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.