Samcro, 1 of 17 Irish trained winners at Cheltenham© Photo Healy Racing
The British Horseracing Authority is technically entitled to drug test horses entered to run in Britain, just as the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board - formerly the Turf Club - is entitled to do the same vice versa. A good argument can be made for such tests being routine. There can hardly be too much out-of-competition testing. But no one it seems can remember Irish authorities ever going into yards in Britain. So it was a pointed call by the BHA to take it upon themselves to inspect the festival runners of Irish racing's two biggest trainers the week before Cheltenham.
Confirmation that those tests were carried out at the yards of Willie Mullins and Gordon Elliott came on the back of another remarkably successful Cheltenham for Irish trained horses, almost immediately after which came a media report outlining apparent unease at the BHA about out-of-competition testing levels here. There was also dodgy sounding suggestions for protectionist barriers to deprive Irish racing of its long established access to cross-channel racing.
Clearly some noses are out of joint in Britain about Irish success at Cheltenham in particular. The subtext was hardly subtle. As top flat trainer Ger Lyons tweeted: "Implies that Irish horses are cheating & that our authorities are turning a blind eye to it! Good to see they are as gracious in defeat as they are in victory."
Another prominent racing figure here reckons the report was inflammatory. It certainly smacks of sour grapes by the sort of Hoorays who probably think Brexit is a great idea. Maybe it's in that context the BHA's call to test at the Mullins and Elliott yards was made. Maybe it was all designed to simply reassure a domestic audience rattled at all these foreigners coming over here and taking our races.
To their significant credit both Mullins and Elliott reacted to the BHA arriving at their yards as just a routine exercise. All samples were negative and Mullins said such testing by overseas regulators is nothing new. He said officials from regulatory bodies in Australia and Hong Kong have arrived at his yard to take blood and urine samples from runners going there. In fact Mullins says it should be the norm'. It shows an admirable capacity from both men to see the big reputational picture.
It's easy to dismiss protectionist stuff as reactionary nonsense. It's also easy to argue the BHA were within their rights to send officials to another jurisdiction to test horses coming to their meeting. The IHRB insists it has no issue with the visits and it had its own personnel present when it happened.
In turn the BHA has subsequently outlined how it has complete faith in the anti-doping system in Ireland and this was merely part of a new strategy for greater out-of-competition testing on the run up to the big festival fixtures in Britain. So on the PR surface everything appears fine and dandy after a rather juvenile bout of national shaping from across the water. Except there's a grown up context to it too.
Irish racing's regulator doesn't test horses in Britain because it assumes its British equivalent is on top of its own jurisdiction. If they want specific horses tested in Britain they get the British to do it. Mostly it's a logistical thing. But there's a trust thing too. So it says something when the same trust doesn't get reciprocated.
These eve of Cheltenham inspections may have been little more than gesture politics for a cross-channel audience. But they will be the merely routine exercises they are claimed to be when IHRB officials routinely do the same thing in Britain, turning up in Lambourn to test horses going to Punchestown or the Curragh.
The annoying bit is that British racing is hardly on a very secure footing either when it comes to the moral high ground on drugs. The BHA tested Philip Fenton's Cheltenham entries in 2014. But that was after Messrs Butler and Al Zarooni were banned for drug use with some of the circumstances of the investigation into the latter stretching credibility.
However the BHA's pointed determination to be seen to be doing their own testing in Ireland comes in a regrettable context. The bloodstock industry here generally seems completely incapable or indisposed towards implementing an effective and meaningful anti-doping regime. Delay has followed delay. At times the anti-doping picture looks shambolic. That has automatic repercussions in terms of trust and reputation. And the fixing of that is in Irish hands rather than anyone else's.
There is also considerable fallout from Cheltenham in animal welfare terms. In particular there has been attention on the six horses that lost their lives during the four days. Even a cursory glance at the social media reaction to that tells of the impact of such stories among the wider public. So it's no surprise there has been talk of safety reviews to try and continue the reduction in fatality rates.
Every effort that can be made in terms of reducing risk to horses has to be made and be seen to be made. But there's no point pretending that horses don't suffer fatal injuries when racing. Fatalities can be reduced. They can't be eliminated. It's the inevitable cost of racing horses over obstacles. Injuries will occur, and not just at Cheltenham or other high profile meetings.
There's no good in trying to disguise that or deflect attention away from such an uncomfortable reality. It isn't a particularly edifying reality when animals lose their lives during what is essentially an entertainment business. But those of us able to rationalise it have the consolation of knowing far worse things happen in man's uneasy commercial relationship with the animal kingdom.
Where racing can help itself though is in relation to use of the whip. That old chestnut arose again too after a number of high profile festival suspensions, most notably Richard Johnson's Gold Cup winning ride on Native River. Johnson got seven days and a hefty fine.
There were five other whip bans at Cheltenham. Only one of that lot didn't come on a winner - Patrick Mullins on the Kim Muir runner up Mall Dini. He got four days for that and six days for his National Hunt Chase winning ride on Rathvinden. All of it reheated the old paradox about racing being the only sport where you can break the rules and still win. And the bigger the prize the more likely it is the rules will be broken since there's more incentive.
Does anyone think Johnson wouldn't in a heartbeat swap seven days and a fine for a Gold Cup? Anyone would. An RSPCA spokesman said at the weekend the body believes use of the whip and the term 'encouragement' needs to be more clearly defined. He also said the whip should only be used for safety and correction.
That is an old chestnut for this corner. It is also guaranteed a response along the lines of such a move destroying the game. It wouldn't. It would change it a bit and make things different. But different isn't the same thing as wrong. Hitting a horse to make it go faster simply isn't a good look. And that's one welfare issue racing can help itself with by actually eliminating it. Have the whip for safety and correction, not to try and make a horse go faster. It is at least worth an experiment.
