Thanks, for this much needed review - When, the first high dossages won a few years back, so many crowed about dossage being a fraud - However, I believe it was due to young sires not having been properly elevated prior to those readings.  Not going into the numbers, but, merely looking at the bottom and, very important, dam sides of the two Birdstones, I would have thought the numbers for MTB and Summer Bird were transposed.

Now, if, only, we can have those Beyer Boys go back and rework the Beyers for Sunland.  After observing those quality colts in the Sunland Derby coming from legtimate races such as the Best Pal, and being trained by such as Machowsky, Baffert, O'Neill and Pletcher, and seeing their various speed ratings being much higher than the Beyers, perhaps we should consider going back to Sprint Rogers and the Speed Ratings, eh?  Notice how the fifth place finisher and 77 Beyer, Advice ran a 94 in winning the Lexington Gr 2?

       Scot , I think I found something interesting ! This has to do with your blog about the mare in Michigan . Ithought that Unbridled Time would have been a good choice for that mare ! Now I'm looking at Mine That Bird's pedigree and He's from the Unbridled line and his dam is from the Mr P line ! almost like my hypothetical breeding For Charedi's Gold ! What do you think ???

• Scot's reply:  Before someone else points it out, Mine That Bird is a gelding so any hypothetical match-ups are just for "what-if" speculation.  :-)

Mumble, jumble...I wrote on another blog that I will never pay attention to the Dosage Index again and I mean it. What good is it if it takes years of history for it to be accurate? Beyers also can be very deceiving. I've learned a lesson: you guys don't know any more than I do.

As I understand it, qualification for assignment to "chef" status is based much more on mode, rather than mean. This being the case, it is possible that Vice Regent, Smart Strike, and Storm Bird may never be deemed as "chefs".  

Maybe the Dosage experts should put a "too new to rate" comment on horses from newer stallions instead of misleading the fans with "to be corrected later" numbers that don't mean anything.

Not that I had the winner, but anyone who dismissed him because of perceived distance limitations wasn't paying attention to his pedigree.  The mere fact that his first three tail-male sires are all American classic winners (two of them Derby winners) should've been enough to keep a passing eye on him when he made the final list of entries.  And it's not like he was a total unknown, he was last years Sovereign 2yo so obviously he has some talent.  I'd say his being overlooked has more to do with his being based in NM this year than anything else.

The pedigree link you have in your article brings you to a 5 generation pedigree for M.T.B.  The pedigree layout has Unbridled as B/I {Brilliant/Intermediate}.  There is one error.  Unbridled is classified wrong.  He is I/C at worst and at best "C" {Classic}, possibly even a light "S" {Stout} influence.  Unbridled's broodmare sire is Le Fabuleux.  He absolutely ate up 1 1/2 miles.  Unbridled is a notied stamina influence but this chart has him as B/I.  If Mr. Prospector is "B/C" then Unbridled is a solid "C".  THis is why I put little if any stock in Dosage.  It is subjective and most of the time, wrong!  M.T.B. is by a Belmont/Travers winner, whose by a Derby winner, whose by a Derby winner.  His mother is by a noted stamina influnce in Smart Strike.  Vice Regent is probably "I/C".  M.T.B.'s turn of foot on Saturday sure showed alot of people that he is a solid horse with the breeding to eat up 1 1/4 miles and probably 1 1/2 miles.  I can think of another MR. Prospector line horse out of a Storm Bird mare who did the Derby/Belmont double.  Thunder Gulch ring a bell??  Wouldn't it be something if Birdstone turned out to be a top sire?  The Fappiano line just keeps turning out classic winner after classic winner.

• Scot's reply:  Thanks for the comments, Robert.  Hard to argue the fact that Unbridled has been a source of some excellent Classic-distance runners ... but ... his Chef-de-Race designation is based on overall progeny influence rather than outlyers.  For the "official word" on this, head to the Dosage Web site's article on Chef-de-Race UNBRIDLED. 

