Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Just to add my contribution – not to the dosage debate in general but with regards to Hawk Wing in particular…
Although Val de L’Orne seems to be a stamina influence as a sire, as a damsire he doesn’t seem to have a particularly strong influence on his grandchildren.  Interestingly, most of the group, grade and listed performers produced from a cross with the Mr Prospector line have been best over distances typical to Mr P sires – suggesting (very simply!) that the stamina genes donated from V de L’O are ‘overruled’ by the speed genes from the Mr P side.
I imagine this is a case of a sire (as a damsire) not showing the prepotence Steve describes as necessary to be a chef-de-race stallion.
However, the one black-type performing exception to the Mr P-V de L’O cross won over 1m5f – so there is always hope for Hawk Wing!
Steve, I think when Colin talks of the dam line being omitted, he is meaning the tail female line, as in the Bobinski/Bruce Lowe family part of the pedigree, which is responsible for the mitochondrial dna.  I agree this is the aspect of pedigree research missing from dosage theory but I suppose that is what makes it different from other theories.
:wave: ÂÂÂ
Was it John Hanmer yesterday, who managed to commentate on Rag Trade winning the 2.20 at Newbury? The first time, I thought my ears were deceiving me, but after the third or fourth I was fairly sure that’s what he said… :biggrin:
Thanks Slippy, Little Amin. From their reaction, I don’t think the connections were on at 8s either. ;)
I was stood near the connections at Goodwood when one of Karl Burke’s won at quite a decent price (I’ll remember it’s name in a minute!) and they obviously had had the word on it. They practically had the Ferrari and Caribbean holiday brochures out in the winner’s enclosure. Definitely a stable to keep an eye on.
:wave:
I might be wrong about this, but I think he has this rating because he hasn’t yet run over fences in this country so his hurdle rating (143) cannot be amended to take a chase run into account.  Its kind of the same with non-GB/Ire horses that do not have an established rating – they are given automatic topweight because no other rating can be calculated for them.  Should they all be randomly allotted say 10st10 or 9st? Or should they not be allowed to run? ÂÂÂ
It’s fine saying it’s not fair – but I imagine if Mr Pipe believed Majed had been handicapped over his abilities then he would not run.
Ironic really – wasn’t Moor Lane made favourite initially as he was thought to be very well handicapped?? :biggrin:
:wave:<br> ÂÂÂ
Doesn’t seem that long ago that changes were made to improve safety in the National by putting a limit on numbers and regulating the quality of the runners.  It’s no use grumbling now that ‘only’ the top handicapped horses get in to the race – everyone knew about the Moor Lane situation from since the weights came out, and ante-post is at your own risk.
:wave:
Barry Hills had 4 runners in the Derby….
I agree, I would rather see the best horses taking each other on (as far as owners will allow), no matter who trains them.  I’m sure some smaller trainers are put off entering their horses in races where they would come up against hotpots from the big yards, but surely this is more a problem in the smaller conditions races, which seldom have multiple entries?  I can’t imagine a trainer saying – well I won’t enter my best 3yo in the Derby in case it runs up against three of Aidan O’Brien’s – can you?
The issue of ‘coupling’ runners in the same ownership for betting purposes might be worth mentioning at this point?
:wave:
Just to add in my twopenceworth of fence-sitting… :biggrin:
Flag’s post (about 25 pages ago now!) pretty much summed up my feelings on this issue.
I can’t imagine Isty’s connections would have made the journey over just to pick up appearance money – and nor would they have deliberately risked the horse if they felt he was certain to break down.  However, I would have thought that the chance of making history and giving Isty once last shot at glory was a fairly strong incentive to run, even if they weren’t sure he was up to winning.
Given his interrupted preparation, it must have occured to Ballydoyle that Isty might not have been back to his old self.  Talented and professional people that they are, I’m sure a contingency plan must have been put in place, to protect the horse as much as possible.  Although I don’t think they brought him over just to pull him up in front of the stands, I imagine that, in event of him not showing his sparkle, was Plan B.
I think this thread is perfectly valid speculation and discussion.  If trainer, owner and horse were not all held (rightly) in such high regard, then the pulling up of a Champion Hurdle favourite in such circumstances would have attracted a much more negative press.
:wave:
Agreed Rich.  DJ, I think for serious gamblers, the emotional bit should be left at the door when you are making your selections – but that doesn’t mean you then can’t appreciate history being made, or a fantastic sporting achievement.  A person may be a gambler, but they should always remain human!
I cried for Isty and Valiramix, and cheered HLL home.  Most people can experience two emotions at once – it doesn’t make anybody a hypocrite.
:wave:
Aidan I understand how you feel, but the freedom to hunt is a right, especially for those who wish to protect their property and environment (for example elk hunting in Scandinavia, bear hunting in Russia or North America).
If you suggest that humans do not have the right to kill animals, then you are getting into very murky water.  Why should we be able to slaughter animals for food when we are capable of adapting to vegetarianism?
