Richard Hughes given reasons why 50-day Indian riding ban was upheld

Six days after Richard Hughes was told he would not be able to escape a 50-day riding ban imposed on him by the Indian authorities, the British Horseracing Authority has released the reasons for that decision. The jockey must now consult with his lawyers as to the viability of an appeal, which may have to be made to the high court. At a four-hour hearing last Wednesday, David Fish QC represented Hughes before a disciplinary panel of the BHA, putting forward four reasons why the Indian ban should not be enforced in Britain. Each of these has been rejected by the panel. Fish complained that the procedures followed by the stewards in Mumbai forbid legal representation for jockeys at hearings, which he argued was in breach of the rules of natural justice. But the panel noted that Hughes had waived any right to such representation as a condition of being allowed to ride in India and added that there was no evidence to suggest the jockey had suffered through his lack of representation. Fish drew attention to the absence from the appeal hearing in India of HJ Antia, the trainer of the horse Hughes was riding when he was found in breach of the rules. Antia is a significant figure in the case because the jockey was found guilty of "not following the trainer's specific instructions and thereby not allowing his mount Jacqueline Smile to run on its merits". Antia was expected to attend the appeal hearing on 11 March but was absent, reportedly unwell. Fish pointed out that he saddled runners at the races later that day and suggested he had made himself scarce. But the panel felt that point amounted to little, noting that Antia had given evidence at the original hearing on 23 February and that there had been no dispute between him and Hughes as to the instructions given. The panel added that Fish had offered no evidence to show that Antia's absence from the appeal hearing put Hughes at any disadvantage. Fish argued that the Mumbai stewards had placed too much emphasis on Antia's instructions and had failed to take sufficient account of the way in which the race had unfolded. But the BHA's panel reported the conclusion of the Indian officials as being that Hughes "could have done more at the outset to travel where instructed and that he was a sufficiently strong and experienced rider to be able to maintain control if [the horse] had then begun to race too keenly". This was not, the panel felt, an evidently perverse decision. Nor was it one that the panel could argue with, having seen no footage of the race and heard no evidence from the trainer or jockey. Finally, Fish argued that the penalty was disproportionate, since the equivalent offence in Britain would attract a ban of between seven and 21 days, with an entry point of 10 days. The panel disagreed, describing the difference between the two penalties as "not so great as to warrant" interference. Initial indications from the BHA had been that Hughes could only take the matter further by an appeal to the high court, but it now appears he may be able to pursue an appeal within the BHA's procedures. "Richard Hughes has been sent Schedule A(7) of the rules of racing, which clarifies how our appeal procedures work," a spokesman said. "To summarise, he has the option of providing a written request to the appeal board, stating his grounds for appeal. The board will then consider this and make a decision as to whether the appeal warrants a hearing." If Hughes takes the matter no further, he will be unable to ride until 30 April, missing trials for the 1,000 and 2,000 Guineas. He will miss the first month of the new turf season, damaging his hopes of becoming champion jockey for the first time. He is available at 11-2 to win the title race, which runs until November.