Derby and Performance Figures

[somerfrost]

Actually, Dosage parameters haven't completely failed in predicting Derby winners....since 1991, only 5 winners have exceeded dosage parameters of 4.00/1.00:
Strike the Gold...(91) 9.00/1.30 (later adjusted due to sire appointed CDR)
Real Quiet...(98) 5.29/1.27
Charismatic...(99) 5.22/1.00
Giacomo...(05) 4.33/0.94
Mine That Bird (09) 5.40/1.19
Lots of folks rushed to discredit Dosage but to date the vast majority of Derby entries fit within parameters.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Actually, Dosage parameters haven't completely failed in predicting Derby winners....since 1991, only 5 winners have exceeded dosage parameters of 4.00/1.00:
Strike the Gold...(91) 9.00/1.30 (later adjusted due to sire appointed CDR)
Real Quiet...(98) 5.29/1.27
Charismatic...(99) 5.22/1.00
Giacomo...(05) 4.33/0.94
Mine That Bird (09) 5.40/1.19
Lots of folks rushed to discredit Dosage but to date the vast majority of Derby entries fit within parameters.

It's worthless.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Actually, Dosage parameters haven't completely failed in predicting Derby winners....since 1991, only 5 winners have exceeded dosage parameters of 4.00/1.00:
Strike the Gold...(91) 9.00/1.30 (later adjusted due to sire appointed CDR)
Real Quiet...(98) 5.29/1.27
Charismatic...(99) 5.22/1.00
Giacomo...(05) 4.33/0.94
Mine That Bird (09) 5.40/1.19
Lots of folks rushed to discredit Dosage but to date the vast majority of Derby entries fit within parameters.

Prior to Strike The Gold in '91 every Derby winner had a DI under 4.00 going back to Clyde Van Deusen in 1929. During the 80s I was a believer in DI. Today I think it is irrelevant. There used to be quite a few Derby runners over the 4.00 limit years ago so there seemed to be something to it. Today there are fewer starters that are over the limit, and there have been 5 winners in the last 20 years being over as opposed to none in the previous 62 years. It is irrelevant now

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

Prior to Strike The Gold in '91 every Derby winner had a DI under 4.00 going back to Clyde Van Deusen in 1929. During the 80s I was a believer in DI. Today I think it is irrelevant. There used to be quite a few Derby runners over the 4.00 limit years ago so there seemed to be something to it. Today there are fewer starters that are over the limit, and there have been 5 winners in the last 20 years being over as opposed to none in the previous 62 years. It is irrelevant now

It was irrelevant before, too. Dosage is a classically bad use of statistics. It's meaningless to quote results BACKWARD to 1929 when the idea was created in the 70's.

--Dunbar

[Thunder Gulch]

Dr. Roman never created the Dosage Index as a handicapping tool, he just discovered the results when looking at the winners of the Ky Derby. If you understand what is is and how it reflects speed/stamina characteristics typically passed on by certain sires, it is an interesting study if nothing else. He didn't change the formula as so many naysayers want to believe, but he did change the status of certain sires as sample sizes helped draw firmer conclusions over the life of the stallions. It wasn't an attempt to excuse Strike the Gold's DI, it was Alydar gaining "Chef" status as a "Classic" sire, something it would be difficult argue against in retrospect.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

Dr. Roman never created the Dosage Index as a handicapping tool, he just discovered the results when looking at the winners of the Ky Derby. If you understand what is is and how it reflects speed/stamina characteristics typically passed on by certain sires, it is an interesting study if nothing else. He didn't change the formula as so many naysayers want to believe, but he did change the status of certain sires as sample sizes helped draw firmer conclusions over the life of the stallions. It wasn't an attempt to excuse Strike the Gold's DI, it was Alydar gaining "Chef" status as a "Classic" sire, something it would be difficult argue against in retrospect.

I remember actually arguing with some dosage nuts about Strike the Gold, before the Derby. I was going to play him, but was told he can't win because of his high dosage. I tried to explain that because Alydar was almost certainly going to be a chef, with stamina points, that he would indeed be a qualifier, down the road.

The whole concept of Dosage, however, does make some sense. I think people should use a little sense and flexibility with it though.

Then again, if you have any clue about racing and pedigrees, one has no need for dosage.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I remember actually arguing with some dosage nuts about Strike the Gold, before the Derby. I was going to play him, but was told he can't win because of his high dosage. I tried to explain that because Alydar was almost certainly going to be a chef, with stamina points, that he would indeed be a qualifier, down the road.

The whole concept of Dosage, however, does make some sense. I think people should use a little sense and flexibility with it though.

Then again, if you have any clue about racing and pedigrees, one has no need for dosage.

Very true......regarding Alydar, Roman was very slow to upgrade his chef-de-race status. Easy Goer should have made that a no brainer.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

Very true......regarding Alydar, Roman was very slow to upgrade his chef-de-race status. Easy Goer should have made that a no brainer.

Alydar should have been upgraded earlier but they do same by committee and that took time.