IT’S been a while since I had a cathartic rant about racing’s often incomprehensible rules and regulations, but now seems a good time, and timing can be paramount.

Take the timing of the BHA’s introduction of an amended rule giving stewards the authority to declare a horse not given a fair start a non-runner.

Just a day after the introduction of that amendment, we had a stipendary steward talking on television about how a horse in a televised race had not received a fair start.

Brilliant – what better way to christen the new approach than a worked example live on the telly? Except, in typical BHA style, the stipe – ex-jockey Steve Drowne – had to admit that the stewards didn’t actually have the power to make the horse a non-runner as the race was not started from stalls. Facepalm.

Until last weekend, only specific stalls malfunctions or riders not being onboard were reasons why horses could be retrospectively withdrawn, but now stewards have complete discretion to make a horse a non-runner if they feel that horse has not had a fair start, including but not limited to the reasons given above, but only in races starting from stalls, for some reason.

To demonstrate this, the press release made specific reference to the Epsom Dash last June, where many of the high stalls opened later than the rest, thereby denying the horses in the stalls affected a fair start.

The old rules allowed the horses materially affected to be made non-runners for betting purposes only if this was a stalls malfunction, whereas that was not deemed the case in the Dash, where the late opening was the result of one of the runners anticipating the start and affecting the way that section of stalls opened.

I’m not sure where to start with this as it’s such a mess, but let’s do it alphabetically.

a)Is it really that hard to define stalls opening at different times a malfunction of those stalls, even if it set off by one of the incumbents? I mean, it does sound a bit malfunction-y, doesn’t it?

b)Despite no inquiry being called into the start of the Dash (the irregular start was posted on Twitter/X by a member of the public), the stewards later said they were aware of the incident but decided that no advantage had been gained and didn’t feel the need for an official inquiry. Well, if there was nothing wrong, why bother amending the rules, and in particular, why cite this particular race (nothing to see here folks, move along) in the press release for the amendment? Perhaps I missed the public apology about the Epsom cock-up.

c)Given the amended rule does not limit the scenarios in which the stewards have power to deem a horse not afforded a fair start a non-runner…….deep breath……WHY THE HELL CONFINE IT TO RACES STARTED FROM STALLS?

It really does beggar belief that in trying to solve one problem, the people who write the rules manage to create several more problems in the process.

It’s only a couple of weeks since stewards at Ffos Las allowed an illegal change of equipment on the Peter Bowen-trained Pilgrims King which should lead to that horse’s disqualification.

Pilgrims King was declared with cheekpieces and blinkers instead of his usual blinkers and tongue-tie, and should have run as declared according to the rules; an amendment to the rule in question now allows the trainer to swap headgear when declared in error, and under that rule the local stewards fined Bowen £140 but allowed him to swap the cheekpieces for a tongue tie, even though 99% of punters were blissfully unaware of that fact.

This would be bad enough, particularly as Pilgrims King was a big drifter with layers keen to oppose him in the knowledge that he had been tailed off on both starts over jumps without a tongue tie.

To make matters worse, the rule does not, in fact, allow the substitution of cheekpieces for a tongue-tie, but only for an alternative form of eye-wear.

Not only does the amendment make for a genuinely bad rule, but it also introduces the possibility of that rule being interpreted wrongly, as here.

The Ffos Las stewards held their hands up when challenged over this situation, but for layers of Pilgrims King, just like backers of Maasai Mara at Sandown, it was far too little, far too late.

THE idea of making a day of trial races for Royal Ascot is not one that floats my boat, particularly as it reduces historic contests like the Sagaro Stakes into something much less than they are in reality, but rather than getting hung up on the marketing of such a raceday, it’s better to look at Wednesday’s Ascot card for future clues.

I don’t think the Sagaro told us anything we didn’t already think we knew, but the Commonwealth Cup Trial, a race which wore its Group 3 status more elegantly when called the Pavilion Stakes, did cause me to readjust my view on one horse in particular.

Jasour had looked a smart prospect when winning the July Stakes at Newmarket last summer before losing his form. That contest has often thrown up a seven-day-wonder and when Jasour was well beaten in the Prix Morny and the Middle Park Stakes subsequently I just assumed he was another speedy early juvenile heading for obscurity.

That did not look the case on Wednesday, however, and despite looking to carry a bit of condition, the powerfully built Jasour made a big impression as he swept from last to first in the twinkling of an eye.

He probably got to the front soon enough, looking to idle a bit when the race was won, but he struck me as a horse who might yet fulfil early expectations kept to sprinting this year, and while the Commonwealth Cup is clearly the immediate plan, I’d imagine the headstrong Jasour will prove just as effective over five furlongs, although it could be August before he can really prove that notion correct, with the Nunthorpe my idea of his perfect race.