O.K.  I just read that article, and I came across this little tidbit.  "Runners by Unbridled have an average winning distance (AWD) in North American open stakes races of 9.05 furlongs.  Among currently active sires, only two have a longer AWD and both are predominantly turf sires.  Just 7.0% of Unbridled's progeny stakes wins have been at seven furlongs or less.  40.8% have been between 7 1/2 and 8 1/2 furlongs and 52.1% have been at nine furlongs or more.  20.8% of the stakes wins have been at the American classic distances of 9 1/2, 10 or 12 furlongs."  Now I understand how they came up with the B/I designation, but it does not seem logical that a stallion whose offspring have a winning average of over 1 1/8 miles is a "Brilliant" sire.  Mr. Prospector is less than one mile and he is B/C.  This is where the subjective part comes in.  The article was very interesting, but I stand by my claim......Unbridled is "I/C" at worst and "C" or even a light "S" at best.  I don't breed to the Unbridled line for speed, but stamina.  Now Unbridled's Song is another story.  I think he helps drag Unbridled down in the dosage.  U.S. was toast after 1 1/8 miles as are most of his get.  Excellent topic Scot.  Keep them coming !!

     Scot , I realize that MTB is a gelding ,the point that I was trying to make was that Unbridled line sires and Mr. P line dams do cross well ! I respect your comments and I was hoping for something a little more positive !!   :)!

• Scot's reply:  Sorry, Shelly -- I thought you were opening up the question to the whole forum!  It's hard to argue an established fact, and it's quickly becoming established that Mr. Prospector / Mr. Prospector crosses are working. But even more, I'll add that in the case of Unbridled, we're really dealing with "Fappiano over Mr. P" because the Fappiano branch stands alone from other Mr. P-line stallions.  So I'd agree with your idea that Unbridled over Mr. P. is a hit, and I'll add that Birdstone's early results are really promising with Mr. P.-line mares.  He already has classic-winning Mine That Bird and stakes winner Mot Mot (out of a Forty Niner mare)... this weekend he also had Stone Legacy (second in the Kentucky Oaks (gr. I)) who is out of a Gulch mare.  This is a cross to watch!

SCOT: Love your blogs, but have to take a contrarian stand here. You wrote, "Given those additions to Steven Roman's Chef-de-Race list, we'd find Mine That Bird's DI at 2.76 instead of 5.40."

Any system that has to be retroactively adjusted to fit an outcome is not a predictive system at all. I take the same view of Beyer figures, and all other mathematically based handicapping systems, for that matter.

Awhile back in either Steve's or Jason's blogs, I asked this question about the Beyers: Are the higher figures for stakes races actually a reflection of class rather than speed? It's a "chicken and egg" question to which I never got an answer.

Similarly with Dosage. The FACT is that on the day he won the Derby, Mine That Bird's Dosage DI was 5.40 and his CDI was 1.19. (In addition, his BEST lifetime Roman Performance Figure of -18 was the 2nd worst in the field after Nowhere To Hide.)

Retroactively tinkering with Dosage to make it fit the May 2, 2009 facts only reinforces the truth that Dosage cannot be considered a viable handicapping tool. Heck, I'm not sure it's even a viable breeding tool, because it ignores over 50% of the genetic inheritance of any horse: all mares and all non "chef-de-race" sires.

Off topic for your blog, but I had exactly the same point of view when the Beyer figures were adjusted upward by eight points over a week after this year's Florida Derby. That gave me the impetus to do some in-depth analysis, not of the race, but of handicapping systems and Derby "truisms." I put together a spreadsheet, and recorded 38 separate criteria used by various handicapping systems and touted by pro handicappers/racing commentators. Everything from Dosage to BRIS, to Beyers, to Sheets, to trainer stats, jockey stats, lifetime and 2009 stats for the horses...you name it.

Once completed, I used a simple method of highlighting positive, neutral and negative factors, then counted each category for each horse. Guess what. By far, Mine That Bird had the most negative factors. He was on the bottom or 2nd to the bottom in every system and by every measure. His only positive factors: He had one of the four post positions that have yielded the most Derby winners in history, and he was one of only six horses in the field with four or more lifetime wins prior to the Derby.

I dismissed MTB primarily because he had not won this year, his only two-turn win lifetime was by a 1/2 length at Woodbine against a mediocre field, and his last pre-Derby work was slow.

