Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

pre workout drink

pre workout drink — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 04:51:59 GMT

Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile - The Five-Cross Files

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

cuban chef de race — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:22:49 GMT

no dam has produced two derby winners.go for gin dam never knock was a little close with pleasant tap but in that derby was unbridle it did hapen in the belmont with jazil and rags to reaches and the trainer was t. pletcher it can happen with b super saver half brother but it is a different race style .

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

cuban chef de race — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:19:34 GMT

unbridled was a monster.grindstone 114 beyer at 10 furlongs,empire maker 110 beyer at 12 fur and ran 116?beyer himself at 10 fur in the derby i/c is not for him c/s is okey won the derby did sire a derby winner who did sire a belmont winner who did sire a derby winner what a influent sire.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

cuban chef de race — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 21:48:32 GMT

and what about the experimental free handicap? pluck 121 never ran on dirt,jaycito olmost finish the juvenile in the grandstand on dirt,soldat 119 2d in a grade 2 on turf? gourmet dinner 114 pounds and won 1,000.000 dollar grade 3 on dirt wow this panel want to make me feel like a stupid horse lover?.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

Tim — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:14:47 GMT

I know this is an old blog, but didn't Giacomo have a DI over 4? Or has it been changed after his racing career? I see it currently at 4.33 in the stallion register.

Scot's reply: That's true -- and unless Holy Bull is classified as a Classic chef (unlikely IMO) -- Giacomo's Dosage stat won't decrease from that 4+ figure. Interestingly, though, he doesn't pass on the same speed-dominant numbers. Because Dosage is calculated on four generations, Giacomo will pass on only the Classic points of his damsire's sire (Hail to Reason) to his own progeny.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

Bob Summers — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:37:50 GMT

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.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

sceptre — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:27:56 GMT

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.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

KELSO — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:34:30 GMT

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!!!!

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

Gary — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:33:26 GMT

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?

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

KELSO — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:30:47 GMT

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!

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

TK in Texas — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:14:22 GMT

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.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

mary — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:41:29 GMT

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.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

Craig M — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:29:43 GMT

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....

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

KELSO — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:20:47 GMT

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.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

Otherlyn — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:18:57 GMT

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.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

Penny — Wed, 06 May 2009 21:16:20 GMT

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.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

sceptre — Tue, 05 May 2009 20:07:08 GMT

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.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

Ken — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:21:02 GMT

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

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

For Big Red — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:19:13 GMT

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?

Can Mine That Bird Take the Preakness?

The Five-Cross Files — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:19:01 GMT

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.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

donnyess — Tue, 05 May 2009 07:30:56 GMT

"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...

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

sceptre — Tue, 05 May 2009 03:56:28 GMT

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.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

Brumar — Tue, 05 May 2009 01:22:18 GMT

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!

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

For Big Red — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:11:43 GMT

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.

re: Mine That Bird's Misleading Dosage Profile

zarvona — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:01:16 GMT

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!