Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

cuba"s classic chef de race — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 03:37:06 GMT

I told you before Ride on Curlin, tonalist and commissioner in the first two positions and the try was easy including 1,4,9,2 two stamina horses working great and two class horses, I swear for my daughter who has cystic fibrosis I won $6,781.00 dollars with the trifecta and $348.00 dollars exacta that is $7,129.00 dollars I was dreaming about Tapit, Unbridle, Nijinsky, Topsider, Pleasant Colony,Round Table,Buccpasser wow it was a real stamina dream, see you in the travers thanks family.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Bill Rinker — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:07:50 GMT

I thought of one or two other things I'd like to add to my last post that might be interesting to kick around when considering the benefits of typing hypothesis. In general when attempting to develop endurance, the process of improvement tends to encompass a longer training schedule, provided there are no interruption's. In a somewhat vague sense speed is more immediate or readily at hand. Another way to look at it would be to envision performance on a numerical scale. As an example. Endurance would tend to follow a longer progression of improvement. That is on a scale of one to ten it may take four years to move from one to ten. Speed on the other hand may take half the time in terms equal stature. In relationship to the debate over discerning Union Rags, both hypothesis carry merit, based on maturation of limited training potential on the one hand, and genetic ancestral performance disposition on the other. In addition the comparison reference used in human athletic performance is very compelling and reveals the improvement that training has on developing muscle recruitment types as well as fiber variants.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

JayJay — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 06:40:00 GMT

Ranagulzion : I'm the only one that cares about how delusional you are when comes to Union Rags and your desperation to claim the title of "predictor of the triple crown winner". If you answered my questions, I wouldn't be on your case.

Coldfacts : I've only asked for answers, I post a question, I hope to get an answer. You've always posted long winded paragraphs to explain your...your...I guess "evaluations" or maybe angles ? It can't be opinions because as your name states, you post cold facts.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Bill Rinker — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 03:47:48 GMT

This blog is very intriguing to me, and I appreciate as well as enjoy all the insight provided. Understanding the myostatin variants seems to be the real determining factor in regard to performance capabilities. A few things have crossed my mind while scratching around, and thinking about what a horse is potentially good at doing, and going a step further, in determining what exactly good is. The recruiting processes that muscle, (types of in a given fiber and bundle) goes through in continuing develop as well as energy metabolism during exercise is rarely at a constant. I have often wondered what effect Lasix has on muscle synapsis in relation to dehydration there of. When considering overall (complete anatomical)voluntary muscle, can we assume or have concern for a constant in fiber type. It is interesting as well as imperative to form a basis of classification when analyzing so many factors that form potential. I'm all in on research and admire those who have a passion for development, welfare and responsible stewardship of the Thoroughbred. Many thanks to all those who do so much.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

sceptre — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 01:33:09 GMT

Dear Alan and Byron,

Much appreciate your two latest posts; helped to fill in the gaps. Glad to have you both and Ian around to keep this ageing brain stimulated.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Byron Rogers — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 22:02:48 GMT

Sceptre,

A few points on the myostatin variant that Alan has talked about:

1) There is not as many T:T (distance) horses in the American population as you would think. In fact, behind Australia the North American broodmare population has the highest proportion of C:C (sprint) variants at the Equinome variant. It's close to 40% so the selection for speed has already taken place.

2) The Equinome variant isn't the complete picture. Far from it. As Alan alluded to we have seen C:C (sprint) variants win Kentucky Derby's and Belmont Stakes. You also have a C:T (Miler) range from horses like Soldier's Tale who won a July Cup over 6f to New Approach who won a Epsom Derby over 12f. That range alone shows you that there is missing heritability and looking at that one variant alone in myostatin as a distance predictor is a mistake. We know that there are a couple of other variants that are in the myostatin loci and one that is not that have an effect on distance. Haplotypes (groups of a number of genetic changes for those reading along :) ) seem to be more predictive of distance than an individual variant.

3) Myostatin variation doesn't reflect body type. You get C:C horses that look like milers and C:C horses that look like Quarter Horses. There is some relationship between the variations in myostatin and muscle fiber type but the body type expressed physically is a lot more complex than one variant within one gene.