However, I ignored all the nonsense about Pioneerof the Nile, keeping him in my short list of potential winners. I picked against the hot wiseguy horse, Dunkirk, for all the correct, logical reasons. And the horse my heart wanted to see win the Derby, Friesan Fire, lost all chance at the start. Another on my short list of possible winners, Papa Clem, took FF out of the race at the start, but then ran a decent fourth.

If a horseplayer bet only those two angles -- 4 or more lifetime wins and winningest post position, they would have been left with only two horses: Musket Man from the 2 hole and Mine That Bird from the 8 hole.

In addition to MM and MTB, only these horses had four or more lifetime wins: Friesan Fire, Chocolate Candy, Pioneerof the Nile, and Desert Party. However, Chocolate Candy, Friesan Fire and Desert Party all had NEGATIVE post positions (yielded among the fewest Derby winners in history). Pioneerof the Nile had a neutral PP.

(When Larry Jones selected PP 6 for Friesan Fire, my heart sank.)

To summarize, only the following horses qualified on lifetime wins and PP: Musket Man, Mine That Bird and Pioneerof the Nile. None of the other 36 handicapping factors I tracked were predictive of the outcome.

FOR BIG RED: Great post.

SCOT: Great article.  This year's Derby has yielded much food for thought in terms of handicapping considerations and pedigree analysis.  These blogs are a real treat.

     Thanks Scot ! I really appriciate your reply ! I love this blog ! It's very challenging :)

Roman's Dosage "system" was designed, primarily, as a tool for mating, not handicapping. The fact that it isn't infallible in either case shouldn't cause one (ex.-For Big Red) to dismiss it as irrelevant. I've rarely found need to apply it, but as shorthands go, it is well thought out, useful, and fairly predictive. It is wrong, in a sense, to state that it ignores the vast majority of the horse's pedigree. Rather, it addresses those "names" in the pedigree he deems to be statistically significant.        

LETS  START WITH... his pedigree was never the issue DISTANCE Wise, although I admit I throw him out on DI anyway!!!  IT Was his poor ass prep races that made him look like a mere mediaum Optional Allowance CLaimer who had no chacne against good stakes horses. Congrats to BO-rail and connections, but he won't be on top of any tickets I purchase in the Preakness either, and only slight consideration in the Belmont depending on the rest of that draw!!  HE looked like a slow ass horse that was pointed to the Belmont who just wanted to see how he measured vs. the Derby bunch, and it turned out he rated higher than expected!

TO SCEPTRE: Any geneticist will tell you that a baby (human or animal) gets half it's genes from its mother and half from its father. Heck, most of us learn that in high school biology.

Geneticists will tell you that some genes mutate over time. Also, which genes are expressed in any baby is largely, though not entirely, random.

A 5-generation family tree (pedigree) contains 62 ancestors. Using Mine That Bird's pedigree as an example, only 11 of his ancestors are "chefs-de-race." That means 51 of his 5-generation ancestors are not counted in the current Dosage model.  [Scot's edit:  This doesn't alter For Big Red's argument, just the numbers.  I believe Mine That Bird actually has 14 chefs-de-race in his 5-cross (62-ancestor) pedigree.  However, only 6 ancestors in his 4-cross (30-ancestor) pedigree are Chefs.  Dosage is based on Chefs appearing in only the first four generations.]

None of his female ancestors are counted. Yet just as we know that some stallions are not sires of sires, but sires of great broodmares, the reverse undoubtedly has to be true. So even though mares are ignored in the Dosage model, it's entirely possible that some of them actually are THE prepotent influence in a pedigree.

My point: Any system that attempts to quantify the influence of only selected ancestors in anyone's family tree (pedigree) defies genetic logic. Furthermore, the greatest genetic influence on any offspring is from the parents. The further back in time you go, the less genetic influence any individual ancestor has. It quickly goes from 1/2 in the first generation to 1/4 in the second, 1/8 in the third, 1/16 in the fourth, 1/32 in the fifth, and so on.

Yet the Dosage model would have us believe, for example, that the single appearance of Bold Ruler in MTB's 5th generation carries more weight than Mining My Own, MTB's dam.

Having said that, I don't dismiss Dosage, but view it as a guide, not a bible.

As for Dosage as a handicapping tool, Roman, Rasmussen and others touted it as a Derby handicapping wonder decades ago. Can't unring that bell now that it and the "dual qualifier" thing have proved useless for that purpose. Oh, and I'd ask you not to overlook the fact that I tracked 38 separate factors from a wide range of systems, handicappers and commentators. My observations pertain to all of them, not just to Dosage.

