There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
21 Apr 12
23:59
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
• Ban imposed in India should not apply in Britain, says jockey
• BHA reciprocated ban over a rule that 'does not exist' in Britain
Will Hayler guardian.co.uk, Saturday 21 April 2012
Less than a fortnight until his return to riding after serving out a 50-day suspension imposed in India in February, the jockey Richard Hughes has attacked the British Horseracing Association's decision to reciprocate the ban.
Hughes took the decision to apply the ban in Britain to the BHA's independent appeal board on Friday, but failed in his attempt to overturn the decision, meaning that the jockey cannot ride until 1 May, just four days before the start of the Guineas meeting at Newmarket.
With three-quarters of the suspension already completed, he has ruled out high court action, his only remaining recourse against the decision.
But Hughes still argues that the reciprocation of a punishment that was handed out by the Royal Western India Turf Club after he was found to have breached a rule that does not exist in British racing – "that of failing to ride to a trainer's instructions" – was unfair.
"I understand and accept the need for reciprocation in general but I am at a loss to understand why in my case the penalty was reciprocated as I did not breach any rule there and anybody is welcome to view the race and make up their own minds," he said in a statement.
"I will outline first the background to my case and I will then deal with general reciprocation of penalties and what may be in store for other riders who ride abroad.
"My evidence at the inquiry in India was that I rode to the general instructions. I was sitting fifth in the race, about three lengths off the leader, instead of third or fourth as I was told to try and settle the filly and for her not to run free with top weight.
"To quote from the inquiry: 'He [Hughes] added that there would be many other occasions where he has not followed the instructions but uses his judgment to ride his own race and he had won many winners including for trainer H J Antia, using his own judgment and this was his style of riding'.
"This evidence was not challenged by the stewards at the inquiry or the appeals board in India nor was I told that using my own judgment on such previous occasions was contrary to the RWITC rules of racing.
"There is no rule in the RWITC Rules of Racing which makes it mandatory for a rider to ride to the trainer's very specific instructions in the early part of the race – or indeed in any other part of the race – and that if he does not do so, he will be liable to be found guilty of not allowing the horse to run on its merits.
"A rider's own judgment, as to the pace of the race and position of their horse in relation to the other horses throughout the race, is a fundamental aspect of race riding.
"The BHA disciplinary panel's view was that the conclusions of the stewards and the board of appeal in India was that the horse was not allowed run on its merits, but that in coming to that conclusion they [RWITC] did not proceed on the basis that a departure from instructions established a breach of the requirements under the rule to take all responsible and permissible measures.
"The BHA's Disciplinary Panel accepted this conclusion.
"Not riding to instructions was exactly the basis on which they found me guilty, as stated at the inquiry and appeal. I quote: 'The stewards, having deliberated on the matter at length, were not satisfied with the explanation tendered by Jockey R Hughes and held him guilty of not following the trainer's very specific instructions in the early part of the race, thereby not allowing Jacqueline Smile to run on its merits in Race No202'."
"If the RWITC did not proceed on the basis that a departure from instructions was not a requirement to establish a breach of the requirements under the rule, then what was the evidence to establish that I did not allow the horse to run on its merits?
"No other part of the race was allowed to be viewed at the RWITC inquiry or appeal. There was no evidence to suggest a motive or collusion with any other persons to commit such a breach. There was no evidence of financial gain or otherwise. It simply relied on the opinion of the stewards."
Hughes went on to argue that the very nature of the way his inquiry in India was conducted should have prevented its findings from being upheld by the British authorities.
"One of the main objectives of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities by way of its 'international agreement' is to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the sport of racing," continued the statement.
"The BHA are signatories to article 10 of the international agreement, which deals with the reciprocation of penalties and to quote from that agreement: 'Members who have adopted an article in full or in part shall make provision within their domestic rules implementing its intentions.' The RWITC is not and cannot be a signatory to article 10 of the agreement by virtue of the fact that their rules of racing specifically deny the right of an appellant to be legally represented at an appeal hearing and as such it is a condition of a licence to ride there.
"The disciplinary panel's reasons for their rejection of the application not to reciprocate the suspension rely on the fact that the Royal Western India Turf Club is a recognised racing authority and not whether the RWITC is a signatory to, or follows the principles of, article 10 of the international agreement.
"If I had received a 10-year ban or more then the BHA said that under their rules they would have to reciprocate it. This is at odds with the policy of the BHA with regard to reciprocation.
