The door to the Cupid inquiry may have been left ajar but, to all intents and purposes, the matter did enjoy some sort of closure on Monday. In part, the Hong Kong Jockey Club can now look back at the middle of last season with some qualified relief - what was three positive tests within three months has turned out to be two red herrings to Isosorbide and a mystery to heroin. But there are still the leftovers of flawed procedures within the club's veterinary and testing arms, brought into relief by the Isosorbide debacle, and there remains the fact that a horse has tested positive to the world's most infamous illegal narcotic and the source of it has proved harder to find than Osama bin Laden. Despite the fortunes invested in security at the Hong Kong Jockey Club. However, the decision to allow a trainer to go without penalty is a leap forward in application of the rules which may have implications for other jurisdictions. It is sure to be noted by trainers in Australia, where this writer has attended many inquiries wherein the trainer declares no knowledge of the source of the prohibited substance and lists all the security precautions taken. But the reply was always the same. Catch-22: you have a positive, therefore you have not provided sufficient security. In other words, a trainer might have around-the-clock armed guards in every box, three-metre walls surrounding the stable topped by razor wire and helicopters circling overhead, but a positive swab immediately denounced this security as lax. On the other hand, a trainer whose horses wandered the streets at night, but who did not have a positive, was proved by the same logic to have proper security. That's the way the rule has operated and chief steward Jamie Stier and his panel are to be applauded for making the hard decision to not simply assign a variety of blame to someone for the sake of appearances. At no stage was anyone of the opinion that Cupid turned up with a positive to heroin as a result of any action taken or commanded by David Hill, but that has not helped others before. While Stier was at pains to highlight that a positive does not mean someone has to take a fall, that has largely been the case, and one wonders whether it was the positive to something as sensational as heroin which brought the change in viewpoint. In the Winmark-Isosorbide case, there was no suggestion the trainer had administered the drug or ordered it, but Alex Wong Siu-tan was charged, found guilty and fined $150,000 under the rules dealing with his ultimate responsibility for a drug-free athlete. Likewise, Ivan Allan had already been charged under the same rule when he demanded an adjournment during which the source of the Isosorbide in Cheers Hong Kong was discovered. Unless a trainer is charged under the rules for causing a prohibited substance to be administered, by himself or someone else, he is not found to have done anything wrong, except within the semantics of Catch-22. The finding of ultimate responsibility for any trainer in Hong Kong is flawed, anyway, since trainers have no control over the security provided. Another aspect of the case in need of some discussion was letting Cupid compete next start. Cupid ran his best race of the season to that time when second at Happy Valley on March 12, in the race after which he returned the positive test. It seems unlikely that the positive - announced on March 24 - was not known or at least strongly suspected, when Cupid raced next on March 23. Punters bet almost $900,000 on Cupid in the win pool alone, in ignorance of the circumstances surrounding his last start. If that information was not yet ready to be released, neither was Cupid. Picture the scenario if the public had taken a real shine to Cupid's Happy Valley run and made him favourite - many millions of dollars bet on information the club knew to be false. And that simply should not be allowed to occur.