RULE 6 IGNORED, DELAYED PAY-OUTS, COUPLING & NOW AS IT ALWAYS WAS.

Yarmouth yesterday, the 5 03 race. Wrist Art, ridden by Christian Howarth, reared in stalls prior to start, got foreleg over the next stall, unseated rider as stalls opened. Deemed a runner. Enough said, I am sure you agree.

An on-course bookmaker, Spencer by name, in a letter published in today's Racing Post, suggests, quite possibly in light of the chaos caused by the application of rule 6 last Saturday, that pay-outs should be delayed for one race, and not, as now, once the weighed-in announcement was relayed over the tannoy, in order for the consequences of stewards' enquiries to be accounted for. Sensible suggestion,  as long as bookies do not do a runner straight after the last race leaving winning punters high and dry.

Mr. Astin of Broadhempston, in a letter published in today's Racing Post, for me, makes a less sensible suggestion regarding multiple runners from one stable. In France, I believe, if an owner has more than one runner in a race the horses are coupled in the betting. I do not approve but that is the French take on the issue. Mr. Astin suggests that all runners from a single stable, even if owned by different people, should be tied together in the betting. This is illogical even if applied only to one owner. If this idea was followed in last Saturday's Epsom Derby a punter would have had four horses out of 14 running for him. If applied to National Hunt, at Cheltenham, say in the Triumph Hurdle, a punter may have half the field running for him, given Closutton's habit of running as many unexposed horses as possible. Besides, I loved it when Qirat, a pace-maker for Field of Gold, won the Susssex Stakes due to all the other jockeys being overly confident he would come back to them without having to chase after him. I love 100/1 winners, expecially in big races, and extra especially when it is the wrong horse winning for one of the big organisations. So no, I do not want see coupling in British racing.

Back in 1953, Captain Boyd-Rochfort had two top-class 3-year-olds. The naughty horse owned by the Queen, Aureole and Brigadier Wyatt's Premonition, controversily disqualified after winning the Irish Derby, though he went on to win the Doncaster St.Leger. As four-year-olds Aureole and Permonition went their different ways, the former stayed at 12-furlongs, the latter, as was quite normal back then for top class middle distance horses, went in search of Ascot, Goodwood and Doncaster Cups.

To help in this matter, Captain Boyd-Rochfort bought in France a lead horse for Premonition, a 7-year-old called Osborne. The owners wanted to reward the lad who looked after Premonition so well by giving him the ride on Osborne. Ray Burrows first ride on a racecourse on Osborne was in the Yorkshire Cup in which he got into all sorts of trouble, leading into the straight but running wide and then nearly getting brought down by another runner. Premonition won despite the antics of his pacemaker.

Premonition's preparation for the Ascot Gold Cup was completed at Hurst Park in the Winston Churchill Stakes. What nobody at Freemason Lodge had noticed was that in his time there Osborne had improved by leaps and bounds and in the Hurst Park race, with clear instructions to 'be second if you possibly can', Burrows, having first looked all over the winner a hundred yards from the winning post, with Premonition running lazily, allowed Harry Carr to get Premonition to nick the race by a nose. Everyone who witnessed the race were fully aware that Burrows had contravened rule 139, 'every horse should run on its merits ...'

The stewards held an enquiry but did not question either of the jockeys, referring the matter to the Stewards of the Jockey Club. This was acutely embarrassing for the royal trainer. The outcome was that Captain Boyd-Rochfort was fined £100 for 'not giving Burrows concise orders in accordance with Rule 139' and Burrows was suspended from riding for 3-weeks. The following week, the same as the week after this year's Epsom Derby, the racing press argued over the ins and outs of the race, stretching the controversy this way and that, with a great many suggesting that Britain should follow the French example and couple horses running in the same race for the same owner.

My point is that the Jockey Club turned a deaf ear to that controversy in 1954, as, no doubt, the B.H.A. will turn a deaf ear to the controversy of 2026. It always has been the official default position on all matters that question their authority, be that the B.H.A. or their predecessors The Jockey Club. A name change does not neccesarily change things from bad to better.