In his column in The Racing Post today, David Jennings summed-up the Rule 6 controversy with 'where common sense is declared a non-runner.' Never in my overly long life have I witnessed an issue where the argument was so one-sided. Nobody in the whole of racing is siding with the B.H.A. Peter Scargill did suggest in a Racing Post podcast that given the wording of Rule 6 the Epsom stewards had no alternative but to declare Benvenuto Cellini a non-runner, though even he thought the rule stupid and at the very least needed revising. Everyone else suggests the rule should be consigned to history as soon as possible.
My one thought on how the B.H.A. may save face is to restrict Rule 6 to races that are included in the World Pool, integration with the World Pool, and the money British racing receives from being a part of it, being the sole reason why this rule was drafted in the first place. I agree with those that say a race at Yarmouth, the latest example of Rule 6 being totally ignored by local stewards, should not be treated differently to a classic, with the same rules of racing honoured. But perhaps, given the monetary gain British racing receives for being a partner in the World Pool, a two-tier system limited to the few British races included in the World Pool, would be a compromise most parties could live with. At least then the grey areas would be over-painted by pure black and white.
The banter between father and daughter always makes for good viewing, unfortunately for the father, his fall from grace with the B.H.A. and his 3-month suspended ban has put the daughter on a pedestal which the father will never, or at least in the near future, be able to topple her from. Jamie Osborne is the father in question and the B.H.A. has found him in breach of the rule covering 'conduct expected of a respectable trainer in the industry.' For reasons known only to hmself, Jamie Osborne is a member of a WhatsApp group going under the title 'Great Bums', and to this end the members upload illicit photographs of the rear-ends of women, no doubt bending-over. In some ways this subject can be viewed as comical, though I think most people would think this pastime creepy, verging on obscene. I would hope Saffie and her family have excoriated him without mercy, even if on the predatory sexual scale his offence is lies low down the list. It remains, though, a poor reflection on him. I doubt if he would like to see similar photographs of his daughter on the phones of dirty old men in raincoats.
Royal Ascot next week, obviously. My week for being torn this way and that due to loving the actual racing while hating the emphasis on fashion, dress codes and the swilling of champagne as if it is a regulation, not an option. I am a true Royalist and would hate to see this country become a republic. But shouldn't we have moved past the historical iron-fist of the royal social season - Polo, Henley, Royal Ascot and what other events form part of this trail through summer that is only of interest to the few, the very rich few, and is hardly noticed by the majority. Why Royal Ascot should need 5 royal processions when two, one to open the meeting, one to close it, would be enough. It is an asset to the sport, of course, to have the King and Queen in attendance for the five-days but wouldn't it be less of a faff for them to arrive by car for the middle three-days.
Royal Ascot is also sexist. While the women can wear light colourful clothing that allows their skin to breathe, men must be trussed-up in clothes that make them look like refugees from a cathedral wedding made to walk to the racecourse carrying an iron bar as punishment for drink-related unsocial behaviour. Sweat is the prominent feature on the faces of the male I.T.V. presenters, accompanied by forced smiles of resignation of their fate. How I hate it. At least the segments given over to fashion allows men of my age time to go for a pee or to make a pot of tea. Small mercies, I know, that and knowing I will never allow myself to be thrust into a morning suit to parade under a merciless blue sky. In fact, to be truthful, in my 72-years no one has ever seen me in a suit of any kind. Smart casual or unkempt are my two fashions of choice, neither of which would be acceptable at Ascot next week. Unkempt I can accept but not smart casual. Ascot may be packed to the rafters next week, but every other racecourse next week will not. Racecourses should accept anyone willing to pay the entrance fee and obey all the decencies of modern society, even if they fall under the fashion heading of 'unkempt'. Racecourses need to honour the precepts of diversity with no bar on race, religion, whiskeriness or clothing. If Jesus turned-up at the gates of Ascot next week, the officials would refuse him entry due enirely to him wearing sandals and a robes, no matter how many miracles he performed to verify himself as the son of God.