Was Malesh’s riding fair? 

January 15, 2005

Much heat has been generated since Malesh Narredu’s ride on Aquilo and the subsequent objection on jockey Prakash who rode Smart Vision to victory. Was Malesh employing only a tactical ploy when he had his opponent boxed along the rails or was Prakash right in forcing his way to victory? The Stewards did not find fault with both though race goers have widely differing perceptions. Vispi Patel, one of the part owners with the silks of the Dhunjibhoys, has a point of view contrary to that of our correspondent Usman Rangila. We present below Patel’s rejoinder and Rangila’s counter to it.

Mr. Vispi Patel's Reading of Race No.98 of the current Mumbai Season

Mr. Usman Rangila has made some disparaging remarks against the riding of jockey, Malesh Narredu on Aquilo in his article on race no. 98 of the current Mumbai Season in Indiarace.com and in the Asian Age.

Often Mr. Rangila's comments in his writings are biased, not factual and inaccurate and in the past I have just tended to read and ignore the same. His articles are normally anti-establishment and often carry a wrong and misleading message to non-racing public contributing to racing being viewed in such poor light in the present day.

Today I have decided to put pen to paper and express the correct facts, which have been totally misrepresented by Mr. Rangila in the instance of Race no. 98. Mr. Rangila states "Malesh found a sitting duck in Prakash and performed every possible act that was in his capacity to deny his arch rival any room to manoeuvre and in the process bumped Smart Vision more than once. The fact that Alexandria was running ahead of him precipitated the matters further for Prakash. It seemed like some divine intervention forced Alexandria and Aquilo to move sideways and create enough space for Smart Vision to poke his way through."

The article also speaks of "Fortuitously for the sport, the favourite established an upper hand at the finish. Had the outcome been any different, the situation at the racecourse would've definitely taken an ugly turn. A glimpse of the tragedy averted was amply visible in the near-violent outburst of the angered racegoers as Malesh made his way back to the paddock."

On reviewing the replay several times, my reading of the said race and subsequent events are as under:

1. Jockey Prakash on Smart Vision, got himself blocked and pocketed behind front-runner, Alexandria and Aquilo on his outside.

2. Jockey Malesh Narredu rightfully and legitimately kept jockey Prakash on Smart Vision blocked on his inside, which Narredu was able to do easily whilst his mount Aquilo was still traveling on the bridle between the 2.5 furlong and 1.5 furlong marker.

3. Once front runner Alexandria started to stretch, Aquilo and Narredu started riding out, Prakash at the 1.5 furling marker has first given a bad bump to Aquilo which has totally unbalanced Aquilo (Aquilo's hind quarters have moved outwards as is evidenced on the head-on replay).

4. At the 1 furlong marker Prakash has first bored onto and then given a huge push to Aquilo that has not only unbalanced the horse again but also pushed Aquilo 4-5 horses off his until then straight course, creating a big gap between Alexandria and Aquilo.

5. Had Prakash not caused severe interference twice and barged his way through, I am certain he would have lost the race.

6. On reading the race day report it was shocking to find that no action was taken against jockey Prakash. It speaks extremely poorly of the quality of Stewarding as such riding by jockey Prakash would in the normal course be termed " deliberate and foul" which would have made disqualification of Smart Vision mandatory. For the Stewards report not to mention anything about this leads me to believe that they must have chosen to view the interference as accidental which in my opinion is appalling and downright ridiculous. Whether the public outbursts contributed to this I am unable to ascertain.

7. In his anxiety to win the race jockey Prakash has not cared in the slightest as to the safety of Narredu and Aquilo, as is reflected by the CCTV replay, and therefore his riding cannot even be termed careless.

8. Outburst of angered race goers usually emit from holes in pockets with losing favourites and not from a genuine reading of fair racing. 

9. As for the professional "hanging about the weighing room" to instantly remark "ek to chori aur phir upar se seena jori" please let me know of his/her identity so that I can teach him/her a lesson or two of how to read a race.

10. For Mr. Rangila to feel that "the underlying motive in Malesh's objection was to scuttle the prospects of any punitive action against himself" is just a case of Mr. Rangila deluding himself and confirms his inability to read a race. In fact, jockey Prakash is lucky to have got away without any punishment whatsoever with a result of weak Stewarding. 

11. As for Mr. Rangila I can only say that he needs to:
· Learn how to read a race better in order to identify who bumps whom.
· Be less biased and report correct facts.

A word of advice for Mr. Rangila - start reporting some of the positive happenings on the racecourse and not just negative articles.

(Mr. Vispi Patel is a racehorse owner of long standing and has served as a Steward of the Meeting at RWITC)

Usman Rangila replies:

I was pleasantly surprised to know that Mr Vispi R. Patel has suddenly found time to break his silence. I would really want to believe that the opinion expressed in his rejoinder are entirely his own and he is not parroting somebody else’s viewpoint, which hints of a guilty conscience. I would go to the extent of saying that he has viewed the race and also my article with a jaundiced eye. 

Be that as it may, I fail to understand where in the article Mr Vispi has found remarks made against Malesh’s riding and how has he concluded that they are disparaging! I simply cannot help it if he finds my articles biased, not factual, inaccurate or anti-establishment because I always believe that an individual has every right to have an opinion of his own and so Mr Vispi can have one. But the undisputable fact also remains that it all depends on the side of the fence from which the individual is viewing the race or the incident and decides to form his or her opinion. 

For the sake of brevity I would only like to say that the level of grasp Mr Patel has on the English language appears pitiful. Else, he would not have found the description: “Malesh found a sitting duck in B. Prakash…..” offensive. As for teaching the trainer, who commented: “Ek to chori aur phir upar se seena jori”, how to read a race, all I can say is that Mr Patel should not take upon himself the responsibility of judging other people’s competence of judging or viewing a race. I think that Mr Vispi has unwittingly proved the professional right! Speaking about the weak Stewarding, I would want to know why doesn’t he enlighten the current RWITC chairman of the view he has formed in this regard and offer his services to the RWITC?

Mr Vispi has also proffered some unsolicited advice to me that I need to learn how to read a race etc. I would only like to inform him that species of these kind, who brag that they are the ultimate authority on all aspects of racing be it the conduct of the sport or the administration part of it, are available dime a dozen at the racecourse and I keep bumping into them almost every day during the course of my job.

Against my wishes, I would like to congratulate Mr Vispi for acknowledging that RWITC has lost its glory. I have held a similar view since long. Lastly, as far his clarion call towards all to work towards restoring the lost glory of RWITC is concerned, I would like to remind him that: Charity begins at HOME.