In regards to the genetic variants and optimal distance the pace of a race and the age that a horse runs at can muddy the waters quite a bit. As you know class allows horses to run much further than they are genetically built for and this is especially apparent in 2yo races and early three year old races. Once their peers start to catch up to the more precocious horses they get found out. The career of Turbulent Descent is a good example of this. She was able to win at a mile and a sixteenth against her own age early in her career but when she aged she really showed she was a 7f sprinter which is what her genetics said she was.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Ranagulzion — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 19:28:22 GMT

Coldfacts:

Our mutual friend Jay Jay often poses many questions, trying to learn the game but obviously playing 'smart alec' ...you have to be patient and brief as reading comprehension is not his forte.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Alan Porter 1 — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 19:07:23 GMT

Sceptre,

What you're predicting re the culling of "T:T" types is already happening. According to this lecture here - www.kznbreeders.co.za/News15012013.html - one of the Equinome partners, Jim Bolger, has been deliberately avoiding breeding "T:T" horses.

That said, distance aptitude in the thoroughbred is more complex than just Equinome's myostatin variant - there are C:T horses that are grade one winners at six furlongs and others at twice that distance - and a much better picture of a horse's aptitude can be gained by using multiple variants.

I think there is relatively limited public information on markers of well-known horses due to confidentiality agreements.

In the U.S. performances can be somewhat misleading in terms of understanding what a horse is genetically. There are relatively few high-class dirt performers that find their optimum distance at ten furlongs or above. Something has to win the longer races, and it often has as much to do with class as optimum distance: to give an example from human athletics, the Olympic 800m (approx 1/2 mile) and one time 1500m and 1 mile world-record holder, Steve Ovett, was able to defeat an Olympic marathon runner in a half-marathon (13.1 miles), just a week before destroying a stellar field in the World Cup 1500m. Steve was "C:T" but was able to beat very good "T:T" types over their natural distance by sheer class. As far as the classic races are concerned this is compounded by the fact that a horse with a maturity edge can handle his contemporaries at distances well beyond his optimum.

Gorytus was a deplorable stallion, but he basically seemed to throw towards the pedigree of the dam. His best was probably a grade one winning sprinter in Brazil, but he best Europe's including not only two group winners at seven furlongs, but also two group winners out of staying bred mares at around 11 furlongs.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Alan Porter 1 — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 18:16:57 GMT

Ranagulzion:

Nothing sinister in not mentioning High Hat, I just didn't think he'd be meaningful to most on here - I actually remember him being at stud, and also his very good stallion son High Line, who (off the top of my head) might have been the last two mile horse to become a major commercial sire in Europe).

As far as distance, pedigree and genetics, the point I was trying to get across is that the pedigree at (say) five or six generations represents the potential source of aptitude and ability in the foal.

That said, once we can establish the distance genotype/haplotye of the sire and dam, we know the range of possibilities for the offspring, without recourse to speculating deeper in the pedigree. So for example, if we have a Speightstown foal out of a sprint mare like Emma's Encore, we know that if it is any good, it's highly likely to be a sprinter or sprinter/miler at max, and the three crosses of Secretariat in the mare are not relevant at that point in a discussion of distance potential.

When planning matings, we will tend to best with somewhat similar aptitudes rather that widely disparate ones, but that is only part of the equation.

Although I like to start at the front of the pedigree - class of sire and dam and proven affinity for immediate ancestors (to get a statistical snapshot, I use TrueNicks nick and Key Ancestor reports). Beyond that, however, I do believe that inbreeding and linebreeding through "likebred" ancestors tends in practice to be a positive. I've also noticed that relative close inbreeding along these lines has the potential to upgrade a pedigree. So although I don't advocate starting with the deep pedigree patterns, I've certainly got the six cross (or deeper) pedigree in mind when I'm planning the mating.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Coldfacts — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 16:07:00 GMT

JayJay,

I actually meant to answer you question with a Yes. The information that followed clearly supported a yes answer.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Ranagulzion — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 04:32:13 GMT

Alan Porter1 02 June 2014 3:26PM,

Great post and fascinating discussion ...an enlightening dialogue is definetly preferred to heated debates. I have to say you are a gentleman, Alan.

In your remarks about Glad Rags (great grand dam of Union Rags) I wished that you would've spelled out that her sire, "a true 12f (or maybe even a bit more) stallion" was High Hat a son of Hyperion, the real source of stamina in this family ...but alas that obscurity in your comment was ostensibly subtle enough to deny the verasity of my argument ...nice try.

