Does the Dosage Index matter?

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Sort of what was alluded to here.....after his horse's win big races going long they get added. Frankly, it the ultimate redboarder's guide.

Dosage is an anachronism now that people have become more sophisticated and legitimate techniques ( like speed figures ) are widespread for analyzing a horse's talent.

A prime example of the fallacy of dosage was Strike The Gold. He had a dosage of about 9.00 ruining Roman's bogus record of no horse winning the Derby with a dosage of over 4 since 1929. What does Roman do? He immediately upgrades STG's sire Alydar's status in his chef de race charts and "Bingo" Strike The Gold has a dosage of 2.70

[Slewbopper]

I remember being caught up in the Roman theory of dual qualifiers ( dosage of 4 or less and being 116 or higher on the 2 year old experimental highweight) as the only horses that could win the Derby. His shining moment was the '90 Derby when Unbridled, Summer Squall, and Pleasant Tap were the only three duallies in the race. The tri paid about $1600 with Tap at 50/1

I think that at some point in the '80s it may have had some merit, but everytime a sire is upgraded, it lowers the overall dosage numbers. It seems today that almost all contenders fit within the guidelines when years ago not that many did.

[miraja2]

Pedigree can matter.
Dosage does not.
In terms of looking at a race like the Kentucky Derby, Belmont Stakes, or any race where all of the horses are trying a distance for the first time, analyzing a horse's pedigree can be a useful handicapping tool.
Reducing this process to a single number - especially when using an absurd system like dosage - just doesn't make sense.
The AP Indy example is perfect. I am pretty sure people gave Rags a good shot to win last year's Belmont in part because of her sire. He doesn't need some special designation to let us know that AP Indy's are more likely than most to do well at 10f and beyond.