BBC: Study favors Racehorse Nurture over Nature

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm thinking cost in more of a Seattle Dancer-Green Monkey vs the other high end progeny kind of way. The "excessive" money, which the study didn't throw out in their calculations.

All they did was compare stud fees to progeny winnings. They found those horses with the highest stud fee didn't necessarily have the progeny with the most earnings. That's not a surprise!

That is also not true. There are so many factors that they did not consider. It is a bunch of junk.

[Cannon Shell]

The study used 4000 horses starting in 1922. What 4000 out of the hundreds of thousands bred in the UK since 1922 did they use?

[blackthroatedwind]

I'm with Chuck.....the whole thing is laughable. Of course there are many factors ( except riders ) that can help lead to success. They didn't " discover " anything that common sense couldn't have.

[Riot]

They didn't " discover " anything that common sense couldn't have.

Common sense already knew it. There's no guarantee that paying a $50,000 stud fee gets you a foal guaranteed to be a 40% better race horse (40% better earnings) than the foal from the stud that costs $30,000. That's all the study said.

Not really an "eureka" moment in the history of genetic research.

[Swale84]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The study used 4000 horses starting in 1922. What 4000 out of the hundreds of thousands bred in the UK since 1922 did they use?

They used the ones that would prove their theory