Has it been mentioned the derby winners have the 3 highest dosage scores of the 19 horses in the race?  Is this just a coincidence!

To For Big Red:

Your previous posts, and most recent, indicate a rather superficial understanding of Roman's dosage "theory". You should also read (?understand) more carefully the last sentence of my previous post... -As an aside, "dosage" can, in certain instances, address the vast majority of the pedigree. For example, consider a horse whose sire, damsire, 2nd damsire, and 3rd damsire were all chefs. In this example 15/16ths of the pedigree would not be "ignored"... Also understand that it is far easier to accurately evaluate aptitude in a sire than in a dam, due to size of sample. Roman is attempting to discern "aptitude", nothing more. Part of his "theory" is based on the notion that most sires fail to exert much of an aptitudinal influence. In the case of the dams, he would likely assert that the data is insufficient to illuminate aptitudinal influence ("force"). Yes, in many cases, just as in those sires, dams can exert aptitudinal influence, but recognition is beyond the time/tools available to him. All this should not be construed as a blanket endorsement of dosage theory, but rather an acknowlegment of it's potential ability to shed some light. Yes, at best it is rather incomplete but, perhaps, better to have it than not. There are so many patentently erroneous theories, ideas, suggestions, etc. out there; Roman's, I sense, has more merit than these. There is an objective "weight" assigned to some sires, other sires are given same through permanent ommission, still others await assignment, and lastly dams are permanently excluded due to an inherent lack of sufficient data. Is this enough to establish meaningful conclusions about a pedigree? I suggest that the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. I posit that this thumbnail tool is, however, more accurate than most, if not all, of this sort, and I have more faith in its validity than in the long-winded analyses offered by most others. It can be useful and instructive despite its incompleteness, particularly for those who are not true students of pedigrees and genetics...Big Red, my orginal post was prompted by your assertion that Roman's "system" "...is not a predictive system at all..." To some who may embrace your words (and from reading many of your previous posts, none should) it's clear inference was to reject dosage entirely. I considered that to be a harmful suggestion and responded accordingly. The fact that a "thumbnail" can't "work" in all instances shouldn't imply that it doesn't illuminate at all, or in many or most instances. Lastly, and forgive this Scot; I find more truth, and less holes, to Roman's analyses and conclusions, and more respect for his methodology than for what is offered from TruNicks, Werk Nicks, etc.                    

"So... even if he officially counts as an exception, Mine That Bird shouldn't be used as proof that the Derby Dosage rule is permanently shattered."  

How much more evidence do you need? You want American kids out there to study hard so that they can learn to write spin articles and sell books with questionable research. That's pathetic...

We're 11 days away from Step Two in the 2009 Triple Crown. Without even knowing who the contestants will be, I'm calling Mine That Bird's shots in this year's Preakness Stakes.

TO SCEPTRE: I don't know if you'll see my reply since this blog is no longer on the B-H home page, but I must respond anyway.

You wrote, "To some who may embrace your words (and from reading many of your previous posts, none should) it's clear inference was to reject dosage entirely."

You also wrote, "Big Red, my orginal post was prompted by your assertion that Roman's 'system' '...is not a predictive system at all...'"

A little reading comprehension does goes a long way. However, instead of imputing the lack of others' comprehension, perhaps you should look to your own.

What I actually wrote pertained to retroactively adjusting Dosgage, Beyers and any system to fit an outcome. I said, "Any system that has to be retroactively adjusted to fit an outcome is not a predictive system at all. I take the same view of Beyer figures, and all other mathematically based handicapping systems, for that matter."

My comments referred to using Dosage as a handicapping tool for the Derby. You, yourself, replied, "Roman's 'Dosage system' was designed, primarily, as a tool for mating, not handicapping." So we agree on that point.

As for your larger point re Dosage as a pedigree analysis tool, I said it could be useful. I'm a skeptic due to the logical reasons I gave. Am I not permitted to be a skeptic simply because you like the Dosage model?

