The punishment handed to Vijay Singh for possession of snake venom in his stable raises an uncomfortable question: is Indian racing applying its rules consistently?

The Royal Calcutta Turf Club's decision to fine trainer Vijay Singh ₹1 lakh after an inspection of his stable uncovered Crotalus, a preparation derived from rattlesnake venom, along with other prohibited substances and contrivances, raises a question that goes beyond one trainer.

Was the punishment adequate?

The answer must be judged against the penalties imposed in other racing jurisdictions, and even at other Indian racing centres, for violations that appear considerably less serious.

The RCTC order makes clear that this was not simply a case of an innocuous medicine being found in a stable. The inspection uncovered Crotalus, which the Stewards classified as an illicit substance, several other prohibited substances, homeopathic medicines, numerous unapproved supplements, an unlabelled bottle containing brown pills and a 40 ml multi-injector syringe.

The Stewards recorded that Singh had accepted that the substances were found in his stable and that the medicines and supplements had not been entered in his Log Book. They rejected his explanation regarding Crotalus, noting that the veterinary hospital he cited did not routinely administer the preparation. Veterinary officers from other clubs also expressed the opinion that Crotalus should be classified as an illicit substance.

Yet the ultimate punishment was a ₹1 lakh fine for negligence in the discharge of his duties as a licensed trainer, accompanied by a warning that recurrence could attract stricter action.

There is an important distinction. The order does not establish that venom was administered to a horse or that a horse tested positive for it. It would therefore be wrong to equate the case with deliberate doping.

But that does not make the penalty immune from scrutiny

International racing provides a striking comparison. In 2007, prominent American trainer Patrick Biancone was suspended after cobra venom was discovered in his Kentucky stable. He maintained that he did not know it was there. Nevertheless, the Kentucky authorities initially imposed a one-year suspension. Following a settlement, he served six months and was prevented from obtaining a trainer's licence for another six months. His horses had to be transferred to other trainers.

The significance of the Biancone case is not that India should copy Kentucky. It is that the size and importance of a trainer's operation did not prevent the regulator from imposing a meaningful suspension.

There are also examples closer to home. At Bangalore, possession of a stomach or nasogastric tube, an instrument capable of being used to introduce a substance directly into a horse's stomach, has been treated as a serious regulatory offence. Indeed, a trainer has faced a suspension running into years for possession of such equipment. Bangalore's rules expressly prohibit possession of a nasogastric tube or similar instrument capable of administering a prohibited substance without permission.

That comparison makes the ₹1 lakh penalty in the Singh case difficult to ignore.

If possession of an instrument that could be used to administer something can attract a multi-year suspension, while possession of a venom-derived substance classified as illicit, together with other prohibited substances and contrivances, results in a fine, racing is entitled to ask whether the penalties are proportionate and consistent.

This is not an accusation that Singh received favourable treatment because he is a leading trainer. There is no evidence in the RCTC order to establish that.

But consistency is essential.

A trainer with 50 horses cannot be treated more leniently simply because suspending him would inconvenience owners and disrupt racing. Conversely, he should not be punished more severely merely because he is prominent.

The real test is simple: would the same facts involving a small trainer with five horses have produced the same punishment?

The RCTC order gives Singh a right of appeal. It also gives the racing authorities an opportunity to explain their reasoning.

The issue is therefore not whether Vijay Singh should have received a suspension.

It is whether ₹1 lakh represents equal justice when compared with penalties imposed elsewhere for offences that appear, on the face of it, less serious.

That is a question Indian racing cannot afford to brush aside.