Cool Coal Man

[RollerDoc]

I was wondering if somebody could answer this question.

I was looking at the program for the Travers, and when I was reading up on Cool Coal Man, I see he was foaled May 24, 2005. He would have just missed being a three year old for the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, but could have been a 3 yr. old in the Belmont.

So is this this a rare case of a horse that because of when he was born could never have had a chance to win a Triple Crown based on his/her birthday? Can he enter in the 2009 Derby and Preakness since he will still be three?

The other question I have is, has anyone done research on TC race winners regarding age. Are more winners well past three years old vs. let's say a horse that is three years old but possibly 8-11 months younger.

[Kasept]

The calendar date is immaterial. ALL horses have the same birthday for the purpose of age for racing. Any horse bornin 2005 turned 3 on January 1, 2008.

As to a seperate point on Cool Coal Man, I think he's a very interesting and viable alternative play tomorrow.

[RollerDoc]

Originally Posted by Kasept

The calendar date is immaterial. ALL horses have the same birthday for the purpose of age for racing. Any horse bornin 2005 turned 3 on January 1, 2008.

As to a seperate point on Cool Coal Man, I think he's a very interesting and viable alternative play tomorrow.

Thanks...I had no idea. BUt it still leaves me with another question. Do horses born in the first quarter of a calendar year typically do better than a horse born in the last quarter of the same calendar year?

PS...I went back and noticed Cool Coal Man was in the Derby this year....my bad.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by RollerDoc

Thanks...I had no idea. BUt it still leaves me with another question. Do horses born in the first quarter of a calendar year typically do better than a horse born in the last quarter of the same calendar year?

PS...I went back and noticed Cool Coal Man was in the Derby this year....my bad.

There are no hard rules that late foals (April-May-June) are at a gross disadvantage competing against those born earlier in the year (Jan-Feb-Mar). There have been many late foals that have won the Derby for instance.

Chuck may have some anectodotal responses to this. It would make sense that earlier foals would be further along developmentally than 'younger' foes, but I don't believe there is any firm evidence to back that up...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Kasept

There are no hard rules that late foals (April-May-June) are at a gross disadvantage competing against those born earlier in the year (Jan-Feb-Mar). There have been many late foals that have won the Derby for instance.

Chuck may have some anectodotal responses to this. It would make sense that earlier foals would be further along developmentally than 'younger' foes, but I don't believe there is any firm evidence to back that up...

There arent many june foals that have success period for whatever reason. Personally i think it is overblown in general though it is logical that a January foal will develop before a may foal. I would prefer my foals to be born in late March when the weather is a little nicer and the foals can get outside more. when foals are born in KY early they have to go through a few rough weather months which may hamper development a bit. I have no scientific proof of any of this and obviously there are exceptions both ways but it has been my experience that foaling date is pretty insignifigant once horses are 3

[Linny]

The breeding season ends in early July so there are no northern hemisphere foals born after July.