I have always been a defender of the dosage theory, starting back when Leon Rasmussen himself wrote the Bloodlines column in the DRF.  As has been stated earlier, it is meant to be a BREEDING theory, not a betting theory.  That said, Rasmussan (and Roman) didn't help the cause any with the constant 4.00/1.25 DI/CD reference to the Derby.  People soon (mis)interpreted it to be a betting theory, too.  Anyway, just a quick note that Roman himself has written a bit of a defense of his method in the light of the most recent derby here:

www.chef-de-race.com/.../does_pedigree_matter.htm

and also here:

www.chef-de-race.com/.../dosage_inflation_in_the_derby.htm

Ken

Dear For Big Red:

While this blog pertains to subjects other than english composition (and I readily admit I'm not expert here), I feel compelled to respond to your latest reply. You premised the remark in question by asserting that Dosage was indeed a system "...that has to be retroactively adjusted to fit an outcome..."  You then went on to state that "Any system that has to be retroactively adjusted to fit an outcome is not a predictive system at all". These are all your words, not mine. Your comments can be easily arranged to form a syllogism, which would have as its conclusion that Dosage is not a predictive system (at all). You seem to be asserting that I have taken your comments out of context, but this simply isn't the case. As to your later (posting that followed) comment (that it might be useful as "a pedigree analysis tool")-Pedigree analysis is engaged primarily as a means for prediction (to uncover what may be of use in the future). I didn't question your comprehension skills, but rather those related to logic. One can certainly be a skeptic, but others are entitled to question/refute their facts and reasoning.          

I don't understand the dosage or CD ratings completely.  It is obvious that it weather conditions can influence the outcome of the race.  I did accidently hit the Kentucky Oaks/Kentucky Derby in 2003 with Bird Town, winner of the Kentucky Oaks.  Bird Town didn't figure in my calculations, but I hit the wrong number on the tote machine and when I double checked my ticket, I saw that the number 5 was on it.  It was my biggest double payoff.  The night before the derby, another gambler told me anyone of the long shots could win.  I went home and read more into the horses with the longest shots and put my last few dollars on all the longshots that I didn't have in my doubles and triples. I couldn't believe that the horse went off at 51-1.  Grindstone won the Belmont, 1995.  Bird Town won Kentucky Oaks, 2003.  The figures for the DI were not accurate.

OK...the numbers are not quite right...yet...AND yet here is another numbers: At 50 to 1 odds of a win, #8, MINE THAT BIRD WON THE 135th Kentucky Derby by 6 3/4 lengths.

Oh yes, I would say that the little powerhouse got his numbers right.

I love all this chatter about dosage, pedigree and all the numbers breeders look for and the such! I may not be a genius in this area, (certainly not) but I am amazed that you guys keep forgetting that many of the Greatest horses of all times, Like Seattle Slew, Secretariat, (given as the booby prize after a coin flip) and this years Derby winner like many others, sold for less than a bag of peanuts. Even after they were seen at the yearling sales and other sales, they were passed up like almost worthless! When are all these geniuses finally going to learn like Michael Tabors Green Monkey disaster, Greatness comes from a level far and above math, sometimes it isn't visible based on the selling prices in this years derby of a few rich million dollar buyers bombs and the poorer mans getting into the game for almost chump change and getting The Roses. If Albert Einstein and Madam Currie had a child, I do not believe they would have recreated themselves even closely. Greatness is closer to freak rather than planning in my humble opinion.  

Who wrote this article? It was very well thought out but I have no idea who the author is.

Pedigree matters in my opinion but there are some holes in dosage with newer stallions.

• Scot's reply:  Thanks, Craig.  When I write the Five-Cross Files blog posts, I'm generally drawing from research projects here at Blood-Horse Publications.  The "about" tab under the Five-Cross Files logo will tell you a bit more about me....

What is Birdstone's dosage?

On Pedigree Query it is shown as 7-8-9-0-2  DI 3.00  CD 0.69.

Both Thoroughbred Times and BloodHorse stallion registers show 3-4-9-0-2   DI 1.77  CD 0.33

Using TT and BH numbers, Mine That Bird has much lower figures and becomes Derby eligible.

