I was pretty appalled by their reasoning yesterday but most of all by the submissions of the BHA Q.C that if Hughes had got 10 years that should be upheld too on the basis of a reciprocal agreement .
What was wrong ?well I see it this way
1 As the reasons revealed the Indian stewards had actually left the International Racing Agreement in 2007 as because unlike all the other signatories they deny people appearing before them legal representation. Hence , the line peddled by the BHB that they could only interfere if the proceedings had been in breach of natural justice was wrong .
2 The Panel however upheld the ban via a backdoor route namely that the Indian authorities were however a recognised racing authority by the BHA and therefore the ban would apply unless disapplied by the BHA . It strikes me as objectionable that a foreign racing authority can back out of the standards required by the International Racing Agreement (IRA)and still have its bans enforced but so be it . What is plain , however is that the reasons for disapplying a ban are therefore at large . The Panel accepted this but then proceeded to apply an approach akin to the IRA .
3 Hence , the Panel adopted far too narrow an approach saying that the application for the ban not to apply should be considered against the need for reciprocal arrangements to be enforced and on the basis of whether Hughes received a fair hearing . Why should the indian authorities be entitled to what in effect are the limits of the IRA when they won't sign up to it .
4 Hughes' challenge was based on four points (a) that he was not allowed legal representation (b) the absence of the trainer at the appeal (c) the emphasis on the riding instructions and (d) the disproportionate penalty
The panel found that (a) could be dismissed on the basis that Hughes had signed a waiver ( that strikes me as nonsensical - any such waiver of putting your rights to a fair hearing before your domestic authority is offensive and seeks to usurp the domestic authority's powers ) (b) that it did not make any difference as the representative put Hughes' points with clarity and energy . ( Frankly, that strikes me as equally specious - a trained advocate by that very training is likely to be more persuasive - that is the very reason for having the rule in this country that legal representation is appropriate
As for the absence of the trainer - who said he was ill and then turned up saddling runners in the afternoon. This was said not to be unfair as there was no evidence from the earlier hearings that their recollection of the instructions was in dispute . This strikes me again as specious. The findings against Hughes were based on his apparent failure to rush the horse up and control it if it ran keen . Questions could clearly have been asked of the trainer to address the original panel's findings and to deal with them . The fact the representative apparently did not think of this illustrates that a lawyer might have done
As for the over emphasis on riding instructions as distinct from in effect the non-trier rule they said this had been carefully investigated and that the could not retry the case themselves . I think that a point should have been made but does not appear to have been that we should simply not be enforcing breaches of this rule as it reverses the burden of proof .In effect , not riding to instructions is regarded as meaning non-trying which the jockey then has to disprove . This is totally offensive to our ideas of justice . The BHA should not even have upheld a suspension based on this rule under the IRA let alone by the back door
Finally, they held that the proper test to the penalty was perversity ( i.e no reasonable authority could have reached it ) rather than proportionality ( a proportionate response to a legitimate aim ) and held that 50 days met either test . Which in the light of the effects on a jockey's earnings and potentially their career strikes me as quite astonishing if proportionality is the test as it should be .
Furthermore, the effect of the Indian stewards ruling for a domestic jockey would be a 15 day ban - for a foreign jockey 50 days . This is discriminatory and the BHA at most should therefore have held that an equivalent ban should apply - either 15 days or on the 15 days when Mumbai was racing . Otherwise it has a disproportionate effect on a foreign jockey.
I hope Hughes and his lawyers appeal to the Appeal Board which has a better record .
What was wrong ?well I see it this way
1 As the reasons revealed the Indian stewards had actually left the International Racing Agreement in 2007 as because unlike all the other signatories they deny people appearing before them legal representation. Hence , the line peddled by the BHB that they could only interfere if the proceedings had been in breach of natural justice was wrong .
2 The Panel however upheld the ban via a backdoor route namely that the Indian authorities were however a recognised racing authority by the BHA and therefore the ban would apply unless disapplied by the BHA . It strikes me as objectionable that a foreign racing authority can back out of the standards required by the International Racing Agreement (IRA)and still have its bans enforced but so be it . What is plain , however is that the reasons for disapplying a ban are therefore at large . The Panel accepted this but then proceeded to apply an approach akin to the IRA .
3 Hence , the Panel adopted far too narrow an approach saying that the application for the ban not to apply should be considered against the need for reciprocal arrangements to be enforced and on the basis of whether Hughes received a fair hearing . Why should the indian authorities be entitled to what in effect are the limits of the IRA when they won't sign up to it .
4 Hughes' challenge was based on four points (a) that he was not allowed legal representation (b) the absence of the trainer at the appeal (c) the emphasis on the riding instructions and (d) the disproportionate penalty
The panel found that (a) could be dismissed on the basis that Hughes had signed a waiver ( that strikes me as nonsensical - any such waiver of putting your rights to a fair hearing before your domestic authority is offensive and seeks to usurp the domestic authority's powers ) (b) that it did not make any difference as the representative put Hughes' points with clarity and energy . ( Frankly, that strikes me as equally specious - a trained advocate by that very training is likely to be more persuasive - that is the very reason for having the rule in this country that legal representation is appropriate
As for the absence of the trainer - who said he was ill and then turned up saddling runners in the afternoon. This was said not to be unfair as there was no evidence from the earlier hearings that their recollection of the instructions was in dispute . This strikes me again as specious. The findings against Hughes were based on his apparent failure to rush the horse up and control it if it ran keen . Questions could clearly have been asked of the trainer to address the original panel's findings and to deal with them . The fact the representative apparently did not think of this illustrates that a lawyer might have done
As for the over emphasis on riding instructions as distinct from in effect the non-trier rule they said this had been carefully investigated and that the could not retry the case themselves . I think that a point should have been made but does not appear to have been that we should simply not be enforcing breaches of this rule as it reverses the burden of proof .In effect , not riding to instructions is regarded as meaning non-trying which the jockey then has to disprove . This is totally offensive to our ideas of justice . The BHA should not even have upheld a suspension based on this rule under the IRA let alone by the back door
Finally, they held that the proper test to the penalty was perversity ( i.e no reasonable authority could have reached it ) rather than proportionality ( a proportionate response to a legitimate aim ) and held that 50 days met either test . Which in the light of the effects on a jockey's earnings and potentially their career strikes me as quite astonishing if proportionality is the test as it should be .
Furthermore, the effect of the Indian stewards ruling for a domestic jockey would be a 15 day ban - for a foreign jockey 50 days . This is discriminatory and the BHA at most should therefore have held that an equivalent ban should apply - either 15 days or on the 15 days when Mumbai was racing . Otherwise it has a disproportionate effect on a foreign jockey.
I hope Hughes and his lawyers appeal to the Appeal Board which has a better record .
