I never said that pedigree doesn't count - this is, after all, a pedigree profile.
Curlin's two classic horses both had late maturing pedigrees and stamina oriented damsires, Royal Anthem and Awesome Again. Breed Curlin to a sprint/miler oriented sire and you don't get a winner at 1/14 miles.
Exaggerator may wind up to be a nice colt. So far, out of 39 horses that finished in the top three of the Jackpot since its inception, None have won past 1 1/8 furlongs, however, a case could be made for Closing Argument who finished second in the KY Derby, and is the only one of the 39 to have hit the board in a classic race. Three colts won graded stakes post-Jackpot.
Last year, everyone was on the OchoOchoOcho bandwagon, and look how that turned out.
Could Exaggerator be the exception? Sure, and I said as such in my commentary.
Vindication proved throughout his career at stud that he was not a source of stamina. In other words, how stallions are bred becomes irrelevant once they have sired enough runners to develop clear profiles of their influence.
A stallion that won at longer distances doesn’t necessarily pass this attributes to their offspring. There’s a long list of stallions who have failed to do so with the
majority of their offspring. Yes, one or two of their progeny might win at 1 ¼ miles
or beyond, yet this is the exception. Take a look at In Excess, Marquetry, Lost Code, Housebuster and Theatrical, to name a few.
Vindication has offspring out of mares by stamina oriented sires. One by Ghostzapper failed to win beyond 1 mile 70 yards, despite multiple opportunities to win at 1 1/16 miles. The other, Lady Rogue, handled 11/16 miles, but couldn’t win at 1 ¼ miles, despite having a 2 length lead in the stretch. Another by Kitten’s Joy was a sprinter/miler who failed at 1 1/8 miles. Two others by Lemon Drop Kid failed at races beyond a mile. One by Curlin’s sire Smart Strike one once in seven attempts at a mile.
I do stand corrected on the slowness of the Delta Jackpot, they were all slow that day. The Jackpot was the only race held at 1 1/6 miles. You are correct, Exaggerator did run a mile faster than most of the Louisiana-breds.
However, after reviewing the Breeders’ Cup, I stand by my assessment. The colt got a ground saving trip for the entire race. Just rounding the far turn, at the ¼ mile pole, there was room to drive a truck through. Desormeaux smacked the colt, but Exaggerator didn’t respond in time. They didn’t steady, the colt just wasn’t fast enough to get through the hole, then Cocked and Loaded closed it by drifting over to run with a tired Riker. Once Exaggerator got around Cocked and Loaded the outside, he did pass some tired horses, giving the illusion that he was gaining ground, but he didn’t quicken stride. Look at the race at the time mark of 1:24 onward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2eaCy5GdAo
I aim to please :-)
Please forgive my last comment. That was discourteous of me. I do hope that when your emotions are calmed, that you re-read my previous comment to you, especially the advice to contact Dr. Romans concerning the dosage subject.
As for your statement regarding action,that you, "tend to make things happen." I respond in kind to your own ungracious manner, "don't flatter yourself" I briefly look at recent comments after posting articles, not so much days later, thus my lateness in reply to your original vitriolic rant.
Arrow? Lisa, I'm in utter amazement that you not only recalled an
post of mine from two years ago, but that you've been having a paranoia attack
over it all this time. That you are smarting for two years over some preconceived notion that something I wrote was directed at you is astonishing and a bit disturbing. I had to look up the article in question, because I didn't remember it and I wrote it. That speaks volumes to your state of mind. Let the negativity go. Your rants don't bother me, and you're only hurting yourself. I emphatically urge you to seek professional help .
You know you're tilting at windmills, right? Yes, I understand genetics,
obviously not as much as you, but I've had the requisite collage courses and have done reading/research on my own. I wrote an article in 2010 about predicting sprinting ability and racing stamina in thoroughbred race horses using genetics.
Pedigree analysis has been around as long as Thoroughbreds
have been racing, so it is the fixture of breeding. Nothing is 100% accurate, including the genetics, as you pointed out. However, examining
the ancestors of a particular horse, noting the abilities (or lack thereof),
conformation and temperament of the immediate family and the previous
generation, one can make an educated guess as to how a horse should
perform. No, it doesn’t always work out that way, but evidently, pedigree evaluation performs adequately. Breeders continue to use the system and enough horses continue to perform to or beyond expectations to make it worthwhile for the industry.
