Pleascach winning her first Classic at the Curragh© Photo Healy Racing
A million quid is small change only to the very wealthiest, and they haven't wound up being the very wealthiest by not knowing the value of a million quid. But as racing here looks forward to a more prosperous financial future, investing a million in state-of-the-art drug-detection equipment might be one timely investment the industry in Ireland could make.
Racing New South Wales in Australia has reportedly done just that, investing $1.5 million in equipment that can test for 8,000 types of drug in a single swab. And it does so without an analyst having to stipulate what to test for, a vital consideration since the whole point of drug-testing is a presumption the cheats are one step ahead of those trying to catch them. Samples can also be frozen and kept for future testing.
One response could be that it is quite an expense: in reality it's an investment. And it shows intent.
In the past another response might have been that the Aussies need such equipment more than here but that's a smug assumption that should surely have been blown out of the water by last year's steroids controversies. But the question of drug equipment in Ireland has provoked few headlines bar those devoted to in-fighting and dithering.
Most importantly of all though, the Australian move is an investment in maintaining punter confidence in that country.
That matters in Australia since betting turnover finances the whole thing. Here it's government subsidy. If you want one illustration of how that difference manifests itself, then check out the recent 15 year disqualification for an Australian trainer found in breach of cobalt rules. That's 15 years. That's career-ending. And it's done to send a message out to the public.
The racing public here has got used to receiving rather different messages and some recent events indicate little change in that regard is likely anytime soon.
Since Ireland's racing industry is fundamentally divorced from the issue of punter confidence, the main financial policy thrust is continually towards prizemoney, which just coincidentally, benefits Ireland's racing professionals. So any pace of change, even when you would imagine it is firmly in the realms of self-interest, is always going to be comparatively glacial.
It is that divorce which regards spending a million on up-to-date drug testing equipment as a huge expense rather than an investment. But you don't have to talk seven-figure sums to see further evidence of it.
In a superb contribution to this space last week, 'jlynam313,' outlined how important, and indeed necessary, the issue of weighing horses before each race is.
Such a move would provide information for the public but would also be a tool for the stewards to compare horse's weights each time they run and provide concrete evidence of fitness and race readiness. 'Jlynam313' estimated the cost of installing a weighing machine at no more than E5,000, a one-off cost that could prove to be an effective deterrent to those running unfit horses.
The example used was Hong Kong, where weighing horses before each race is standard. But in Hong Kong maintaining punter confidence is of primary importance too or else the whole financial structure is impacted. No one pretends nothing 'hookey' goes on there, but neither can anyone pretend that those in charge aren't overly pushed about it.
A rather more relaxed attitude appears to reign in Ireland, especially you suspect when it comes to something that might divert resources away from prizemoney.
Ultimately, it's hard not to wonder if that attitude is one of an industry that knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing, or one that knows the value put in punter confidence here all too well.
You have to hand it to Jim Bolger: he knows how to keep people on their toes. For a trainer who came within a head of pulling off an unprecedented 1,000 Guineas hat-trick with Finsceal Beo - and within just three weeks too - the logic of Pleascach attempting her own classic hat-trick through the Derby and Oaks at the Curragh this summer is probably straight-forward. However it still caught a lot of people on the hop.
But there's no denying - albeit after the event - the logic of Pleascach trying to add two more Irish classics to her gutsy 1,000 Guineas success: there is a general sense the colt crop may not be exceptional this year and there is three weeks between the Derby and an Oaks which could yet wind up looking like a comparative penalty kick for a filly capable of beating the males.
Bolger acted on that logic - before the event - by adding his home-bred to the Derby field for E12,500 last week. And Pleascach looks to have a combination of class and grit that just might see her become the first horse to win three Irish classics in a single season in 73 years.
No one can dispute Gleneagles' class, or indeed his grit, after managing to escape an unpromising situation in the 2,000 Guineas but post-race comments about how he'd nearly been taken out of the race due to the ground conditions read a little odd considering the official going was "good to yielding," hardly bog-like it has to be said.
One sceptic suggested over the weekend though that this is part of the Coolmore soundtrack, similar, he said, to Aidan O'Brien's description of Gleneagles as "the best miler we've had." Maybe it's too sceptical to suspect such comments reflect Coolmore's remorseless PR machine. Then again maybe it isn't.
Sometimes, though, scepticism can actually be a generous take on a situation. No one can blame Michael Hussey in appealing the severity of his fourteen day ban for not spotting the winner on the other side of the course at the Curragh earlier this month. In the current appeals climate he had nothing to lose.
But it seems he got his suspension reduced to eight days on the basis of a good record and saying he wasn't trying to stop the horse. Hussey also said he admitted reporting at the original enquiry that he should have won but in hindsight wasn't sure because his horse had a blow in the last fifty yards.
No doubt it did, but how does that help justify cutting a ban by almost half? The idea that Hussey might have been banned for a lot longer than fourteen days in other jurisdictions doesn't appear to have occurred to anyone. Nor does the idea of increasing penalties in appeal hearings: so who wouldn't appeal.
