- This topic has 68 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Interesting to see that the decision not to run Galileo Gold was based on the outcome of a genetic test carried out by a company, Equinome, out of University College Dublin. I think equine science will surely drive a new era on the training and management of racehorses and in the breeding of the thoroughbred. The use of physiological monitoring aids (heart and respiratory monitors), blood testing, etc, seems to be moving to a new level and these advances in genetic profiling seem significant.
The genetic profile of Galileo Gold apparently show he’s a CC rather than a CT, which apparently means he has less than a 1% chance of staying the Derby distance (by which I guess they mean being fully effective over the distance). Hugo Palmer is ‘relieved’ as if he was a CT he’d have had a ‘dofficult decision’ but now the decision is easy.
I think Jim Bolger is a shareholder in Equinome.
Maybe soon we’ll see CC or CT on the racecard along with a b or t or v.
I wonder what HRA Cecil would make of it.I have not heard anything about this genetic testing before, and will read some more on it.
But my initial reaction is oh dear. I worry that we will not see so many horses taking a chance in the Derby.
I wonder how many winners of the past would not have taken part if they had been genetically tested.
And I wonder what would have happened had Golden Horn been put through this test?
Also, I suspect there are many Derby winners whose optimum trip was not 12 furlongs at Epsom.
I would have to question the test on a horse that has already won the 2000 guineas. I would think it most unlikely that they would say Galileo Gold’s optimum distance would be 12fs rather than 8fs having won the Guineas.
Could you imagine the ridicule if a 2000 guineas winner ran in the Derby based on the test and then totally bombed out?
The whole genetic testing thing would be totally discredited as well.Doubt Erhaab would have run, let alone win the Derby based on such a test.
Just an aside to this story.
Despite Galileo Gold being ruled out of the Derby by this test, Stan James still have him quoted at 12/1…………..for the St Leger
Honestly, you couldn’t make that crap up in a Dick Francis novel.
Hang your head Stan.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I don’t think you could base your decision purely on this test as number one there is not the sample pool to come to any hard and fast conclusion and there are always cases where a horse will outrun what their pedigree tells you – Red Rum being the most extreme case as he was bred to be an out and out miler. I think in GG case it only highlighted what all of his connections were already thinking beforehand.
Personally I believe GG’s optimum trip in time will be 10f and I think you can do a lot of damage to a horse with big question marks on his stamina by running it over 12f in the Derby at a time when he might not be ready to take on Epsom’s unique qualities as a racecourse.
As I have said before, going into the 2000g there were no horses that screamed out I will need the Derby trip to be seen at my best and I have not changed my opinion since.
Is this anything related to the dosage index ? I wonder if this will be a fad or leave the Derby and Leger looking second rate as O’Brien runs 10 in each to harvest it ?
Somehow I don’t think they would have bothered with the test if they really wanted to run him. If anything they seemed relieved it came out as it did, as though it would’ve committed them to a plan they didn’t want.
It would be very interesting if they could do this test on all the living Derby winners and see how they came out. I wouldn’t be so sure it would be accurate. Look at a horse like Brigadier Gerard, he won over 12F at four though he was hanging at the end of the race.
I’d be interested in how they assembled their base data on which they base their probabilities. Interesting stuff and clever people.
Yes, but how have they established the link between a genetic code and staying potential/limits. Presumably looking for correlation between particular codes and how horses have performed in the past. What I mean is I’d be interested in seeing the sample size, etc.
Actually there is some interesting info provided by a guy called kinscem on the betfair forum
of course CC CT TT isn’t the be all and end all- some CC’s will stay better than others, some CT’s will stay worse than other CT’s etc
Only one thing to say. Red Rum – bred to run a mile, he excelled at 4 miles plus as we all know with 3 wins and 2 seconds in the Grand National. Presumably his genetic test would have made him a CC too – and we would have been deprived of one of our greatest steeplechasers ever.
For those who may be interested:
Equinome is a ‘spin-out’ UCD company which offers a range of equine genetic testing aimed at TBs (mostly flat). The CC-CT-TT test is for the speed gene but there are also tests for height at maturity (aimed at the sales market) and genetic inbreeding (compared to the traditional pedigree analysis of inbreeding). The latter shows some notable discrepancies e.g. stallions whose pedigree analysis suggests high degrees of in breeding but who come out as ‘low’ on genetic testing, and vice versa. You can get information about this direct from the Equinome website, which also includes a list of stallions who have been CC-CT-TT tested.
http://www.equinome.com/tests
http://www.equinome.com/home/stallions
Behind Equinome is a raft of peer-reviewed academic equine genomics research. I have taken a look at some of their work, most of which is behind a publisher’s pay-wall, so I cannot post links to it. However, one article – and the key one for the CC-CT-TT research – is available under a creative commons licence, so I’ve pasted the link to it here:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0008645
It is technical, but persevere. The key things that may be of interest to folk on here are (i) the data sample on which the research is based and (ii) some of the implications of the research. The data sample for all the UCD work comprises 102 TBs from one stable – Jim Bolger’s (2007 – 9: that cohort will have included New Approach, Finsceal Beo and Lush Lashes). Some of this work has been analysed to examine the connections between body composition (fat free mass) and performance (think Kenyan distance runners v Jamaican sprinters as the human sport’s science comparator). FFM is the most consistent measurement that connects to capacity of an athlete to work at maximum aerobic intensity. In the speed gene/stamina paper (link above) the implications go way beyond an individual’s speed gene make-up (The GG debate). The key tables are some way on, but they give food for thought re how genetic testing that provides a tool to predict performance might connect to the economics of training: CC and CT individuals are more successful as 2yos than TT; the greatest returns on training investment come from CC and CT (these earn 5x the average of TTs, and 1.6x when the highest earning individual is removed from the analysis); there is a strong suggestion to only train CC and CT 2yos; and there is a small (but telling) comparison of the comparative earnings of the progeny of a CT sire compared to a TT. The implication is clear: (for flat trainers) training CCs and CTs result in reduced operating costs and a greater return on investment.Thanks for that Titus, extremely interesting topic this.
On Galileo Gold, Tom Segal has called the early decision to swerve the Derby as ‘staggeringly strange’.
On Galileo Gold, Tom Segal has called the early decision to swerve the Derby as ‘staggeringly strange’.
Would he be bothered though cormack if he hadn’t backed it? Personally I think they are following the correct path and the one I recommended
It’s hard to believe Humphrey Bogart would pass the genetic test for The Derby, for which we are told they are likely to supplement but then again he hasn’t won a Guineas.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.