RACING: RICHARD HUGHES will have to wait until Monday week to make his return to race-riding after failing in his appeal against the decision of the British Horseracing Authority disciplinary panel to reciprocate a 50-day ban handed to the rider in India.

The jockey was suspended in February having been found guilty by the stewards in India of “not following the trainer’s specific instructions and thereby not allowing his mount Jacqueline Smile to run on its merits”.

He turned to the BHA after failing to have the ban overturned in India, but was unsuccessful in his application not to have the suspension reciprocated.

Hughes went to the BHA appeal board yesterday, but that process too failed. The ban, which runs until April 29th, dealt Hughes a blow in his bid to claim a first jockeys’ title.

Hughes admitted he was “disappointed” at the decision and is looking forward to returning to racecourse action, ruling out taking the matter further.

“I’m disappointed. That’s it now,” he said. “Can’t wait to get back. I’ve 10 days to go.”

Jamie Stier, Director of Raceday Operations and Regulation for the BHA, said in a statement: “We would like to register on record that we recognise the frustration felt by Richard Hughes about this episode while at the same time endorsing the findings of both the Disciplinary Panel and the Appeal Board, who concluded that under the Rules of Racing the correct decision was to uphold the suspension imposed by the Royal Western India Turf Club.

“The BHA stands behind the principle of reciprocity of penalties among recognised international racing bodies. Without reciprocity there is a risk of there being no effective measures to deter visiting participants from breaching the rules of the respective authority.

“Similar applications to those lodged by Richard Hughes are, thankfully, few and far between. However, we will be looking to see if there are any lessons to learn which may assist the handling of such matters in the future.”

Paul Struthers, chief executive of the Professional Jockeys Association, said the body would be seeking clarification with the BHA of international procedures.

He tweeted: “I can confirm PJA Official will be asking the BHA and IFHA for clarity on the International Agreement.

“Mainly, why bother with an International Agreement if Authorities have their own rules that rule the Agreement pointless.”

Expanding on the reasons the PJA are seeking clarification, Struthers said: “The BHA are aware of my concerns on behalf of the PJA and I am going to put it in writing to them.

“The most important one is the fact that India aren’t signatories to Article 10 of the international agreement. For PJA members that ride overseas, the international agreement at least provides them with the protection that they can expect certain standards.

“I don’t understand why the BHA have gone about this particular case in the way they have.” He added: “We welcome the BHA statement (from Jamie Stier). Whilst it will be scant consolation for Richard, it’s the fact the BHA did not pursue costs and the deposit wasn’t taken off him.

“It’s welcomed because it’s an acknowledgement that they at least understood why Richard was appealing.

“I’ve already written to the IFHA (International Federation of Horseracing Authorities) and am going to write to the BHA seeking clarity on what the situation is.”