Go to Villagebet.com.au for free horse racing tips - Click here now |
|
Lonhro - A trend appears |
Post Reply | Page <1234 5> |
Author | ||
Take2
Champion Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 5333 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
i could say the same in regards to what most stallions will produce as you have,but i will go a little further and say the vast majority of stallions will not produce results in your selected races
|
||
change is simply a destination on a journey reached by taking the first step (i said that) lol
www.3rdmillenniumbloodstock.com.au |
||
furious
Champion Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Status: Offline Points: 25179 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Lonhro must of got out of bed on the wrong side today. Beaded went soooo close to a second G1 winner for him. I might be wrong but I'd like to see how his daughters went with Redoute's or the other way around. Redoute's loves the Sir Tristram blood and the 8 family and Lonhro is from the Sir Tristram sireline with Sir Ivor 8g, Relic 8-f, Raise a Native 8-f and from the 8 female line of Gay Poss. Could be interesting to see the results.
|
||
djebel
Premium Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Status: Offline Points: 53960 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
reductio ad absurdum
|
||
djebel
Premium Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Status: Offline Points: 53960 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
This thread inspired me to have a look at Lonhro's efforts.
He already has a handful of mares ( 23 ) at stud and probably the stoutest bred is Lonnies Girl out of a Last Tycoon mare who in turn is out of Arborea unfortunately she never saw a race track in competition. She has been sent to Danewin. Love First has gone to Dylan Thomas. Sacred a 2005 foal is a very interesting broodmare. 4x3 for My Tricia. Segolene who one might have expected on pedigree to get 1600+ has visited New Approach. |
||
reductio ad absurdum
|
||
brogers
Champion Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Location: Lexington, KY Status: Offline Points: 1106 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Quiet easily. Presume that there is one gene that tells you what you are capable of (not if you are good at it, just capable of it) on that one gene you have a message from your sire and a message from your dam. The message can be either an S (sprint) which allows you to get up to 2000m or D (distance) which allows you to go beyond 2000m. You could be Ss - got the sprint gene from your sire and dam and you are a sprinter Sd - got the sprint gene from your sire or dam so you sprint but the other copy is a recessive distance gene that you can pass on to your foals Ds - got the distance gene from your sire or dam so you stay but the other copy is a recessive sprint gene that you can pass on to your foals Dd - got the distance gene from your sire and dam and you are a stayer. Let's resume Octagonal was a Ds. He got the distance gene from Zabeel and a sprint gene from Eight Carat but the latter was in recessive form. Let's presume Shadea was a Sd - she got the sprint gene from her sire and the distance gene from her dam but she expressed as a sprinter. So when you mate an Ds to a Sd the possible outcomes are 25% Ss 50% Sd or sD 25% Dd Thus there is a 25% chance that a foal by Octagonal out of Shadea is a sprinter and is double copy for the sprint gene. If Lonhro is an Ss, which seems likely, then when he goes to stud, his foals MUST get a sprint gene. They have no choice. Lonhro's full brother Neillo may well be a sD which means he expresses as a distance horse but he has a recessive sprint gene. He could also be a Sd, either way, he has expressed differently and his foals have different aptitudes. I have made a couple of assumptions ( it is multigenic not a single gene; there are actually 4 options, not 2 and there are dominant, recessive and co-dominant issues)and generalizations here but you should get the idea. If Lonhro is double copy for sprinting on the gene, and I don't know if he is because I am unaware if he has been tested, then it is impossible for his foals to get ground at the highest level of competition (any horse can get 2 miles if the competition is weak or nonexistant) as he must pass on the sprint gene to his foals. There have been plenty of double copy dominant sprint gene stallions like Rory's Jester, Zeditave, etc so it is not necessarily a bad thing, it just means that 2000m tops their progeny out. I don't believe that as a horse gets older he get's more stayers, it just doesn't work that way. What is more likely is that he is a Sd (like say Redoute's Choice and his own sire Danehill) and he is getting more mares that are Dd or sD which means that a greater proportion of his foals are sD or Dd and able to get ground. |
||
Abel Tasman...Keen Ice...Divisidero....Verrazano...Catchy...Carrick...Ivictory...
|
||
John H
Champion Joined: 23 Feb 2007 Status: Offline Points: 849 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
"double copy dominant sprint gene stallions like Rory's Jester & Zeditave".
