Rule The World winning 2016 Grand National© Photo Healy Racing
Andy Warhol said every social action is a negotiation but he might have looked at the discussions between the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders Association and the Turf Club as an exercise in social action for its own sake. The point is supposed to be the implementation of an urgently needed drug testing protocol to help protect the credibility of Ireland's bloodstock industry. Except you'd hardly know it.
After repeated delays and interminable discussions, there are hopes the issue can be finally resolved this week: except the gap between both parties still seems gaping, which is odd when you consider everyone officially agrees the ultimate ambition is to protect the reputation of Irish racing.
However it is understood the ITBA are still looking for its members to get notice before any drug-test visit. They began looking for ten days, then seven, five, and now apparently they're down to two. Sorry, but the idea of notice being given before a drug test remains as laughable at two days as ten.
Apparently the ITBA are also arguing that any inspections by the Turf Club have to be random rather than intelligence led.
Yet the Anti-Doping Task Force, which included breeders representatives, and which recommended the protocol in the first place, referenced in its report under 'Forensic Intelligence' that "to ensure the most effective use of resources, a strategic approach to testing is required. This has two key aspects: the identification of aspects of racing and breeding that may be most at risk from doping, and the monitoring of new and emerging threats."
It is also understood breeders are holding out for the provision of Therapeutic Use Exemptions, a subject which has been highlighted a lot in cycling recently in relation to Bradley Wiggins in particular. The nature of those TUE's and the substances involved is hardly a black and white matter. But it's been over a year since the Task Force report came out and it's hardly unreasonable to think some clarification could have been arrived at long before now.
It's the apparent lack of urgency in all this that remains troubling. Maintaining the industry's credibility in terms of doping, and implementing a system that allows traceability throughout a horse's career, is basic stuff and in the obvious interests of everyone operating legitimate operations. Yet negotiations continue to make this appear like a political football many would still prefer to hoof a long way down the road.
In comparison, the furore over the Grand National weights and Michael O'Leary's none too-subtle accusations of an anti-Irish bias by the British handicapper in his formulation of the Aintree weights is as minor as it is entertaining. If nothing else that's an achievement for a topic as drily boring as handicapping.
Technically, Phil Smith is on solid ground. He has compressed the weights, just off the BHA's own Irish ratings, and used his own opinion on the National as he's entitled to. The National is run in his jurisdiction and all handicapping is ultimately just opinion.
In turn O'Leary has valid points in relation to the compression of weights, apparent inconsistency in relation to that and the desirability for the BHA's ratings on Irish trained horses as a whole to be published. But to suggest Smith's motivation is rooted in an anti-Irish bias dilutes them.
Wrapping the green flag around this issue might play well to the gallery but it's too easy. Maybe there's some element of 'backyardism' here but that exists in every jurisdiction, even in poor maligned old Ireland, and it's a leap from that to what O'Leary is suggesting.
The reality is that the handicappers in both countries operate independently, come up with their own figures and have the authority to rate as they see fit in systems that are subtly different . They're the terms and conditions, and in O'Leary's business life failure to comply with terms and conditions has often resulted in complainants getting short shrift.
There is a credibility gap in the BHA's failure to publish ratings of Irish trained horses all-round but it's not like finding out those figures isn't just a phone call or an email away for any owner or trainer.
Maybe Smith is right, about Don Poli especially, and the Irish handicapper, Noel O'Brien, is wrong. Or maybe it's vice versa. But if the BHA has the courage of their convictions, then why not publish their Irish figures and keep everyone in the loop. They might get vindicated sometimes, maybe even, dare I say it, like with Rashaan finishing just over a length off the 167 rated Jezki on Saturday!
I suspect though that after the handicapping furore has died down, the most lasting impact of O'Leary's National statement could come in relation to his comments on horse welfare. In order to make a point now he referred back to the 2009 National and the death of Hear The Echo.
"This is a four mile, two furlong race where excessive weight is potentially damaging to the welfare of the better horses. I will never forget the fate of Hear The Echo whose National weight was considerably higher than his official Irish mark and who collapsed and died in full view of the stands after completing four miles, one furlong carrying this excessive weight," he stated.
Linking Hear The Echo's sad fate with his rating seems a stretch. But it's no stretch at all for certain animal groups to pounce on the welfare implications of that statement - and the demands of the National in particular - from such a high-profile figure.
Finally, everyone can agree it's not desirable to have Irish flat racing's two greatest shop window days taking place on a building site. What's debatable is if it's avoidable.
It might have been expected that a 6,000 attendance capacity for both the Irish Derby and the Curragh leg of 'Champions Weekend' over the next two years might see these fixtures switched in the manner of the Arc to Chantilly or Royal Ascot to York in 2005.
This is after all Irish racing showing itself off: no one wants to be balancing in temporary stands and queuing for Portaloos in their best bib and tucker, either literally or figuratively.
The Derby pulls a bigger crowd but a 152 year tradition of running the classic at HQ is tough to argue with. The argument about Champions Weekend in particular is that Leopardstown can't cope with certain races, such as the Flying Five, so the programme can't be exactly replicated.
But does it have to be exactly replicated? Could negotiations not take place, and bits and pieces get divvied up here and there to allow the sport show itself off properly over Champions Weekend? A bit of socially active give and take could prevent authorities for one day at least having to deal with the real question - who decides who any 6,000 will be amid a blizzard of freebies and suddenly rediscovered AIR cards?!
