Nick of Time - by Dan Liebman

re: Nick of Time - by Dan Liebman

gammyp6 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:02:35 GMT

Many thanks Elaine for so thoroughly answering my question. I totally get it now!

re: Nick of Time - by Dan Liebman

Elaine — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:47:43 GMT

Dear gammyp6: Blue Hen Mares are touchstones in the direct female descent of modern thoroughbreds. The recognition of such mares is extremely important when it comes to identifying the strongest elements of a pedigree so as to build upon those elements by selective breeding. Ellen Parker is a pedigree researcher who has spent lots of time studying famous mares. She's comes out with a list of the 500 or so most influential mares of the last century. For instance Gay Hostess is a Reine De Course mare. If you are serious about pedigrees, check out her site (www.reines-de-course.com) for some good articles and also some great books about famous broodmares. Another excellent site for information on blue hens is www.tbheritage.com/index.html. Blue hen mares are also referred to as “elite mares” or “Reines de Course”.

re: Nick of Time - by Dan Liebman

gammyp6 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:04:55 GMT

I have a question. I have seen a mare referred to as a "blue hen producer". I see the term "blue hen" a lot. What does it mean? Thanks for the help.

re: Nick of Time - by Dan Liebman

Sam — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:30:15 GMT

Unless nicks are generated on a specific sire to specific broodmare sire -- with the foreknowledge that all horses on that cross were intended to be racehorses -- knowing how many horses exist for a nick is irrelevant. People in this industry stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that there are a growing number of thoroughbreds bred each year who were never meant to be racehorses.

If there are 50 horses bred on a Pleasant Colony (and sons) over Raja Baba (and sons) cross, even 5 (10%) foals who were never bred for the track and therefore, unraced can significantly impact the statistical analysis (and that's all a "nick" is -- a record of PAST results, not a predictor of future ones -- so anyone thinking they should never change needs to go back and take a remedial statistics course).

Nicks (be they eNicks or TrueNicks) are a tool and should never, ever be considered the deciding factor or even be a major consideration when planning a mating. Unfortunately, humans as a group are lazy and want an easy answer. Nicking programs provide that as well as a nice convenient scapegoat for when something goes wrong or the resulting foal is just no good.

Using an editorial column to pimp a service is just tacky.

re: Nick of Time - by Dan Liebman

noholme — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:55:19 GMT

nicks are to racing what voodoo is to medicine. nonsense. and to see the bloodhorse promoting one set of witch doctors over another devalues a once impeccable brand.

re: Nick of Time - by Dan Liebman

Give Me Yeats — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:06:04 GMT

I have been using TrueNicks since it started to mate my mares and pick out yearlings to race with some friends. So far I am happy with the results but use it as a tool to help me, not an absolute, which is where I think TrueNicks and the Blood Horse need to be careful. They are an industry publication that needs to impress on the user that TrueNicks is not the answer. I think that Sceptre made a good point in that society is tending to look towards absolutes now and Truenicks is not that.

Sure, there are cases where horses go from rating C to A+ on the basis of a couple of horses winning stakes races (I have rarely seen it go the other way but I guess it must), but they aren’t nearly as common as the horses that rate B+ or better off their maidens that go on to win stakes races (yesterday’s SW Classical Slew is one example). This is one area where I am finding it a good service also. High rated maidens running in stakes races are usually winning them. I have been keeping a database of TrueNicks ratings and indeed there are some lowly rated stars like Barbaro and Stardom Bound, but there are some outstanding successes like Zenyatta (A), Curlin (A), New Approach (A++) and Zarkava (A++). The positives outweigh the negatives from what I have seen.

I agree with Greg though, a discussion on the relative merits of each nicking system would be interesting and worthwhile. Intellectually it appeals more to me that TrueNicks considers the runners and thus the opportunity of something really happening where Werk/enicks doesn't. From that aspect alone I think that while Truenicks is not the answer as far as unlocking the mystery of the pedigree, they are at least better than what was out there. It is hard for me to believe that the Blood Horse would have put their name behind and the Jockey Club supplied data to a product that hadn’t withstood some type of statistical testing.

Elaine made the comment that using the editorial section of the magazine was a conflict of interest. It could be, except I think that Dan clearly stated their interest in the product. Personally, I don’t think this article was clever at all. It just opened the door for comments to be made, especially by the vocal minority who have issues with Truenicks, but I guess there is some kudos to Dan in that he could have elected not to publish anything and not given the minority a voice at all. Indeed the Blood Horse have taken a brave stance in some ways allowing comments in the first place.

re: Nick of Time - by Dan Liebman

chris — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:54:21 GMT

I have been a constant critic of True Nicks, as you well know. It is a flawed system. It uses "past posting" to formulate ratings...It is statistically insignificant..It is a dangerous tool designed only to extract money from stallion owners that "subscribe" to the service...I have cancelled my 25 year subsription to the bloodhorse in protest of this money grabbing nonsense...

re: Nick of Time - by Dan Liebman

sceptre — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:04:23 GMT

The comments received, thus far, are well deserved. Your take on what motivated (its "mission") The BloodHorse to initiate this "service" is at best disingenuous. It's been my experience that nicking services (including TruNicks) have, in general, lead many breeders to a sense of false security-having them believe that little else is needed when fashioning a proper mating. Also, to my knowledge there have been no retroactive studies to confirm the relative success of any nicking program.

re: Nick of Time - by Dan Liebman

Greg — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:22:36 GMT

The methodology differences between competing nick rating systems are at the very least debatable. In fact they might make an interesting and useful discussion. This editorial, however, seems only self serving.

re: Nick of Time - by Dan Liebman

Craig — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:38:39 GMT

I thought your column was suppose to be thought provoking. True nicks does use a better sample pool than e-nicks however it still only looks at 25% of the pedigree. Both systems ignore the entire female family as well as the broodmare sire lines on both top and bottom.

Your articles are normally great, this one is as ad and supports breeding with one and one half eyes closed.

re: Nick of Time - by Dan Liebman

Elaine — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:43:54 GMT

Using the editorial section of the magazine to advertise a product the Blood Horse is financially vested in strikes me as a major conflict of interest.

re: Nick of Time - by Dan Liebman

Dildo Draggins — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:20:59 GMT

I give this infomercial a nick rating of C-.