• Scot's reply:  I believe the discrepancy is due to the recent elevation of Unbridled (Birdstone's grandsire) to the chefs-de-race list.  More information here:  Chef-de-Race: Unbridled.  Including Unbridled adds 4 "Brilliant" points and 4 "Intermediate" points. The data in The Blood-Horse Stallion Register was based on information from The Jockey Club, which wasn't updated until later in 2008. ... Great observation though -- at the time of Mine That Bird's birth (or, more importantly, at the time of his conception), the hypothetical mating yielded a much lower Dosage Index.

I have always felt Unbridled was mis-categorized as B/I instead of B/C.....and Fappiano is I/C? Come on, there is no way I can rectify that thinking (& I've been a Roman disciple for 25 years). Fappiano is really 'speedy' w/o Unbridled, and Unbridled can be 'expected' to have stamina w/ Le Fab as his BM sire....anyway, I digress.

If Unbridled were 'correctly' categorized (my opinion) that alone would bring MTB's #'s down to 8-1-7-0-0  3.57 DI & 1.06 c/d  

I believe in time Unbridled's 'stamina' influence will be obvious, and the stat's will be modified accordingly.

I keep reading all these world class dosage followers and I just cannot stop laughing! I guess I am one of the many morons who looked at other factors, of course in my 5 horse trifecta and superfecta box's, I saw BoRAIL and threw him in, I was also dumb enough to look at the previous races some of the entrants ran and I saw how easy Musket Man won and he looked relaxed and not able to blow out a candle, I then thru out the fav 6 horse since Jones seems to like to run workouts pre-deby and leave his horse in no condition to win the really great one, he worked his horse in 57, most of the horses that will work in 57 pre-derby usually will be loking for an ambulance to take them to their stalls. Regarding the 16 horse I found him being a logical choice for more reasons that space will allow, and of course I watch the board at Churchill and charted the 5 horse and he was a charting choice. I eliminated the Sheiks horses for reasons I wish not to write, but that left little old dumb me having to cash both the trifecta for a buck and the superfecta for a buck also. I will now put my 325k plus in a safe place till tax time next year! Well I guess i will have to wait for the Preakness to make my small bets again and buck the geniuses that you have posted their advice here and just get lucky again!!

• Scot's reply:  Kelso, that's awesome -- congratulations on cashing a big ticket.  If you haven't already, go listen to Calvin Borel's interview on BloodHorse.com. I'm guessing you're going to be a lifelong fan now if you weren't already!

Here's just one reason why Dr. Roman's Dosage system is less than accurate/predictive.

The genetics, and hence the conformation and running capabilities, of a colt and a filly with identical parents can be, and usually are, quite different.  But the Dosage for that cross is the same.  Not good.  

Let me say it again.  The genetics of a colt and a filly from the exact same cross, especially in genetic hybrids like Thoroughbreds, can be and usually are quite different.  Colts inherit one X-chromosome.  Fillies inherit two X-chromosomes.  X-chromosomes are crammed full of genes, including several important HOX-genes.  These are "Homeo-Box" containing genes which you can think of as the "musical conductors" of the genetic symphony, the expression of which leads to the elaboration of the equine body (its form).  These genes are central to the development of all segmented organisms, like worms and fruit flies and mice and humans.  And they are amazingly similar in all these different organisms too.

The point being, fillies are genetic hybrids and genetic chimeras.  They are NOT the same as colts from the same cross.  Dosage cannot, and does not, account for these real genetic differences, and so it is not accurate.

Oh, and for the blogger who wrote that a foal gets half its DNA from its sire and half from its dam...you are incorrect.

A colt gets considerably more "FORM determining DNA" from its dam.  The X-chromosome has far more genes on it than the Y-chromosome.  Add to this fact that the dam gives her mitochondrial DNA to all her foals, and the sire does not, and you will realize that dams are "more" important genetically than are sires.

Actually, it's the juxtaposition of the male and female genetics together that determines the genetic context of gene expression patterns, but that's a bit too much for this conversation.  

Dosage looks at the sires because that's where the data is.  True predictive powers in breeding and handicapping reside in knowing the sire's genetics AND what the dam will bring to him, and if that combination is genetically compatible in:

A)a colt; B)a filly; or C)both.  

As a statistically relevant breeding tool, I find Dosage to be seriously misleading...to those who take it seriously and who might just use it to accept mares or reject mares to a given stallion.  For example, I own a Street Cry mare in partnership.  She just produced a huge, beautiful Yonaguska, colt for us.  Her dam is by Deputy Minister, and her 2nd dam is MGSW (at 10-12 furlongs) Gaily Gaily(Ire).

