J. MARGARET CLARKE TURFCALL COMMENT
RICHARD HUGHES yesterday was represented by barrister Trevor Howarth at a BHA disciplinary hearing in
relating to issues imposed by the Royal Western Indian Turf Club for failing to ride to instructions during a race at Mahalaxmi racecourse in Mumbai in February. These instructions .... is anyone allowed to know whether they where bloodhorse literate instructions? Or where they bloodhorse illiterate instructions? London
Hughes in loosing his appeal in
had hoped the BHA'S disciplinary panel (we are not given their names) would not reciprocate a hearing suspension. India
Hughes said "I'm disappointed, it is an important time of the season. We have eight horses entered in the
Guineas and we want to know which is our Guineas horse. I want to wait until
the disciplinary panel release the reasons for its decision before deciding whether another course of action to challenge the ban needs to be taken, but yesterday the BHA could only confirm the verdict."
Hughes said "Until we have seen the reasons provided by the disciplinary panel following their decision to uphold the suspension imposed by the Royal Western India Turf Club it is not possible for the BHA to comment any further. The BHA is one of about 50 authorities who are signatories to the International Racing Agreement and as such the BHA is committed to reciprocating penalties imposed on licensees by recognised racing authorities providing that the disciplinary process is procedurally fair."
Professional Jockeys Association chief executive Paul Struthers accused the BHA of taking an "adversarial approach" by having a barrister present the RWITC's findings and said: "we have to wait for the reasons from the panel but I have to say I struggle to comprehend how
can expect reciprocation when they don't sign up to the international agreement in full. Part of that agreement is that people are entitled to legal representation, but in India they are not. India
"This isn't a decision Richard can take to the appeal board so his only other recourse is to the courts, which would be hugely expensive and time consuming. It's something we need to look at and other jockeys need to be aware of."
The British legal justice system is firmly wedged in the cruel past, serving no one honestly in the cruel present, with an estimated 75 per cent of the people unable to afford to use even, or afford the time the present court procedures take to be manipulated by the lawyers to actually get around to do anything at all either. Lawyers who feather their own nests financially throughout to suit no one else but themselves. The longer they take the more they earn. Should lawyers be earning such excessive monies at all? Is this earning or a scam? Or is this just another in the long list of Rip-Off- Britain issues?
The British bloodhorse illiterate horseracing authority has no business to be regulating horseracing in this country or anywhere else in the first place because they have no knowledge of bloodhorse literacy and appear totally unaware that bloodhorse literacy exists even.