I know it that certain gene combos make it possible to determine the best race distance for individual horses, by examining if the horse has gene combos of C:C, C:T or T:T. But is it possible to create a genetic profile of a horse to accurately predict surface affinities or talent? Is the genetic data currently available? If so, how does the pedigree consultant or breeder obtain the information?
If the mentioned data isn’t readily available, how do you propose
we go about assessing and breeding racehorses without using pedigree?
Thank you for posting. Extreme negative reviews are helpful, fun and interesting to me.You've made it clear that you don’t care for my work, yet I find it remarkable that it doesn’t keep you from reading and contributing. If comments are deleted, it isn’t my doing. As a writer, I believe in free speech for all viewpoints as long as they do not incite violent riots and looting.
I rarely reply to comments unless asked a specific question. However, since you found it “funny” that I didn’t reply, I will honor your request to do so, despite your
ad honim attack.
When there is something in my articles that isn’t understood, a simply query about use of certain words, designations or request for more precise information is all that is necessary. It is impossible to respond to each of your many comments, in the space allotted. However, I will attempt to give a satisfactory reply to your logical fallacies and will try my best to separate the rambling emotionalism and argumentative theory from the factual content.
Here’s the thing about reading pedigrees, there are two ways to go about it. In June, 2015, I crafted the article, ‘Pedigree Handicapping 101’ wherein I explained that pedigrees can be read in two ways, for breeding or handicapping. In the breeding context, naturally, one takes a closer look at the entire pedigree to find not only the optimal bloodlines for the type of foal one wishes to
achieve, but also conformation and temperament qualities.
Pedigree handicapping uses only part of the pedigree. It isn't rocket science or even as complex as reading a pedigree for breeding. Pedigree handicapping IS a formidable tool for determining precocity, surface and distance preferences.
Noting that there's a strain of "X" sire or dam 4 or 5 generations back doesn't
do anything for the handicapper, since the closer generations are the most
influential. The easiest and quickest way to determine a horse’s chances over a
specific surface or over a general distance is to analyze the sire, damsire,
and the female family back to two generations. I often look at the second
damsire to make a stronger opinion of the overall pedigree. Each generation
beyond the first lessens the impact since previous ancestors have already
passed along their genes.
Since the two types of reading pedigree are different, the pedigree analysis is going to vary. The breeding assessment is, of course, longer due to the amount of information. Pedigree profiles for the benefit of discovering optimal distance and surface requires an appraisal of only the first few generations. Also very necessary to both the breeding and handicapping profiles is conformation. This is as important to the evaluation as the pedigree chart. Gait and running style are also valuable to the pedigree handicapping profile.
You commented that, “You pass yourself off as some pedigree guru…”
I have never passed myself off as any type of guru, nor have I ever used the word in any context pertaining to myself. If you have an example of this, kindly show me the reference. I have, on occasion, used the phrase “for you pedigree gurus or pedigree geeks” to bring up an aspect of a horse’s lineage, such as Rasmusen Factor or other notable breeding theory. Pedigree evaluation, as all endeavors in the breeding and racing industry, is an ongoing learning experience. Others may regard me as an expert, but after 20-something years of study, I humbly concede that it may take another 20 or more years of study and practice before I can think of attaining that exalted status.
“The main reason for my original post was in direct response to a rather hypocritical article written some time ago which was directed right between my eyes. And …you should go back to that scathing article you wrote about "us dosage freaks."
I’m flattered that you recall an article that I wrote two years ago. The article I penned in February, 2014 entitled, ‘Dosage and the Kentucky Derby’ was written
Thanks! Hope his son Blame keeps it going!
Wine tasting and handicapping! What's not to like! The more wine, the better the handicapping, right? The thing I've noticed about Hard Spun progeny is that like a fine wine, they improve with age and are sound competitors. Very underrated. Glad to see Texas racing holding on. Their breeders get some very precocious 2YO's.
I stand corrected, I should have worded it better. :-)
Copyright © 2010 -
other passionate horse racing fans!