MY CALL - PROTEST OUTCOMES WILL ALWAYS CREATE DEBATE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY ARE UPHELD

By David Fowler | Tuesday, July 9, 2013

David Fowler is the principal thoroughbred caller for Radio TAB. David, who is a keen form student and punter, has enjoyed a lifetime involvement in the racing media. His personal blog, ‘My Call’, appears exclusively on HRO.

The double bunger protest at Eagle Farm on Saturday certainly ignited debate on the whole protest concept.

It's rare for a protest to not create discussion or even controversy. Unanimous agreement in "punterland" on a panel's decision hardly occurs.

Think back to the 2012 Magic Millions when No Looking Back lost the race to Driefontein. A terrible decision … in my opinion.

And that's the point. It's my opinion, but I am not charged with the responsibility of making the ultimate decision so copping the umpire's call is something I accept, albeit reluctantly on occasions.

But I am more dogmatic about the premise of upholding an objection.

Surely an upheld protest should be based on the fact that it was beyond reasonable doubt the aggrieved party would have won but for the interference.

A clear example is a horse charging home and knocked sideways by the fading and erratic leader. A no-brainer.

Would Empress Me have definitely beaten Micken but for the home turn interference in the Eagle Farm race? Stewards said yes, I say no.

Empress Me MAY have beaten Micken but to say it would have beyond reasonable doubt is a leap too far for me.

And if we are to have an upheld objection, I cannot understand why the final determination doesn't have to be unanimous.

Even if it's three all or four all, the chief stipe gets a casting vote.

You reckon that's beyond all reasonable doubt!

I wonder if the Empress Me versus Micken protest was a unanimous verdict? I doubt it.

Imagine if our courts of law changed the jury rules and asked for a majority result rather than a unanimous one.

Protests are too easily upheld by subjective analysis. A result should only be reversed if it is beyond reasonable doubt.

***************************************************************************************************

Respected racing journo Adrian Dunn got the protest ball rolling in his Winning Post column on Friday by saying … out with the trainers and owners and let the jockeys battle it out in the stewards' room.

Only problem with Adrian's piece was that he started off by listing some of the most extraordinary protest results, possibly contributed to by the jockeys' bizarre line of defence.

Totally contradictory.

A trainer or an owner involved in the protest debate has every right to play a part. Let's face it, some jockeys' oratorical skills are not that flash.

And there might be an owner or trainer who thinks outside the square to the general argument which could put a completely different slant on things.

I think we've got the mix right in this regard in the general score of things.

Some jurisdictions simply relegate. In other words, the slightest interference will see a result change.

We don't need that.

***************************************************************************************************

Amused to see the stewards' report admonish Tim Bell for his language passing the winning post in the fourth.

Tim rode the heavily-backed and heavily-unlucky Big Wheels. Should have bolted in.

There is no steward close enough to hear any language uttered so I'm assuming it was picked up on the effect microphones primarily used to "colour up" the closing stages on the video of the race.

This replay would have been seen … and heard … post race.

Will be worth listening to when I get my copy.

Until next week.

More articles