Wahay, we've found new ways for interference to muck things up!

The Front Runner is Chris Cook's morning email exclusively for Members' Club Ultimate subscribers, available here as a free sample.

In Monday's email Chris reflects on another weekend of interference drama – and subscribers can get more great insight, tips and racing chat from Chris every Monday to Friday.

Members' Club Ultimate subscribers who aren't yet signed up for The Front Runner should click here to sign up and start receiving emails immediately!

Not a Members' Club Ultimate subscriber? Click here to join today and also receive our Ultimate Daily emails plus our full range of fantastic website and newspaper content, including tipping from the likes of Pricewise and Paul Kealy, all the big interviews and features, daily comment and news analysis.

Truly, these are the great days for people who like to talk about interference. There's an interesting new case practically every week and, just when you think you've seen it all, some major race will produce a new twist.

This weekend, we had the Coral-Eclipse, in which the interference came after the race was over, ooohh! And there was the bet365 Lancashire Oaks, when we all thought one jockey was in terrible trouble, only to find out the stewards had suspended the other guy, aaahhh! All the fun of the fair.

This Thursday brings an absolute blockbuster appeal hearing, because Kia Joorabchian is (quite understandably) not happy about the fact that The Ridler was allowed to keep the Norfolk Stakes at Royal Ascot after interfering with not one, not two, not three but four horses, two of which were his.

Because I was born under a lucky star, I get to listen in on such hearings on a weekly basis and it's common for there to be a lawyer or two involved. But this is such an interesting and important case that three of my favourite litigators are to be involved, one for Joorabchian, one for Hanagan and another for the BHA. If any of the spread betting firms were to open a book on the length of this hearing, I'd be a buyer at six hours.

The following Thursday, I expect we'll hear Rab Havlin's appeal against the five days he was given by the Haydock stewards on Saturday. You'll be aware that most onlookers expected Jim Crowley to get a suspension, rather than the guy whose horse got squashed between Crowley's mount and the rail.

But a significant proportion of those expressing a view took the side of Crowley. It looks as though we've stumbled across racing's own little culture war, Crowley's case being voiced by those who think it's simply wrong to go sneaking up the inner of another jockey. Havlin should have known better and gone wide, the thinking seems to be.

He should have known Crowley would have to close that door if someone tried to go through it. It might even have been a clever trap that Crowley laid...

I have no sympathy with this kind of macho thinking, a hangover from decades long gone, that suggests it's a magnificent insult to a chap if a rival sneaks through a gap he has inadvertently left. But the rules are silent on that specific point and so, unhelpfully, are officials; that silence allows the old, unwritten codes to persist.

I wish we heard more from the sport's officials, speaking at length and in detail about the standard of riding expected from jockeys and the sort of behaviour that will no longer be tolerated. I think it would be useful to hear it said in as many words, for example, that a jockey who leaves a gap on his inner absolutely must not close the door, once a rival has begun to take that gap.

That kind of clarity would be helpful to spectators seeking to understand the game, to stewards applying the rules and to jockeys seeking to ride within them. The BHA has long fought shy of saying anything more than is in the rules, for fear of causing confusion or argument or controversy.

But rules are tightly worded, or should be, and I think we need more from officials seeking to guide standards of race-riding in a certain direction. We need to hear about the philosophies behind the rules and how stewards are expected to apply them in certain situations. We need comment from time to time about things that arise which naturally were not envisaged when the rules were written.

First, however, I think we need a rewrite of the rules on interference. As they are, it seems clear they're not being respected. During Royal Ascot, total suspensions for interference exceeded those for whip infractions, but it's the whip rules that are currently being examined and redrafted after exhaustive process.

As for Crowley v Havlin, I'm trying to keep my mind open to the possibility that some other evidence exists of which we're not aware. There is likely to be footage of the incident from at least one angle that has not been shared with the public, probably shot from directly behind the runners.

I've seen in other cases how different an incident can look from behind, because horses are narrow across the front but very broad in the rear (stop giggling at the back, there). Gaps which appear wide when seen head-on can seem narrow when you're looking at a row of fat equine backsides with hooves flying out at you from beneath. It's a wonder, looking at races from behind, that any jockey is ever prepared to take any gap.

So perhaps that's the view which prompted the Haydock stewards to decide the gap in the Lancashire Oaks was "only briefly viable". Anyway, we don't have to guess because Havlin is pursuing an appeal and the matter will be reheard at great length, hurray.

If he wins, as many expect, the implication will be that Crowley was actually at fault. But Crowley won't then be punished. So there's the chance of the unsatisfactory outcome that no one may be penalised for a really serious bit of interference.

There has to be a better way of running this show, hopefully without changing the results of many more races than is our current practice. We need a new set of rules, understood by all and respected by jockeys, which I think means extending penalties to owners and trainers, for reasons I've mentioned before.

We need to give the benefit of any doubt to the victim of interference rather than the wrongdoer. We need to put the onus on horses in front to keep straight, giving those behind a fair chance to challenge them.

We need a fresh start on interference. But first, we need someone in a position of power to acknowledge the problem.

Read these next:

4,000 down: Eclipse day attracts its lowest uncapped crowd this century

Robert Havlin to appeal against 'quite bizarre' five-day careless riding ban

'We came up with this madcap idea and it's been the best thing we ever did' (£)

The Front Runner is our latest email newsletter available exclusively to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Chris Cook, a four-time Racing Reporter of the Year award winner, provides his take on the day's biggest stories and tips for the upcoming racing every morning from Monday to Friday