"It is illogical that there should be two systems of reciprocity, one where the signatory racing authority signs an agreement and agrees to put into their rules certain principles and standards that must be followed, while on the other hand to have another system with lesser obligations on the non-signatory racing authorities.
"There seems little point in any racing authority being a signatory to article 10 if there is to be a parallel system with automatic reciprocation. My contention was that by abandoning article 10, the RWITC abandoned its right to reciprocity under rule 69.
"In respect of the international agreement, I would have to conclude that the failure of my appeal is in part due to the BHA not including specific provisions in their domestic rules of racing, which they committed themselves to do as a signatory to article 10 of the international agreement. This would have enabled them to deal comprehensively with reciprocation of penalties."
• BHA reciprocated ban over a rule that 'does not exist' in Britain
Will Hayler guardian.co.uk, Saturday 21 April 2012
Less than a fortnight until his return to riding after serving out a 50-day suspension imposed in India in February, the jockey Richard Hughes has attacked the British Horseracing Association's decision to reciprocate the ban.
Hughes took the decision to apply the ban in Britain to the BHA's independent appeal board on Friday, but failed in his attempt to overturn the decision, meaning that the jockey cannot ride until 1 May, just four days before the start of the Guineas meeting at Newmarket.
With three-quarters of the suspension already completed, he has ruled out high court action, his only remaining recourse against the decision.
But Hughes still argues that the reciprocation of a punishment that was handed out by the Royal Western India Turf Club after he was found to have breached a rule that does not exist in British racing – "that of failing to ride to a trainer's instructions" – was unfair.
"I understand and accept the need for reciprocation in general but I am at a loss to understand why in my case the penalty was reciprocated as I did not breach any rule there and anybody is welcome to view the race and make up their own minds," he said in a statement.
"I will outline first the background to my case and I will then deal with general reciprocation of penalties and what may be in store for other riders who ride abroad.
"My evidence at the inquiry in India was that I rode to the general instructions. I was sitting fifth in the race, about three lengths off the leader, instead of third or fourth as I was told to try and settle the filly and for her not to run free with top weight.
"To quote from the inquiry: 'He [Hughes] added that there would be many other occasions where he has not followed the instructions but uses his judgment to ride his own race and he had won many winners including for trainer H J Antia, using his own judgment and this was his style of riding'.
"This evidence was not challenged by the stewards at the inquiry or the appeals board in India nor was I told that using my own judgment on such previous occasions was contrary to the RWITC rules of racing.
"There is no rule in the RWITC Rules of Racing which makes it mandatory for a rider to ride to the trainer's very specific instructions in the early part of the race – or indeed in any other part of the race – and that if he does not do so, he will be liable to be found guilty of not allowing the horse to run on its merits.
"A rider's own judgment, as to the pace of the race and position of their horse in relation to the other horses throughout the race, is a fundamental aspect of race riding.
"The BHA disciplinary panel's view was that the conclusions of the stewards and the board of appeal in India was that the horse was not allowed run on its merits, but that in coming to that conclusion they [RWITC] did not proceed on the basis that a departure from instructions established a breach of the requirements under the rule to take all responsible and permissible measures.
"The BHA's Disciplinary Panel accepted this conclusion.
"Not riding to instructions was exactly the basis on which they found me guilty, as stated at the inquiry and appeal. I quote: 'The stewards, having deliberated on the matter at length, were not satisfied with the explanation tendered by Jockey R Hughes and held him guilty of not following the trainer's very specific instructions in the early part of the race, thereby not allowing Jacqueline Smile to run on its merits in Race No202'."
"If the RWITC did not proceed on the basis that a departure from instructions was not a requirement to establish a breach of the requirements under the rule, then what was the evidence to establish that I did not allow the horse to run on its merits?
"No other part of the race was allowed to be viewed at the RWITC inquiry or appeal. There was no evidence to suggest a motive or collusion with any other persons to commit such a breach. There was no evidence of financial gain or otherwise. It simply relied on the opinion of the stewards."
Hughes went on to argue that the very nature of the way his inquiry in India was conducted should have prevented its findings from being upheld by the British authorities.
"One of the main objectives of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities by way of its 'international agreement' is to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the sport of racing," continued the statement.
"The BHA are signatories to article 10 of the international agreement, which deals with the reciprocation of penalties and to quote from that agreement: 'Members who have adopted an article in full or in part shall make provision within their domestic rules implementing its intentions.' The RWITC is not and cannot be a signatory to article 10 of the agreement by virtue of the fact that their rules of racing specifically deny the right of an appellant to be legally represented at an appeal hearing and as such it is a condition of a licence to ride there.