While I do agree that Union Rags is most likely an intermediate type, I do believe that the slowish 51 seconds last half mile of the 2012 Belmont Stakes resulted from the horse being traped down on the rails which almost cost him the race. That Belmont was the fastest of the last four renewals, faster than Drosselmeyer, faster than Ruler On Ice and faster than Palace Malice. I understand your analysis of the optimum distance/performance vis a vis comparitive running times but you're not dealing with a linear equation here my friend ...this one requires "calculus" when factoring the pace,running surface and riding tactics of the jockeys, not to mention the unconfirmed variant in the genotype of the horse.

Alan, you said that you look back into pedigree when planning matings and I'd like to know how meaningful is that information to you against the background of your persuasion that only the parents and grand parents really matter.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

JayJay — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 03:52:42 GMT

Ranagulzion : I've posted to you many times before, UR's record is the only thing that is a fact where we can go by and his record supports my opinion more so than yours. He did not prove anything by winning the Belmont.

I wish someone else besides you comments and agrees with you on this but I don't see anyone else...it would be nice to discuss it with someone who might actually have some valid points besides "I said so" or "He won the Belmont"...

Coldfacts : A simple no would've sufficed because that proves my point about how hard it is to win the TC.

Once again, you posted 10 million paragraphs without having answered my question. You're no different than Ranagulzion, when asked a question where he can't answer, he either stopped answering or try to confuse people with overloading information that had nothing to do with the original question.

I’m not latching on to the fresh issue, I’m still waiting to see your response. You created 3 categories of "fresh", when all I asked was a simple "what's your definition of fresh?" It's really a simple question...it doesn't require 10 million paragraphs. Let me make it even simpler, who are the fresher horses in this year’s Belmont? Based on your comments, the winner will come from this group of "fresher" horses...

Before you respond, please know I'm being silly about the 10 million paragraphs, please don't take it literally. I know you didn't post that many so please don't write 2 paragraphs of your response addressing it.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

sceptre — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 21:49:59 GMT

Alan,

It's a bit late in the day to start this all over again, but I'm sensing an arousal of my skepticism re-the worth of her myostatin variants. Granted I'm not privy to any horse's myostatin genotype, but there seems to me an enormous variation in racehorse aptitude and production aptitude. I think this "tool" could play havoc with our selective breeding methods. For openers, there's likely great numbers of tt's in the population, and can envision many breeders wishing to discard them-particularly the unprovens. Many others may attempt to bend over backwards in not causing a mating that may produce a tt..Also, I could be mistaken, but I haven't seen any listing by her of the markers of well known horses. I'm sure she has much of that information-even those that have passed on (relatively recently) can be derived. My guess is that public knowledge of such would weaken the impact of her variants. I suspect that in practice, it's all rather murky. Consider if Monsun were either a tt, or a ct. Either way there's problems. On the other hand, if Touch Gold is, in fact, a cc,-given his stud performance-(but what about his racing performance) in retrospect that knowledge would have proved potentially helpful-or, is it merely coincidental?...Gorytus is another murky matter. I followed him fairly closely-even offered Mrs. Mills $12M when he was 2 (after the defeat) for a client. He turned out to be a dismal failure at stud-and sired NO SPEED whatsoever. Me thinks that neither his racing career, nor his stud career had much to do with his myostatin genotype.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Coldfacts — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 20:05:15 GMT

Windolin,

Kindly accept my sincere apology for the darkness in which I have found myself regarding CC1.

I happen to like the colt a lot as he fit into my narrative for breeding a champion. While I appreciate the performances of the top 3YOs each year I do not go bunkers over them.

The 2014 Derby was competed in 2:03.66 on a fast track. Do you know were that time ranks? His Preakness was very good a very few horses break 1:55 for the stake. He won by 1 1/2L and he was not in hand.

After California Chrome's Derby victory I congratulated the colt, his connections and his fans. I further stated that although he was not my choice to win, he was much the best on the day. I also wished the connections and the colt success in the remaining two legs of the TC.

What more can a brother do?

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Coldfacts — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 19:51:31 GMT

JayJay,

I could have answered your question regarding the 11 TC winners with a simple, no. However, you would require an explanation for my answer.

