Mo:

Dosage was developed, in large measure, by looking back over history and picking out sires who were stamina influences in horses pedigrees who ALREADY WON THE DERBY!

Guess what? Those horses, who had pre-ordained good Dosage Indices, qualified under the system. Hence, most of the qualifying Derby winners had to qualify because the system was, by its very nature, retroactive in its orientation. The problem is in its prospective application which depends on a number of factors. For example, sires must be classified in the correct chef-de-race group. The most glaring error in this regard was the classification of Raise A Native as a Brilliant chef-de-race. Dr. Roman would have you believe that all those Derby winners from that sire line won despite the presence of Raise A Native. I would suggest it was because of his presence.

I could go on to discuss other flaws in the theory (e.g., the failure to represent the influence of dams and non-chef-de-race sires, etc.), but it isn't really worth the effort. Dosage Theory has been marginalized since almost all of the Derby horses qualify. What is really funny is that Derby winners can be found among the few horses who do not.

P.S. The retroactive orientation of the Dosage Theory has continued beyond its inception. It is not unusual for sires to become chef-de-races or be switched in chef-de-race categories AFTER their non-qualifying progeny win a classic race. This has the intended affect of lowering the Dosage Indices of their offspring.

Numbers are only numbers.



Post Edited (05-08-05 10:04)