"The disciplinary panel's reasons for their rejection of the application not to reciprocate the suspension rely on the fact that the Royal Western India Turf Club is a recognised racing authority and not whether the RWITC is a signatory to, or follows the principles of, article 10 of the international agreement.
"If I had received a 10-year ban or more then the BHA said that under their rules they would have to reciprocate it. This is at odds with the policy of the BHA with regard to reciprocation.
"It is illogical that there should be two systems of reciprocity, one where the signatory racing authority signs an agreement and agrees to put into their rules certain principles and standards that must be followed, while on the other hand to have another system with lesser obligations on the non-signatory racing authorities.
"There seems little point in any racing authority being a signatory to article 10 if there is to be a parallel system with automatic reciprocation. My contention was that by abandoning article 10, the RWITC abandoned its right to reciprocity under rule 69.
"In respect of the international agreement, I would have to conclude that the failure of my appeal is in part due to the BHA not including specific provisions in their domestic rules of racing, which they committed themselves to do as a signatory to article 10 of the international agreement. This would have enabled them to deal comprehensively with reciprocation of penalties."
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 59
|
By:
They have got it in for hughes ever since he handed in his license imo
|
|
By:
He certainly has a point, particularly in regards to this;
'The stewards, having deliberated on the matter at length, were not satisfied with the explanation tendered by Jockey R Hughes and held him guilty of not following the trainer's very specific instructions in the early part of the race, thereby not allowing Jacqueline Smile to run on its merits in Race No202' Are they seriously suggesting that the only way a horse can run on its merits is by following exactly what the trainer might say? |
|
By:
Don't want to seem rude triumphoragony but that's a ridiculous statement and was it the BHA that initially banned him?
There are a few issues here and the first being that if he feels he didn't do anything wrong in India then there are appeal procedures which he used and was unsuccessful with. The second issue is that the BHA might well agree that the rule he was banned under doesn't apply here but he didn't get the ban here so that's irrelevant and when in Rome and all that, and you couldn't have foreign jockeys come here and break a rule that doesn't apply in their own country and so expect them not to be banned and if they were and that jockey's own country overturned it then that would be undermining the BHA's decisions, just as it would be undermining if Hughes's banned was ignored here. |
|
By:
terrible when things don't go your way isn't it?
Just like Betfair punters who backed Available to be in the first 3 on Betfair on the 12th October 2011. What goes around, comes around. |
|
By:
Revenge of the out of touch toffs
 |
|
By:
The BHA are not known to be vindictive,petty,incompetent usually are they?....
 |
|
By:
Where you are wrong Ima is that 50 days in India does not reflect 50 days in GB. By reciprocating the ban the BHA trebled it. Where in the rules does it say that the BHA can significantly increase a ban? Had the BHA found a semblence of common sense, something they have repeatedly shown they lack, then their 'reciprocation' should reflect exactly what the ban entails. That means RH should have been banned 15 days and not 50.
|
|
By:
Absolutely crazy rule.
But When In Rome etc... If you are that desperate for a few more Rupees Hughsie. Doubt he will be going next year. |
|
By:
Maybe he can now concerntrate on learning from his old man on how to 'organise' a race.
|
|
By:
Had RH won the race using the tactics he decided to use under the circumstances the trainer would have called him a genius. And the stewards would have done f u c k all. Completely crazy rule and the BHA shows it's hand again that it is absolutely clueless and the board should do the honourably thing, the thing they should have done over the whip rule, and resign immediately.
British horseracing needs a clear, positive and pro-active leadership it clearly does not have. |
|
By:
imazed, did you even read anything at all that Hughes wrote in his statement, which deals with your "issues"? You may as well have hung him before he even got to appeal with that type of thinking.
Worst of all you say Hughes used up the appeals system in India. Before even asking another question, is it not pretty obvious that a system or set of rules which does not permit legal representation, including at an appeal, is automatically doomed to be a kangaroo court and has no place in the free world? (Oh I forgot, India still has an horrendous caste system where it automatically discriminates against the majority of its population) Hughes' points (clearly written with the aid of legally qualified person that would presumably not be permitted in India) seem valid, and whether you like him or not, difficult to see how his ban could objectively have been upheld |
|
By:
sounds like he's been stitched up and is going to have to take it on the chin...timing a bit rum given this could have been his best shot at jockey's title...can only think Indian authorities not keen on having foreign jocks riding there for whatever reason
|
|
By:
@pedrobob -- legal representation is not permitted in this country in workplace appeals against disciplinary action or dismissal. You can take in a union rep or co-worker, but not a lawyer (except where a professional such as a doctor faces being permanently struck off).
