It all began with Badel guiding the 2/1 on Aryanoush to third place in
the Rave Review Plate at Hyderabad on August 1, 2005. Finding the jockey
guilty of not letting the dark bay filly run on her merits, the
Hyderabad Race Club withdrew his licence till March 31 and refused to
grant him another one till October 31 this year.
But France Galop, the racing authority in Badel’s native country,
refused to reciprocate the suspension. It insisted on reciprocating a
suspension only if the punishment conformed to the laws of natural
justice.
Badel had informed France Galop that he was denied the assistance of an
interpreter and a practicing lawyer during the Hyderabad Race Club
enquiry. France Galop held that a practicing lawyer’s assistance was an
essential medium of defence in French law.
In the exchange of correspondence with the Hyderabad Race Club, France
Galop further referred to a provision in Article 10 of the International
Agreement on Breeding, Racing and Wagering. This provision can be
understood to expect the authority of the country where the jockey had
been suspended to immediately inform the authority from which the jockey
has obtained a new licence about the suspension. The authority that
ordered the suspension must also convey the result of any appeal hearing
and request reciprocity.
France Galop pointed out that India had not agreed to a sentence in this
provision. The sentence specified that a suspension would automatically
apply in the licensing country, “subject to any special conditions
required by the laws of natural justice in that country.”
The Hyderabad Race Club, on its part, revealed that Badel was proficient
in English. He did not have any difficulty in fielding questions and did
not seek an interpreter. The jockey turned it down in writing when
informed of his right to appeal against his suspension.
Badel spoke much later of considering it pointless to appeal when the
right to be represented by a lawyer was denied to him. He contended that
the denial of the right to be represented by a person of his choosing
was a denial of a basic right under the principles of natural justice.
Hyderabad Race Club rules permitted Badel to be represented at the
appeal by a spokesman who is not a practising lawyer. The club stated in
one of its letters that Badel had undertaken to abide by these rules
while applying for his licence.
He was also conversant with the rules and norms followed by Indian
racing authorities. This was evident from the appeal he had made against
a suspension by the Bangalore Turf Club in 2004. He was represented at
this appeal by a spokesman who was not a practising lawyer.
Hyderabad Race Club insisted that it had followed the principles of
natural justice in handling Badel’s suspension. It reiterated to France
Galop that he had not wished to appeal. Since Badel had not exhausted
the provisions under the Hyderabad Race Club Rules of Racing, he could
not lie to France Galop for seeking redressal, said the club.
The Turf Authorities of India (T.A.I) ultimately informed France Galop
of not accepting its decision on reciprocity. They added that no new
licences would be granted in India to professionals licensed by France
Galop till it reciprocated the Hyderabad Race Club’s action. This
elicited a letter to the T.A.I from Louis Romanet.
Functioning as the director general of France Galop, he is better known
as the chairman of the world-level authority, the International Horse
Racing Federation. His letter sought the reconsideration of the Indian
authorities’ decision on new licences.
Romanet admitted in this letter that the Hyderabad Race Club’s stewards
had conducted their enquiry well. Badel was fluent in English and had
few problems in defending himself at the enquiry. The jockey had also
refused in writing to appeal against the suspension.
Underlining the importance of this refusal, Romanet said that France
Galop stewards were considering an appropriate amendment in their rules.
This amendment would expect a jockey to approach them against a similar
suspension only if he had exhausted all procedures for appeal under the
foreign authority’s rules.
Romanet then argued politely that these stewards decided on
reciprocation by judging the form and not the contents of the initial
enquiry. They had to ascertain whether the foreign stewards had taken
their decision after conducting an enquiry that conformed to French law.
Or else their action could be quashed by a French civil court.
The risk of such a court action occurring were high in Badel’s case.
This was because India did not allow a practising lawyer to appear for
appeals and had not agreed to the sentence on natural justice in Article
10.
Romanet hoped that his explanation would make Indian authorities
understand the reasons for France Galop’s refusal to reciprocate. But he
made it clear that France Galop’s decision cannot be legally
reconsidered as it had appeared in the authority’s official publication.
He said that the International Horse Racing Federation must find
solutions to prevent reciprocal problems from recurring in the future.
It must also ensure that Article 10 is strictly implemented all over the
world. Romanet therefore felt that these issues must be raised at the
federation’s conference this year.
Indian authorities have the option to raise the Badel issue too at this
conference. Or take up the matter with the Asian Racing Federation (A.R.F)
to strengthen the powers of member countries.
Meeting in Dubai recently, all the members of the A.R.F felt that the
Badel issue was a common cause. They opined that France Galop had no
justification for licensing Badel without making him return to India and
appeal to the Hyderabad Race Club.
But Badel applied to the Emirates Racing Association (E.R.A) for a
jockey’s licence in January this year even as these exchanges were on.
He marked the ‘No’ box against the question; “Have you ever been refused
a Licence/or had your Licence suspended, disqualified or cancelled by
any Racing Authority ?” in the licence application form. E.R.A ordered
an enquiry into this and reciprocity when Indian authorities informed
them about Badel’s suspension. This enquiry was held on April 3 with
F.J. Powrie, chief steward,
and two stewards representing E.R.A. Badel appeared with an interpreter.
Badel was informed that E.R.A would have reciprocated the Hyderabad Race
Club suspension if it had known about it earlier. Having come to know of
it late in March, it did not want to, “to retrospectively reciprocate
the penalty.” The suspension had ended on March 31.
The E.R.A felt that the Hyderabad Race Club’s refusal to grant Badel a
licence till October 31 was not a punishment that needed reciprocation.
But E.R.A would consider this refusal if Badel applied to it for a
licence before October 31.
Badel came up with various reasons when the E.R.A stewards took up his
declaration in the licence application form. The jockey initially said
that he did not consider himself suspended or had any other embargo on
his licence as France Galop had not reciprocated the Hyderabad Race
Club’s decision. He said that France Galop had even sent a clearance to
E.R.A on his behalf.
Badel then claimed that he had been riding in India under his French
licence. He said that the Hyderabad Race Club had suspended this licence
and not the one issued by it! But he had no answer when specifically
asked about marking ‘No’ in the application form.
He merely suggested, “that he had not read the question properly and was
somewhat confused by it.” The jockey denied any attempt to deceive the
licensing system of E.R.A or hide his suspension in India.
Finding him guilty of making a false declaration in the application
form, the E.R.A suspended Badel from riding in races from April 3 to
June 2 this year. Senior people in Indian racing now feel that the
significance of this suspension and the events preceding it lies in the
acknowledgement of India’s standing in international racing.
