I find it hysterical when I read the breeding column by yet another of these pedigree "experts" in the DRF before a big race. They basically write how "well bred" the main contenders are. Its so funny to me because they will resort to anything to justify the breeding on the pedigrees. Whether its the mare, the sire, a 4x4 cross, or going back 75 years to a foundation mare way back in the pedigree. Gee, thats really "sharp".
Last year before the Remsen and Demoiselle, two grade twos run at Aqueduct on Thanksgiving weekend each year, one of the "all knowing pedigree columnists" wrote a column on these races. Because they are the first graded stakes run for two year olds on the dirt going a mile and an eigth each year, it was supposed to be riveting stuff. We were gonna be told who was gonna be a contender off the bloodlines.
So the "pedigree analysis" for the Demoiselle is written by this expert, and every horse in the field of 5 is written up as having justification to win the race except one. The one who received no write up of the 5 horses won easily. Her name was Wonder Lady Anne L. Gee, I guess a daughter of a sire beaten a nose for the triple crown had absolutely no right to wanna go two turns huh? She went on to win a grade one at a mile and a quarter as well.
I find it laughable, all of it.
Everyone can tell who is "bred" to go a route of ground. But those other "minor factors" like who trains them, their running style, how sharp they are in their CURRENT form, and the pace scenario for that particular race tend to decide outcomes, not pedigrees.