So the Indian appeal system is like that which applies to 99 per cent of British workers, and the BHA, in allowing legal representation, is more generous. |
|
By:
Pedro does that include an industrial tribunal? If you believe you have been disciplined or sacked wrongfully you can go to an Industrial tribunal where legal representation is allowed.
|
|
By:
By all accounts there were 15 days racing left in India before their season ended,
therefore imo Hughes should have been banned from riding on those 15 days. |
|
By:
If a reciprocal arrangement exists where Sam Waley-Cohen can be banned when riding in a NON-AMATEUR race and have the ban only cover amateur races then the BHA want's to look very closely at it's rules. This is nothing short of vindictive and does nothing but make the BHA board look bigger fools, if that is possible.
|
|
By:
hughes once proudly said he didnt ride for punters he rode for owners, so dont feel too sorry for him
|
|
By:
He has been seriously stitched up by all concerned
|
|
By:
its all well and good but its done and dusted now..i do feel hughes was hard done by and as he said he won races using his own initiative and nothing was said about it...its a rule that should be used only in cases where suspicion of wrong doing is at hand..u cant have a rule like this with the uncertainty that is race riding..it just doesnt work..riding to instructions is all well and good but when the stall gate opens 90% of those instructions go out the window...in fact i would go so far as saying it could cause a serious accident with jockeys trying to fulfil those instructions to the letter..i have ridden abroad and totally agree with the when in rome theory but sometimes common sense is needed..this was one such case and it has effectively cost hughes the flat championship here..or has it..
 one other thing i think the trainer in this case has a lot to answer for.i dont know about the owner of the horse..but the trainer will always be associated with this incident and i for one would not want to ride for him if he's capable of doing something like this..and hughes probably rode winners for the man in the past...sad really... |
|
By:
hughes once proudly said he didnt ride for punters he rode for owners, so dont feel too sorry for him
this is a fact...no jockey rides for punters..are u mad...its there living..they ride for owners and trainers who pay them...  and i see another comment knocking his father..there is no place for comments like that on here...place is full of clowns |
|
By:
ykickamoocow, let me spell it out for you then as you are clearly a bit thick
dont feel sorry for any of them |
|
By:
Truly a rancid business run by putrified people
|
|
By:
 @RIDERi dont feel sorry for anyone..and i def aint thick..u seem to think that jockeys should ride for punters...the most ridiculous statement ever seen on a betfair thread.... |
|
By:
If jockeys always rode to obtain the best possible placing then they would, in effect, be riding for punters imo. Can't see why you find Rider's statement so ridiculous. Or perhaps it's the concept of jockeys doing what they are supposed to that you really find ridiculous?
|
|
By:
This is not about personalities it is about the rules and BHA.
If Sam Waley-Cohen can ride in a 'professionals' race and break the rules but then have the punishment limited to 'amateur' races then it is not unreasonable to expect a 15 day punishment in India be matched by a 15 day punishment in the UK. |
|
By:
have to wonder if it was the likes of hannigan or de sousa etc would some of the replies have been slightly different. the point clearly is the punishment doesnt fit the crime whatever way you look at it. are we really saying he deserved 50 days for that. really!!!!!
|
|
By:
"Rules are made for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."
|
|
By:
If what you say is true Watchit, and I personally don't think it is, but if it is then the BHA board should go and go now.
|
|
By:
The Jockeys should take out a copyrighty thinghamajigy
Operator: ''Hello Paddy B0yles how can i help you?". Customer: "I have just been going through my statement and i noticed on 4 winners i backed i had 10% winnings took out what the feck is that for?" Operator: "That 10% is for the winning jockeys of those 4 winners" Anything else i can help you with? By the way sir 4 winners you say ok! your account will be restricted".."Have a nice day"!!! |
|
By:
I don't see where I am wrong in anything I've previously written in this thread brigust1 because everything was factually correct.....whether you think it's fair or not is another issue.
