result in the Tamworth Cup last month when there was a double protest — third against the winner, and sixth against third.
There seemed to be considerable uncertainty on the part of television presenters over what would be the final result in the event of both protests being upheld.
As it eventuated both protests were dismissed, and so the result remained as the field had passed the post. However, the question remained as to just what would have been the result if both had been upheld.
I always remember a simple rule given by, I think, the late, great caller Bert Bryant during one of those wonderful Friday night radio shows that for punters were compulsive listening many years ago on 3UZ in Melbourne, with a panel of experts not only in racing experts, but in the field of banter and wisecracks. I recall the legendary Jack Ayling was a featured panelist with a never-ending supply of comical racing anecdotes.
They confirmed the main principal to recall in a protest is that horses are demoted not promoted, and that all other non-involved horses hold their place in the finishing order.
In the case of a multiple protest, each is heard individually, with order of preference of hearing being given to whichever protesting horse was closest to the lead as they passed the post. In this case third against first would be heard and resolved first, and then sixth against third would be heard in the light of the result of the first protest.
So first, third against first. If upheld, the first horse would be demoted to one place behind the third horse, but the second horse (not involved) would remain ahead of the third horse to finish, and so would move to first. Third moves to second and first past the post is demoted to third. All straightforward and normal.
Then we have sixth against the third to finish. If upheld, the third to finish (now placed second) is demoted to behind the sixth horse to finish, but the fourth and fifth horses who are not involved in any protest must not be penalised and must finish ahead of the sixth horse to finish.
Meanwhile we must bear in mind the result of the first protest. The first past the post must remain behind the third past the post.
This would mean that the end result would be second past the post would be declared the winner, fourth past the post would be second, fifth would be third, sixth would be fourth,third past the post would be fifth and the poor old winner would be relegated to sixth.
This formula is based upon the unchallenged information given by that radio panel all those years ago. I am wondering if those rules still apply, and if not what is the new rule and what effect would it have had on the Tamworth Cup if both protests had been upheld?
I presume those corporate bookmakers who advertise paying out on the first two past the post in the event of an upheld protest would have to pay out on the horse who finished second, but was now the winner, and the horse that finished first, who now is placed sixth.
Brighton (Qld)