Stewards display a sea of cluelessness
By Sharan Kumar
The last race of the day at Bangalore on Friday was
quite the spectacle—though not for reasons one might expect from an actual
horse race. Oxytocin, a horse with a track record of miraculously avoiding
scrutiny despite her dubious past performances, finally won a race. However,
the victory came with a side of chaos, courtesy of jockey Ramu, who appeared to
be riding on the assumption that steering was optional. He gleefully cut across
half the field, tightening up a group of unsuspecting jockeys on the inside,
creating a situation that could have resulted in a pile-up worthy of a
demolition derby.
Fortunately, the unfortunate victims of this reckless manoeuvre
were seasoned jockeys with reflexes sharper than the Stewards’ understanding of
their own rulebook. They somehow managed to stay upright, preventing a disaster
that could have turned the track into an emergency room. Jockey Ramu,
meanwhile, seemed blissfully unaware that letting a horse drift from an outside
draw to the inside without so much as a token effort to control it might
be frowned upon.
The Stipes, being the professionals, they are paid
handsomely to be, quickly determined that Ramu’s antics were dangerous and,
under Rule 160, disqualification was the only logical outcome. Their verdict
was clear, firm, and, above all, unanimous. Then came the Stewards.
Now, logic and rulebooks have never been the closest
friends of certain racing authorities, and this occasion was no exception.
Three of the Stewards agreed with the Stipes, stating the obvious: Oxytocin
must be disqualified. But then, like an unexpected plot twist in a poorly
written soap opera, one nominated Steward boldly declared that only the jockey
should be punished, not the horse. And just when you thought the absurdity had
peaked, Chairman decided he, too, would defy logic and side with this contrarian
opinion.
But wait—there’s more! The Steward, the original
dissenter, then confidently asserted that since the Chairman had a casting
vote, the matter needed a fresh look. A minor detail escaped him,
though—casting votes are for ties, not situations where the majority is
crystal clear. In an ideal world, the process would have ended with a simple
majority ruling in favour of disqualification. Instead, what followed was an
excruciating display of procedural cluelessness. The Stipes were called back
to rehash their opinion, an utterly pointless exercise considering they had
already stated it with the clarity of a tolling church bell.
Embarrassment loomed large, but mercifully,
someone—possibly an exhausted Steward who could no longer tolerate the
farce—pointed out that a majority vote is, in fact, how democracy works. The
horse was finally disqualified, and the crisis was narrowly averted. Adding to
the comedy, one of the Stewards, a lawyer by profession, sat through the
entire debacle without bothering to inform the Chairman that his casting vote
was as relevant as an umbrella in a desert.
If there’s one takeaway from this masterclass in
regulatory mayhem, it’s this: when in doubt, perhaps trust the
professionals—especially when the club is shelling out a small fortune to keep
racing from turning into a full-blown circus. One can only hope that after this
nationally televised fiasco, the Stewards might finally crack open the
rulebook. But then again, hope can be a dangerous indulgence.
Comments
Post a Comment