Yes I read the statement pedrobob and I haven't hanged anyone and as for Richard Hughes's appeals being unsuccessful, I was actually more on about his BHA appeal than the Indian one and what does he do anyway, keep going until he gets the answer he wants? When both previous appeals failed anyway there was talk him him taking it to the courts but what if that fails too, the European courts under claims of breaching his human rights? All I'm saying is no matter how badly or unfairly anyone might or might not think he's been treated, he's gone to another country to ride and so has to abide by their rules and take their punishments. This is a hypothetical unlikely example but if a foreign jockey came here and then basically stopped riding once his chance of winning had gone and came home in their own time rather than try to gain the best possible placing, how far do you think they would get if they said they did that in their country all the time? My main point though is if he thinks he's been unfairly treated in India and maybe unfairly treated regarding their appeal procedure well he's exhausted all of his appeals there and he had a choice or swallowing it, taking the ban and going back there again where he's had quite a lot of success in the past or refuse to ride there any more, just as he did here when the the new whip rules came in and he was being banned. I just don't see how though he can then expect one country's racing authority to undermine another's. Whether all of your criticisms of Indian racing are justified or not, presumably Richard Hughes knew all of this and yet still chose to ride there and made a lot of money in the process and if you don't like a club's rules then don't join that club. |
|
By:
The point Ima, apart from the obvious unfairness, is that the Indian Racing Club is NOT a signatory to the International agreement. The BHA only accepted the suspension because the are a recognised racing authority. How absolutely, outstandingly ridiculous is that? What message does that send to the racing authorities that are signatories to the International agreement? It makes a complete mockery of their position. What on this earth is the point of putting together an International agreement if racing authorities who choose not to sign up will be recognised anyway?
As I said earlier the BHA board have shown they are completely incompetent and British Horseracing is not safe in their hands. That is if anyone who has forgotten the debacle over the whip debate cannot remember their last incompetence. |
|
By:
This would have been an obvious opportunity for pressure to be applied to any NON signatories telling them their rules will not be recognised unless they commit themselves to the International Agreement. Utter and complete b o ll o cks up.
|
|
By:
Well then that's fair enough brigust1 and opens up a whole new issue for debate although equally so because an individual authority isn't part of a collective one, it still doesn't mean another that is part of it can't also agree with the first authority's decision and so uphold it.
I take your point though about using these kind of opportunities to try to regulate in a common manner as much as possible as opposed to having various kinds, although that line of thought is still let down a little when some of these same member authorities have different rules in different countries. |
|
By:
Is it not up to the person, choosing to ride in a particular racing jurisdiction, to determine the rules of that racing authority? In this country we expect no less. I really do not understand why this is causing so much angst. Does this mean that every UK jockey who chooses to ride outside this country can choose to trangress any given countries rules as the rule is not in the BHA's manual?
|
|
By:
Didnt he retire from race riding last year anyway?
|
|
By:
Couple of posers.
Firstly, where is the documentation pre race to say what the trainer requirements are?.Are the trainers requirements lodged with the indian jockey club pre race or is it just " i told the jockey to do this but he did something else. secondly, If the trainer says as a example sit the horse in 2nd or third on the rail and the jockey cant get to that posistion for cucumstaces beyond his control is he then guilty of not following the trianers requirements. All this does sound a bit harsh imo and hypocritical of the uk horse racing authority. |
|
By:
TMM - think I read (maybe on here) that stewards / stewards reps listen to the trainer giving a jockey his / her instructions in the pararde ring.
|
|
By:
If RH broke the rules he should pay the penalty. He chose to ride in India knowing the rules there. However to translate the rules to be penal is wrong. The BHA should uphold an equivalent ban. If RH must miss 15 race days then so be it. What would they do if he was banned for 15 days in St Moritz ffs?
Plus the Indian Racing Authority have waived their rights to reciprocal punishment by not signing up to the International Agreement. This move has endorsed the Indian Racing Authority, their ridiculous rule that is not recognised in the UK and overlooked their refusal to sign up to the International Agreement. I am not an RH fan by any stretch of the imagination but I hate unfairness. I also hate the way the BHA hold the UK racing establishment open to ridicule. It must be a laughing stock. |
|
By:
AR.135A. When by or on behalf of a trainer, any instruction is given to, or arrangement made with
the rider of a horse engaged in a race that the horse be ridden in the race in a manner different from the manner in which the horse was ridden at its most recent start or starts, it shall be the responsibility of the trainer or his duly authorised agent to notify the Stewards of any such instruction or arrangement as early as practicable but not later than when the order to mount is given by the Stewards prior to the race. Upon receipt of that notification the Stewards may make any public release in respect thereof as they deem to be appropriate. |