The Dosage Index of her cross with Yonaguska is 4.33!  What?  Yonaguska crossed on Musket Man's dam has a DI of 4.00.  How can a Street Cry mare out of a Deputy Minister have a higher Dosage than Musket Man!

We had booked our Street Cry mare to Birdstone way before The KY Derby. The Dosage Index of that hypo-foal is 5.67. Are you kidding?

What am I to take away from this?  

1) If current trends continue, our foals have a better chance at winning The KY Derby than those with DI's below 4.00!

2) I hope no one (especially stallion managers and those who book mares) really takes these DI's as accurately predictive of what they have been historically thought to be "predictive" of.  Distance capabilities, surface preferences and late or early form.

Massaging the data 5 or 10 years after the fact doesn't help breeders and their mares now.  And it doesn't help a stallion get the right mares either, while he's still breeding.  

So why waste any more time with Dosage?    

Reading over again and again these obvious intelligent readers comments make me feel very much out of reach with these acamdemic types. There is a story I read years ago, and of course I know it to be true since it is very well documented so I will share it.

When Karen and Mickey Taylor and Hill the vet went to the sale that Seattle Slew was in, everyone believes how much they knew about this amazing find they eventually purchased for $17,500.

By todays standards, that a grain of sand on the desert for many of the really wealthy people who spend millions on the come based on much of what I read over and over again. However, the actual fact is that the Hills and Taylors were not going to spend one cent more than $20,000 on what might have turned out to be one of the Greatest Race horses of all  times. If there were any really rich buyers who might have just opened their snooty eyes and looked at that Majestic Amazing animal, no amount would have been too much. The talk was that his foot was turned out, he had the visual signs of trouble. I am a meager man of means, I saw him the first time on the track and to quote a great handicapper, my DAD, one didn't need a program to know who he was going to be. I am not sugesting that beautiful horses run faster than ugly ones, rather Ruffian who was as magnificent an animal that ever blessed us all on the track, could very well have strengthened obvious beauty that need not be looked up in breeding lines. Secretariats look of the monster of magnificene he was, was a give away after the coin toss and he was declared to be the losers awarded reward. Look at his statue at the Belmont paddock of his likeness and forget about many of the books, info, sires, dams etc, and see that greatness is not an element of planning. Truely amazing race horses had invisible hearts as Dark Mirage, the small filly with a heart the size of Texas had. When will we ever get to a point where spending I believe 12-14 million on the Green Monkey was tragic for the sport. Mr. Tabor is a great man in many respects, rich of course, an amazing gambler, but here we see even some one on his level in all facets of the game was dead wrong!! When I see the amounts these people who are either printing money or just plucking it from the sky or ground, goes down the drain over and over so the average man or woman will be the ones who barnstorm the World with their meager purchased Champions that are great for racings hopes for a solid future. We lose all the great or good ones to breeding, money has soiled and spoiled one of the greatest sports that ever existed into a pit of nothing more than bottomless wells that keep taking heros away from those of us that are devoted lovers of the game and these heros.

I will not live long enough to see the turn around at my age, but I hope that some time down the road the sport of Kings isn't just for Real Kings and the Wealthy to enjoy and take part in!!!!  

This is or Gary:

Too bad this probably won't be read by you (old Blog), but I couldn't let your comments go unaddressed:

You worte with such conviction, such certainty-no maybes, no "I thinks", just blurted it all out. So guess what?-It was all hogwash!

Ever hear of a Barr body? Suggest you read about it. And the colt receives the mDNA as does the filly. Your entire line of reasoning has no basis whatsoever in genetics...Scot: my hat's off to you for moderating these posts. How are you able to hold your tongue so well? I certainly couldn't (and would have been fired long ago). This guy is a breeder, and who knows, maybe an advisor. Is it any wonder the breed is in the shape it's in.      

Everyone is forgetting that one of Rasmussen's original qualifiers was a dosage index under 4.00 OR a champion in another country. MTB was the 2-year-old champ of Canada, just like Sunny's Halo. So he qualified even with a 5.40 DI.