I provided a list of some of the horses that unsuccessful attempted the TC and the field sizes for their respective Derbies. Clearly the field sizes did not stop them from winning the Derby. The field sizes definitely did not stop them from winning the Preakness.

Based on your position the field size caught up with them in the Belmont and that is just ludicrous. Each of the 11 TC winners faces different challenges. I doubt field size was a major concern then and it is certainly not one now.

Of the 19 horses that failed to win the TC, can your specify one that was denied due to field size?

“Fresh Horse”

I clarified my position to fresher horses as opposed to fresh horses. CC1 would have been freshened in the three weeks leading up to the Belmont. Recovery time between races dictates which horse has the longer period to be refreshed.

Why have latched on to this issue. Irrespective on how you view my post, it will not change the fact that the last 8 Belmont winners did not contest the Preakness. Most had 4-5 week between their last start and were considered fresher horses than the Preakness participants contesting the Belmont.

In the case of 3YO who are continually improving, time is their best friend. The more the merrier.

Eight of the last 20 Belmont winners contested the Derby and skipped the Preakness. The winner of the 2014 Belmont lies within this group.

Empire Maker finished 2nd in the Derby, skipped the Preakness and returned in the Belmont to spoil Funny Cide’s TC bid. CC2 finished 2nd in the Derby has an opportunity to emulate Empire Maker’s feat.

Birdstone finished 8th in the Derby, skipped the Preakness and returned in the Belmont to spoil Smarty Jones’ TC bid. Medal Count finished 8th in the Derby and has an opportunity to emulate Birdstone ‘s feat.

Jazil finiahed DH for 4th in the Derby skipped the Preakness and returned in the Belmont to Deny Derby runner up Bluegrass Cat a Belmont victory. Wicked Strongt finished 4th in the Derby and has an opportunity to emulate Jazil’s feat.

Sammart: He will need an oxygen tank in the last 2F. Point Given did finished 5th in the Derby and won the Belmont. You never know!

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Alan Porter 1 — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 19:26:08 GMT

Ranagulzion:

Glad Rags was by a true 12f (or maybe even a bit more) stallion out of a sprinting mare, so was probably an intermediate type. To Nijinsky II she threw Terpsichorist, who wanted to run long, but also Gorytus, who looked like a superstar in his first two starts (6/7f) at two, but then ran horribly in the Dewhurst Stakes, under circumstance to this day are still rather cloudy, and then apparently fell out with the game.

As far as the myostatin variant is concerned, I'd guess that Dixie Union and Tempo were both probably the intermediate type (heterozygous). On a normal Mendelian distribution it would mean that they could throw - as far as this single variant is concerned - a homozygous sprint type, and intermediate type, or a homozygous route type.

I suspect we would both place Union Rags as an intermediate type. I'd then take his brilliant shorter distance performances at two, against his Belmont Stakes win - where after a mile in 1:38.85 the came home the final half in 51+ seconds - as an indication that the modification by other variants had resulted in a horse who was best at up to around 8 1/2 furlongs rather than a "long-winded stayer."

As I said, in what I think was my first post on this particular subject, I'm as interested as anyone at looking back into pedigrees, and do so when planning matings. When it comes to guess potential optimum distance, however, if we know the race-record and breeding-record of the sire and dam, and consider the horse himself, we are not going to glean much additional information by going back in the pedigree.

When it comes to near-ubiquitous ancestors like Hyperion, you'll find them in sprinters and stayers a like. In fact Hyperion's son, Owen Tudor, was responsible for Abernant and Tudor Minstrel, two of the fastest horses seen in England in the last century, while another son, Stardust, sired Star Kingdom, who was to become a bye-word for speed in Australia.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

JayJay — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:23:19 GMT

Okay, bad choice of word, not the worst ever (not meant to disrespect the horses as Paynter and Dullahan others have done well post Belmont) but it's the weakest field ever for the Belmont...again, in my own personal opinion.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

JayJay — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 05:24:17 GMT

Coldfacts : None of your responses answered my questions, and I read your whole post. First off, you were strictly talking about "fresh" horses. You had two different opinions of "fresh" horses which I quoted and asked you about, and your response didn't come close to answering it and instead, you made up 3 categories of "fresh" lol.

