McKinley (blue cap) wins the Grade1 Lawlor's Hotel Novice Hurdle© Photo Healy Racing
Potentially the single most significant development of 2015 is hair-sample science, something with the capacity to keep a firm grip of those balls which will assure hearts and minds stay focussed on combating doping. Believe the lab wonks and it's only a matter of time before the key to a horse's pharmaceutical history will simply be hanging there in its tail. It must be racing's interests to perfect the science as soon as possible.
Ireland's brave new anti-drugs world is now up and running after a lengthy run-in which left ample time for any uncomfortable evidence within the thoroughbred industry to be thoroughly buried. Anyone found using anabolic steroids now is not only a cheat but stupendously stupid into the bargain. But hair-sample technology is apparently at a stage when hair follicles can provide a history of what a horse has ingested and also, crucially, when.
It is not impossible that such technology can be in place in world racing's major jurisdictions this year and while Ireland may not have the resources to financially contribute towards such a breakthrough, surely no country has more incentive to push such a process as one that has had its reputation tarnished so recently. However, while the objective science involved in this may be mind-boggling, as always the issue will all ultimately revolve around subjective humanity.
It's the nature of professional sport, particularly one with as intrinsic a link to betting that racing has, that some will weigh up the possible risk against potential reward and calculate if it is worthwhile breaking the rules. A firm authoritative grip will be necessary to keep hearts and minds on the current straight and narrow, along with a presumption, common to all sports, that the cheats are always one step ahead.
It must be regarded as inevitable that once headlines about steroids and doping fade away, some will return to the task of trying to secure an edge, and that the authorities will be playing catch-up. But there are degrees of catch-up and the theory of hair-testing is important because it pins a time to a name in terms of responsibility.
No one can claim it is a magical scientific cure-all but in practical terms it has the potential to be a crucial part of any meaningful drugs policy because it can maintain a hopelessly old-fashioned but still vital component - fear.
That's hardly a word associated with jump jockeys and yet there appears a sense that the fortitude of some of them is being queried on the back of recent incidents when fences were avoided due to the issue of low-lying sun. No one will come out and baldly say that of course. It's much easier to exercise verbal muscles off officials, often against a colourful 'it-didn't-happen-in-the-old-days' backdrop, days when men were men and licked roads clean with their tongues.
Presumably such 'old days' included those when items like back-protectors, plastic rails, and even helmets, were optional extras. They were also days when maybe reaching for a solicitor was a last resort instead of a first: but times move on, sometimes for better and sometimes very much for the worst.
Whatever about the supposed fortitude deficiencies of some modern jockeys, once even one of them suggests at the start that a fence should dolled off due to low-lying sun, then that's it; there can be no arguing; the jockeys are the ones with their necks on the line. It is extreme grandstand stuff to start second-guessing those actually out there.
And from an official point of view, it only really requires one objector. Only the most idiotic or boorish steward is going to insist on a jockey jumping a fence in such circumstances. To do so is a one way ticket to the High Court if something happens. And while it may not be particularly edifying to admit it, no organisation in the world is going to leave their legal backside hanging out like that.
It's very easy to rail about how the world has gone PC mad and bemoan how everything is health-and-safety now: but making that point in regard to jockeys riding over fences is surely bonkers.
Sometimes though there's nothing quite as bonkers as a punter determined to believe what he wants to believe. And presumably there were more than a few who reckoned backing Fort Smith at long odds on for a maiden hurdle at Naas was a reasonable course of action. The horse wound up at a 1-7 SP, finished third and if you got young fingers burned then you've no one really to blame but yourself.
There had been a whiff of unreliability about Fort Smith well before Naas and although his 'book' chance was obvious in a bad race, it required near-fanaticism to believe he represented any sort of value bet at such cramped odds.
The start of 2015 has been an expensive one for those tucking into heavy odds on shots. Stuccodor's Fairyhouse defeat looked a much bigger surprise to many eyes than Fort Smith's but the latter was one of three odds-on favourites in a row to get beaten at Naas with Tell Us More outgunned by his 33-1 stable companion Mckinley in the Grade 1 Lawlor's Hotel Novice Hurdle.
The temptation on the back of such a surprise is to be wary of all concerned next time but Tell Us More will surely benefit for the first serious test of his career and Free Expression certainly looks worth giving another shout to.
For a horse whose jumping was notably sketchy and who hung in noticeably up the straight, Free Expression still finished to some effect and wound up beaten just over a couple of lengths. Last season's Albert Bartlett winner Very Wood was third of three in the same race in 2014. Time could prove that something was niggling Free Expression enough for him to lose his unbeaten record. But he can still prove to be a real festival contender.
