MY CALL - PROTEST POLICY PLEASE!

By David Fowler | Tuesday, March 15, 2016

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.

What is the definition of a "protest"?

What circumstances allow a protest to be enacted and what infringements are considered in either dismissing or upholding a deliberation?

Sadly there are no answers to those questions. The whole concept of protests swim in very murky waters.

It is common business practice nowadays to develop policies on all sorts of things.

Why not a “protest" policy?

This needs urgent consideration after controversial protests in Queensland and Victoria on the weekend.

I grew up in the racing world believing a protest was the objection that one horse caused another interference that cost it victory.

And the stewards panel had to be satisfied "beyond all reasonable doubt" for the positions to be reversed.

In other words, a bump or a whack that cost the runner up more lost ground than what it was beaten by.

Sounds fair.

Sadly, being first past the post is being steadily devalued.

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

I regard this new whip rule as "stupid".

Jockeys cannot strike a horse more than five times before the 100 metres.

This is the part of the race where tensions are rising and split second decisions have to be made.

And at the same time they are expected to have the calculator in the head stopping on number five.

Yeah, "stupid" is a pretty appropriate description.

Yet, amazingly, this "stupid” requirement was the catalyst not only for a protest but its ultimate upholding on the Sunshine Coast.

The panel was convinced to reverse a result because Taylor Williams struck her horse three times more than permitted before the 100 metres.

If that's not drawing a long bow I don't know what is.

Keep in mind there is no direct interference here. None at all.

A rule infringement has reversed a result.

The stewards will defend their decision by calling on the margin which was a dead-heat.

But the question begs, "how can anyone determine BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, three extra strikes assisted Taylor Williams horse"?

Now the genie is out of the bottle another question is worth considering.

Will a rule infringement mean an automatic reversing of the placings if the particular horse is first past the post?

Will there be a rule of thumb in terms of how many extra hits and how big the beaten margin will constitute an upheld decision?

Policy, please.

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

I wasn't as uncomfortable about the Australian Cup decision because there did seem a point of interference in the straight.

What seemed to concern many was that Awesome Rock's drift out under Stephen Baster was paramount in the steward’s final deliberation.

This "camp drafting" by Baster is not unusual in racing. No direct interference but a gradual moving out.

Has this now set an unwelcome precedent for potential objections?

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

Many said the penalties were too lenient on Richard Callander, Liam Prior and Glynn Schofield after the "horse sale" inquiry.

I make two significant points, largely applicable to Callander.

I can't recall an inquiry of a similar nature in my 35 years of media involvement so in terms of penalty, there is no precedent set.

I liken it to "how long is a piece of string"

Practically speaking, a disqualification does not offer the obstacles it once did. The world has changed.

What hasn't changed is the stigma and that sits like a leadweight on the trio.

Particularly where Callander's role in the media was largely based on trust with the public.

That one will have to be renewed somewhere down the track.

More articles