Now about the TC, I asked you and you even quoted me, about the 11 TC winners, although your quote of my question seems to have been conveniently snipped to just the Derby which gave it a totally different context, I guess to give you some way to respond about the 19 failed attempts…here's the complete comment so you can read it again :

" Let me ask you, do you think the 11 triple crown winners of the past would all have won the TC if they ran in a 20 horse field Derby, a 10 horse field Preakness and potentially a 12 horse field in the Belmont ? "

My point was winning the TC in the past, those 11 winners raced in a TC where the circumstances were much much different. The previous 11 didn't face that many horses in each of the TC they won, if they did, there's a good chance the number of TC winners would be less than 11.

We're one week away from the Belmont, have you decided which horses you're going to play to beat Chrome ? Really anxious to see which horses you end up with. Which fresh, fresher, freshest horses have you identified to beat Chrome ?

Alan Porter 1 : Another good post about UR. I did mention to Ranagulzion that UR's 1st generation pedigree screams sprinter/miler but apparently UR is full of Hyperion’s DNA. The credit for UR's Belmont win should be to his trainer, he picked the perfect place for UR, as in my own personal opinion, that was the worst Belmont field ever.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Ranagulzion — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 04:16:41 GMT

Alan Porter1 1 June 2:30PM:

I respect your knowledge and wouldn't presume to call you a neophyte in thoroughbred racing but I felt it necessary to show why it is extremely difficult to convince astute observers and longstanding students of the game that only the parents and grandparents matter in discerning the running capabilities of the thoroughbred race horse.

If you are now going to define a sprinter in terms of his/her genetic material i.e."homozygous for the myostatin variant that is associated with sprinting" that helps me to understand your paradigm and thusly why you're of the opinion that a sprinter can win the Kentucky Derby or Belmont Stakes ...you have my sympathy (I could hazard a guess, based on pedigree, that the presently standing Derby winner that is homozygous for the sprinter encoding genetic material is either Big Brown or Smarty Jones. Also that the Belmont Stakes winning sprinter-producing sire is Touch Gold). I define sprinter in terms of race record and therfore cannot envisage a pure sprinter winning the Derby or Belmont Stakes.

Regarding Union Rags, his only likeness to his sire Dixie Union is in his impressive good looks (an unmistakable Dixie Union trait). We may have to agree to disagree but Union Rags was a longwinded/stamina laiden horse that inherited traits not apparent in either his sire or dam. Happily, I presume that you don't have to be convinced that his genotype is in all likelihood very different from that of his stakes winning sprinter full brother, Geefour. I've posted ad nauseum, my views on the Hyperion influence of stamina and temperament through inbreeding in Union Rags which you, your expert collegues and my antagonist friend Jay Jay dismiss as nonsense. We are unable to scientically prove either point but one thing I can say is that my analysis led me to an accurate and confident conclusion about the horse's ability to win the 12 Furlongs Belmont Stakes while you experts were mired in doubt, focusing only on Dixie Union and Tempo's record. That was a neophyte approach by those whom I expected more indepth analysis from.

Tell me,how is it that Glad Rags was able to throw the longwinded/staying mare Terpsicorist (sired by Nijinsky) when GR's dam, Dryad was a sprinter. Also, how is it that Terpsicorist's stamina gets passed on to Union Rags, bypassing speed influence parents, Gone West and Tempo?

I anticipate that your answer is that Union Rags is a miler, typical son of Dixie Union and that no staying power was really passed on beyond the first two generations ... forget about inbreeding to Northern Dancer and Hyperion. Is that it Alan?

Windolin 31 Ma 2014 4:33PM:

Thanks, your kind response is much appreciated.

Coldfacts 1 June 2014 9:24AM:

The context of my comment regarding California Chrome humbling us is pedigree my Bro...can anything good come out of Lucky Pulpit? Sounds familiar? (LOL).

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

sceptre — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 03:05:30 GMT

Yes, Alan, if there was such an occurrence as a "key change", then Phalaris is probably the prime suspect. But his contemporary, The Tetrarch (particularly through his female descendants), probably played a big role.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

sceptre — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 02:55:55 GMT

Just for fun-guessing at Alan's cc Derby and Belmont winners:

Derby winner: narrowed down to I'll Have Another, Super Saver, Big Brown and Smarty Jones. Of the 4, more likely Big Brown or Smarty Jones. Close call, but I'll go with Smarty Jones.

