In what is being seen by the racing fraternity as an atrocious decision, the Bangalore Turf Club’s Board of Appeal has let trainer Amit Caddy off the hook and drastically reduced jockey Raja Rao’s suspension. Earlier this month, the two professionals were taken to task by the BTC’s Stewards after Hatchet Harry ended second allegedly due to the tender handling of jockey Raja Rao. Trainer Caddy was handed a six-month suspension while Raja Rao got a year’s ban.  

Both Caddy and Raja Rao expectedly appealed against this decision and surprisingly found favour with the Board of Appeal in a meeting which was held late on Monday evening. This decision by the Board of Appeal shows the Club’s Honorary and Stipendiary Stewards, who had unanimously held Caddy and Raja Rao guilty of not allowing Hatchet Harry to run on its merit, in poor light.

Caddy has been living a charmed life and it is not for the first time that he has been treated favourably by BTC’s Board of Appeal.

It was kind of déjà vu for Caddy as last year too he was hauled up by the stewards for a similar ride given by apprentice A. Ramu astride Pacific Blue. Caddy was then given a six-month suspended sentence while Ramu was handed a long ban. But the Board of Appeal was in a generous mood and disregarded the decision of the Stewards. It appeared that they did not think twice before striking off Caddy’s suspended sentence and reducing Ramu’s ban.

Interestingly, after sensing that the racing public had lost faith in BTC’s ability to curb malpractice, the Bangalore Turf Club’s Managing Committee decided to make a sincere attempt to restore the punters’ confidence.  

The first step they took in this direction was to appoint the well respected Wayne Wood as Director of Racing and Chief Stipendiary Steward just recently. But the very purpose of this exercise has been defeated by the recent decision of the Board of Appeal and has rendered BTC a victim of contradictions.

In recent times, the Stewards of the BTC have rightly taken a view that no lowly rated jockey would either “stop” or “give a run” without the explicit instruction of the Trainer. Historically, when apprehended, the Trainer invariably let down the jockey to “take the rap” and conveniently escape any punishment themselves. The Trainer gets to keep his license by disowning the jockey, as a poor, vulnerable jockey is expendable.

Shortly after the news of the Board of Appeal’s decision to give a clean chit to Caddy and its leniency towards Raja Rao became public, strangely, all stake-holders in horse-racing: Club Members, Racehorse Owners and even Professionals were left aghast.

A senior Club Member was overheard saying: “The serial offenders know very well “how the system works” and “how to work the system”. They are aware that all that is required to have an upper hand over the Board of Appeal is to recruit the services of a Club Member as spokesperson. This Club Member then lobbies for the professional and is usually successful in getting a lenient sentence and most times ensures that they go scot-free. All this in exchange for votes, currying favours and above all: “certainty tips”. It’s unbelievable and shameful to hear this decision.”

“Where is the need to have Stewards and Stipendiary Stewards? The Committee should simply amend the Club’s constitution and leave all the policing to the Board of Appeal and let them decide who is guilty or innocent,” said this Member.

It is rumoured that Caddy was so sure of being let off by the Board of Appeal last year that he went around predicting the Board of Appeal’s decision on both the jockey and himself even before his appeal came up for  hearing. Guess what? His prediction was spot on. This time around too he “nominated” the verdict and was right ! Caddy now has a 100% “strike-rate” with the Board of Appeal.  

It will be a surprise if the body of Stewards and Stipendiary Stewards don’t feel let down by the Board of Appeal’s decision. This verdict puts a question mark over their ability to read a race and sit on judgment on incidents of malpractice.

This is something which the BTC could certainly have done without and raises some important questions

1. Should Members of the Bangalore Turf Club be allowed to represent erring Professionals as spokespersons ?

2. Should Members of the Board of Appeal be elected – as is done at RWITC ?

3. Should Members of the Board of Appeal have some minimum basic qualifications in respect of their experience in racing ?

What can the racing public expect when there are two regulatory bodies that are pulling the sport and the institution in opposite directions ?