If the people affected by hunting choose not to hunt (farmers not allowing hunts on their land, etc) then all well and good.  The chief objection is to, as alsoran very passionately put (wow, JS Mill, haven’t heard about him in a while :biggrin: ), a well-meaning but ultimately uninvolved section of the community dictating their moral code onto the rest.
:wave:
Sorry to bring this back up again guys (this thread obviously moves quicker than I do), but I’m curious…
Esc, if you know so perfectly well about Flakey Dove, and are so sure about Morley Street and Granville Again, what alien being took over your body and persuaded you to write
‘Since 1990, only two winners have been National Hunt bred horses’
a fact that is plainly wrong?  I think you should get help for that before its too late.. :biggrin:
I’m also very distressed that you misread my manipulative stat – 8 of the last 16 winners (ie individual horses) that have won the Champion Hurdle have been N.H. bred.  Its a completely valid stat.  As is the one that says last time a horse won 3 Champion Hurdles, for the next two years the race was won by N.H. bred horses….
As Luke says, lies, damn lies and …..
<br>Right I’ll leave you guys to it  :wave: ÂÂÂ
Hi Esc :wave:
Wasn’t really wanting to carry on with this, but…
You use the stat ‘winners of 11 of the last 16 Champion Hurdles have been flat bred’.  You could equally use the stat ‘8 of the last 16 Champion Hurdle winners have been N.H. bred’  I don’t call that ‘a handful’.  I call that half.  Stats can be manipulated in this way.
You also say on a later post ‘Since 1990, only two winners have been National Hunt bred horses’, when in fact there have been three.  This reinforces the impression from your initial post that you do not count Flakey Dove as N.H. bred.  I’m sorry Esc, the later backtracking doesn’t wash.  Stats are only useful when they are correct.
I’m not making a big argument about how well N.H. breds do in the CH – flat-bred and ex-flat bred horses have always had a good record – just making a point that you appeared (I’m sure unintentionally) to be steam-rollering the facts to provide ballast to a theory.
Although the last six years have swung towards flat-breds I think the overall trend doesn’t yet exclude a more traditionally bred hurdler from winning.
The ‘flawed’ comment was a suggestion that if you are not sure of how to distinguish between flat and n.h. breds, then it might be difficult to eliminate n.h. breds from your CH calculations.  You mentioned Beech Road is related to a Derby winner – an interesting but ultimately useless piece of information in this context, as mostly racehorses today can be traced back to a classic winner somewhere in their bloodlines.  It’s a bit like saying George Bush is British because his ancestor was a pilgrim. ÂÂÂ
I hope I have explained where my disagreement with your post has come from – I imagine you would feel the same way if someone was mangling some form lines in defence of an argument.
:wave:
No, Esc, absolutely no more hide chasing, wrist slapping or even beating with diddly sticks :o going on here.
Although you make a valid point about recent flat-bred winners (mainly due to the Isty domination), your initial post was both inaccurate and misleading.  Like you :biggrin:, if you see something factually wrong in another post on this forum, I am keen to put records straight. ÂÂÂ
It’s also worth pointing out, if part of your CH equation involves ruling out N.H. breds (a reasonable enough theory if the ground is good), that your selection criteria between flat and N.H. bred is flawed. ÂÂÂ
:wave:
Oh I see Esc – in your list to
show the recent trend towards flat bred horses, and how important it is, when it comes to winning the big one
you show us a list of 8 horses, of whom 5 are about as N.H. bred as you can get?  And to illustrate the difference between flat and jump breds you mark some (but not all) of the N.H. breds in red? And also to make it clear you say
In effect we`ve only a handful of horses not flat bred, since 1980
and mention the very definitely not flat bred French placed horses from recent years…..
Very logical.  It’s no use (particularly on this forum) backing up a theory with half-educated stats – as you well know :biggrin:
Here endeth the wrist-slapping…;)
(Oh, and err, thanks rm, bigamy….never really considered that before… :laugh:)
O my God, Escorial – you’ve missed out the very important point that statistics are only useful if they are not actually TOTAL CRAP!  Your list of ‘flat-bred’ winners of the Champion Hurdle gave me the biggest laugh in ages! :laugh:
Celtic Shot – Am I reading this right? did you count him as flat-bred? Celtic Cone was one of the most prominent N.H. sires around and his dam, a hurdle winner, is half-sister to 2 Cheltenham winners (inc. Clayside, winner of the Arkle). ÂÂÂ
Beech Road – related distantly to a Derby winner, therefore flat-bred?  As you would say, Sheesh! His dam has produced 8 winners – ALL over jumps.  Nearly A Hand’s best produce?  McGregor The Third, What A Hand, Nearly An Eye.
Flakey Dove – is NON-THOROUGHBRED! She’s by Oats (yes, sire of Master Oats, remember him?). Yes she won 2 flat races, but only after winning a bumper and 11 races over hurdles.
The french breds you mention – Hors La Loi III, Geos and Blue Royal are all French N.H. bred.
And to go back the full 20 years, Dawn Run, Gaye Brief and For Auction were all N.H. bred.
I’m not disputing any of the rest of your figures – you’ve obviously put alot of work in – but next time you start on breeding you had better know what you’re talking about.  <br>:wave:
