In what appears to be an unprecedented decision, the Bangalore Turf Club (BTC) Stewards handed trainer G.Y. Rajesh Babu a one-year suspension on the grounds that his horse, Adelanto, weighed 12 kilograms more on race day than it did at the time of acceptance. The weighing was conducted before the race, and the Stewards deemed this fluctuation a contravention of Rule 202 of the BTC Rules of Racing. The punishment, disqualification until June 2026, raises serious questions about proportionality and whether such a routine physiological occurrence justifies such a severe penalty.

To begin with, fluctuations in a racehorse`s weight — particularly in the range of 10 to 15 kilograms — are neither rare nor necessarily suspicious. Thoroughbreds, like any athlete, experience daily shifts in weight due to hydration levels, gut fill, salt intake, digestion cycles, and resting phases. A horse that has reduced its workload, taken in more fluids, or consumed bulkier feed can easily show such variations. Scientific data confirms that horses can carry up to 50 kilograms in gut content alone. A difference of 12 kilograms, though not insignificant, falls well within the range of what could be expected naturally, especially when no signs of performance enhancement are evident.

In Adelanto`s case, the horse performed in line with expectations. He finished 19 lengths behind the winner — certainly a below-par effort, but not one that suggested foul play or tampering. The first two finishers were progressive three-year-olds, known to improve sharply at this stage of the season and these two horses were about 12 lengths ahead of the rest. When assessed against the older horses in the field, Adelanto was roughly seven lengths adrift. In his previous outing, racing against horses of his own age, he had finished five lengths behind. So, from a form perspective, there was no alarming discrepancy. If anything, his run was a continuation of his established pattern. Significantly, the horse was also reported to have bled during the race — a clinical condition that invariably compromises performance. Furthermore, the race timings over his last three starts show no notable spikes or dips, reinforcing the view that his form remained consistent. Taken together, there is no compelling evidence of a form reversal or any suspicious anomaly that would warrant suspicion, let alone a punitive response of this magnitude.

The Stewards` report states that trainer Rajesh Babu, through his spokesperson, could not offer a “satisfactory explanation” for the weight gain. But this raises a troubling standard — what, exactly, constitutes a “satisfactory” explanation when the scientific literature already accounts for such variations? If hydration, gut fill, salt balance, or feeding patterns are not considered reasonable causes, one wonders what is. Moreover, there appears to have been no discussion or inquiry into the accuracy of the weighing scale or the conditions under which the weight was recorded. The weighing scale has often proved to be faulty unless calibrations are checked frequently for correctness. One might expect similar caution and cross-verification here, but it seems to have been absent.

It is important to emphasize that weight gain in a racehorse is not, in and of itself, evidence of malpractice. To treat it as such — without supporting indicators such as use of prohibited substances, manipulation of training, or dramatic deviation in performance — is to criminalize biology. The role of the Stewards is to safeguard the integrity of racing, not to punish natural physiological responses with career-impacting suspensions. No trainer, to our knowledge, has ever been disqualified solely for a 10 or 12 kg increase in bodyweight, especially when the horse in question has run to his ability.

If this decision is allowed to stand, it sets a worrying precedent. Trainers could be hauled up and punished not for what their horses do on the track, but for what their horses eat, drink, or how much water they retain on a humid day. Rules must be enforced, but interpretation requires nuance. Without conclusive evidence of intent or deception, this suspension seems less like an upholding of fairness and more like an act of regulatory overreach.

Unless the appeal process brings clarity or correction, the suspension of Rajesh Babu will linger as a decision that punished physiology over foul play — and blurred the line between vigilance and arbitrariness in the sport`s governance.

The Stewards may well believe that they are sending a strong message — that integrity will be upheld, and professionals held accountable. But in their zeal to be seen as tough arbiters of the sport, they appear to have thrown logic to the wind. Yes, vigilance and firmness are essential qualities in a stewarding body. But when that firmness is wielded without scientific understanding, it becomes a self-defeating exercise. The guardians of racing are expected to apply rules with knowledge and discernment — not to enforce them blindly in pursuit of appearances.