Belmont winner: Either Touch Gold or Birdstone. I'll go with Touch Gold.

We won't know the answer, but it was fun to consider.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Windolin — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 00:59:24 GMT

Cold Facts, if you need an explanation from Ranagulzion, "My dear colleague you must enlighten your most ignorant supporter. How has CC1 humbled us and what does he represent?"then you are totally in the dark as to why Chrome is so beloved by thousands of people all around the world.

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Alan Porter 1 — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 18:50:01 GMT

MZ,

It's somewhat complicated, but research would indicate most of the four-mile heat horses were homozygous for the slow-twitch muscle-fiber mysostatin variant (although I have to stress again, that is not the sole determinant with regard to the speed/stamina haplotypes).

From DNA extracted from remains of prominent stallions it would appear that the "staying" type was predominant in the population in Europe on through to the early years of the 20th century. The key change probably came with Phalaris (1913), a top-class sprinter who became a classic sire.

We still do produce horses that are bred to go long, but it is very hard for them to be effective over the distances that modern U.S. dirt races are run. I'd also suspect that the way in which we have developed the breed, muscle types apart, it is harder to produce a high quality stayer using typical U.S. stallions that it is to produce a sprinter/miler.

If the system of racing was altered to encourage breeding top-class 2 mile runners, we would eventually work our way back to it, although it might take two or three generations!

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Alan Porter 1 — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 18:30:31 GMT

Ranagulzion:

You might have a few years on me, but I'm not quite sure I'm a neophyte, as I've been writing about racing and breeding since covering the German Derby for Stud & Stable back in 1977, and had been study pedigrees for a few years prior to that.

When taking DNA samples we have a confidentiality agreement with the stallion owner/manager, so that restricts me from "naming names" but I can assure you that there is a currently standing Kentucky Derby winner who was a homozygous for the myostatin variant that is associated with sprinting, and a currently standing Belmont Stakes winner who was also a C/C for that variant, and how has sired quite a few more sprint graded stakes winners than one might expect.

A high-class, mature horse, who has a very good cardio can quite often beat his less mature, less talented contemporaries at distances beyond his optimum, particularly as a late two-year-old or spring three-year-old.

I'm not sure why you think my conclusion about Union Rags is "so ridiculous." Surely the fact that he is by Dixie Union - a fast horse and a speed influence as a sire - out of a sprinting Gone West mare, and a brother to a stakes placed sprinter, is more relevant than the fact that he goes back to Glad Rags, a granddaughter of Hyperion (actually Glad Rags won her best victory at a mile, and had stakes winning half-siblings who were sprinters and milers).

re: Haskin: Belmont Pedigrees Befuddling

Ranagulzion — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 16:52:13 GMT

Jay Jay:

You read what Alan posted about sprinters winning the derby and I simply asked that he name one ...the obvious inference being that I do not agree. Any horse, no matter how fast, that can carry his/her speed to win the Kentucky Derby cannot be considered a pure/out-and-out sprinter. Precocious 2YOs that win age group races and 3YOs that win sprint races early in the Spring are still developing and their full capabilities unproven notwithstanding their pedigree profile. Thusly, who could say absolutely that Triniberg had no shot in the derby?

I'm not about to rehash old disputes with you about Triniberg. I never picked him to win the derby but I was an advocate of his participation as a significant pace factor ...as he proved to be. Union Rags was my firm Derby selection and you know that very well. I can see you're happy that Alan shares your ridiculous view that Belmont Stakes winner Union Rags is a miler ...well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it my friend.

So far the experts/genetics connoisseurs on this blog believe that California Chrome's pedigree is weak and that he too is a stretch-out miler. I happen to disagree on both counts because "Chrome's" dam Love the Chase carries Rasmussen Factor inbreeding to champion mare Numbered Account, which also carries Rasmussen factor inbreeding to Hyperion dam, Selene and the great blue hen mare, La Troienne, not to mention inbreeding to War Admiral and Teddy, all in the 5-cross pedigree. It is no mystery, looking at the pedigree sheet, how California Chrome could turn out to be a special colt. There's more that could be said regarding Lucky pulpit (see Terri Z posting above) but I'll stop. Do you also share the position of the experts concerning California Chrome? I'm interested to know.