THE Jockey Club's decision to throw out Richard Guest's appeal against his third contravention of Rule 151, has again brought the contentious rule back into the spotlight.

The dissention over the rule - horses not being run on their merits - was always on the cards. It was seemingly designed to serve the purpose of protecting the punters against cheats, and, perhaps more importantly, being seen to be doing so.

Despite the fact that racing is seen as entirely black and white by the punter, the opposite is true with those on the other side of the game, the owners, trainers, and jockeys.

The rule already has two sub-divisions - a scaling of misdemeanour - with the connections either found guilty of schooling in public, or the more serious offence of giving a horse an easy race, with the understanding that it is being prepared for a coup.

It is the latter that, in the eyes of the Jockey Club, is the more damaging, but it is precisely the failure to differentiate between the two cases that is in danger of bringing racing into more disrepute than before.

The most high-profile case was the running of Top Cees in the Chester Cup in 1995, which was the subject of the recent libel case between The Sporting Life and the trainer Lynda Ramsden, her husband Jack, and their jockey Kieren Fallon.

It seems safe to assume that the amendments to the rule at the start of this Flat turf season were designed partly in light of the case, and these changes go some way to addressing the more sinister contraventions.

An inquiry is now held automatically if a horse wins a handicap, having not previously finished in the first four. Horses who have incurred a suspension are also banned from running in good handicaps until they have run another race or been re-assessed.

Trainer Toby Balding does not believe that the amendments solve the problem: ''The rule has been misinterpreted. In the rush to try and protect the punter, what has been forgotten is that the priority has to be the horse.''

As chairman of the National Hunt branch of the National Trainers' Federation, Balding is in the unenviable position of trying to see some way to heal the chasms that are forming as a result of the latest spate of non-trier cases. He was also fined under the rule for the running of Jimmy's Cross at Wincanton in January, when ridden by Guest.

Balding adds: ''What we have all learned from the Ramsden case is that all that has to be done is for a jockey to say he has ridden a bad race, apologise, and what can anyone say?

''The stewards are well meaning but our main criticism is with Malcolm Wallace (the Jockey Club's director of regulation), who seems to have this bee in his bonnet that he is the punter's saviour and do all he can to keep racing clean.

''I think we run the cleanest racing in the world, but the punters are not the slightest bit interested, and think we are all devious brutes anyway.''

So is there a way forward? Balding and his colleagues at the NTF had scheduled a meeting with Christopher Hall, the chairman of the disciplinary committee, to discuss the ruling, but cancelled - ''we could see no point.''

He stresses that the rule has served only to cause schisms in the ranks: ''It shouldn't be the stipend-iary stewards against the jockeys, then the jockeys against the trainers. The rule as it stands, and is interpreted, is divisive.''

The major sticking-point seems to be the grouping together of the two elements of the rule, the schooling in public and giving a horse an easy race.

There cannot be a trainer in the land that has not told his jockey not to spoil the horse, whether it is a youngster making a debut, or returning from injury or a long lay-off.

This happens all the time and, while not desirable, is part of the game. Nobody should want to see a horse ruined for the sake of finishing fourth rather than sixth.

It is the laying-out for a race that is more damaging, but is more recognisable and is where the Flat cases tend to differ from the National Hunt cases.

The pattern is usually: held up; found trouble in running, ran on strongly to take an eye-catching fifth. Then the horse reappears to land a valuable handicap and some hefty bets.

Despite what they may protest, just go into a betting shop and listen to the punters delight in thinking up the schemes their cash may have fallen victim to.

Wallace is quite right to insist ''this is a menace we must stamp out'', but until there can be some agreement across the board as to the interpretation of the rules, racing only ends up shooting itself in the foot.