Don't tell me you now say our A-NZ Dosage version has been right all these years. Surely it's the same thing, except we were there years ago. I knew we could convert you in time. |
||
djebel
Premium Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Status: Offline Points: 53960 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
brogers, Is what you are talking about, what Jim Bolger invested in ?
http://www.equinome.com/ |
||
reductio ad absurdum
|
||
brogers
Champion Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Location: Lexington, KY Status: Offline Points: 1106 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
John,
Ha! No chance. It is a long, long way from the same thing. Any system that gives Danewin and Commands the same rating like Dosage does is lost on me. One was a 2000m horse that couldn't win at top company under a mile and the other was a 1200m horse that struggled to get 1600m. It is the same with Brain Ratings, they are good but once you know that full brothers raced differently and breed differently the rating becomes pretty useless. Djebel, The concept (Equinome) is the same but I believe it to involve more than one gene. Byron
|
||
Abel Tasman...Keen Ice...Divisidero....Verrazano...Catchy...Carrick...Ivictory...
|
||
John H
Champion Joined: 23 Feb 2007 Status: Offline Points: 849 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Dosages are about the average of the breed. So that, in general terms, one can make some sort of prediction on aptitudinal type, based on results at the track.
The Equinome thing has a very long way to go before standing a test of time as Dosage has. As I have said before, Equinome could build on the data established by Dosage, which is always an evolving document, as history showS. So what if I now said Danewin is an Intermediate/Solid influence and Commands a Brilliant/Intermediate influence. Their race records, while different we all agree, did overlap to some degree, as do their sire records. Danewin too sires a good proportion of his SWs under 1600m. They were different physical types no doubt, which may contain the real answer. Over to Equinome. But back to Lonhro. Octagonal is no great influence for stamina overall, reflecting the influence of Eight Carat I think, which in turn possibly had a lot to do with her grand sires Relic & Klairon. Again IMO. Not sure how one would test that for the Ss or whatever thingy. In addition, we could point to L's dam, Shadea, a top class two year old herself by a major speed influence in Straight Strike by another far greater one in old Mr Prospector. Of Lonhro's 18 (I think) SWs, maybe half or so are from SW mares which themselves won at under 1600m. Others such as Denman, are from mares with predominantly speed pedigrees, so this may then become the main focus. The background stamina in Lonhro's pedigree may be "swamped" ( for wont of a better term) by his own brilliance, a factor of Shadea (etc) and Eight Carat (etc) & ultimately the speed influences of the dams of his SWs. This could change of course now that Lonhro is under the Darley banner and may serve a different aptitudinal type of mare. Just some thoughts, but not totally based around Dosage. But some thoughts totally based on Dosage learning. |
||
kingston
Champion Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Status: Offline Points: 660 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If you mean G1 when you refer to "top company", Danewin never raced in top company below a mile.
However, his stakes record at 1200m-1400m starting with his 3yo season was enviable. A very good and consistent G2-G3 sprinter.
Commands on the other hand only had 2 goes at a mile or longer - both in top company. He ran 3rd in the Caulfield Guineas behind a couple of handy ones, and then went berko in the Cox Plate. Inconclusive at worst.
|
||
brogers
Champion Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Location: Lexington, KY Status: Offline Points: 1106 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
John, That is my point. When they were yearlings according to Dosage Danewin was no different to Commands. But as racehorses and now as stallions, by your own admission, they are different. Genetics, such as Equinome, can tell you this once they are born not 10 years after the fact.
|
||
Abel Tasman...Keen Ice...Divisidero....Verrazano...Catchy...Carrick...Ivictory...
|
||
Take2
Champion Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 5333 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
i wonder what everyones opinion of danehill was when he 1st went to stud, on how far his progeny would get?
as someone said somewhere else, a stallion doesnt produce longer runners as he gets older, but, a stallions progeny CAN and DO win over longer distances as they get the chance to compete over them. (as they get older and more mature)
i alays thought that danehill was a stouter influence than most people did,and he has proven that
|
||
change is simply a destination on a journey reached by taking the first step (i said that) lol
www.3rdmillenniumbloodstock.com.au |
||
John H
Champion Joined: 23 Feb 2007 Status: Offline Points: 849 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Hi Byron
While that MIGHT be the case, in hindsight the most likely scenario (based on Equinome's conclusions) is that Danewin & Commands are both CT (to use Equinome's terms), rather than one say CC or TT. There are only 3 options I think. Did Equinome actually test any full relations ? |
||
Progold
Champion Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 3212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
While Commands and Danewin may have performed over different distances, both performed within a range that is compatible with their dosage profiles, although perhaps at the different ends of the spectrum. Maybe dosage used in combination with a physical assessment of the horses would have led to a correct interpretation of the aptitude of each. Dosage, of course, being a tool to assist in our understanding of the thoroughbred.
In spite of their differing distance aptitude, they were similar in their development with both perhaps typical 3yo types in spite of both racing at 2. Interestingly, Danewin had the superior 2yo record of the two. Danewin, although winning as a 4yo, was largely finished his career by the end of his Spring 4yo season, and actually had more starts as a 2yo. The high classic rating of course is evidence that both were bred to fit a similar pattern.
Should we be ignoring the human factor of the training of both, with one trained by John Hawkes and the other by Bob Thomsen who may have had different perceptions? Had both been trained by the same trainer, is it possible that the outcome of their careers may have been different?
Both stallions are by Danehill, so Byron's argument would lead us to believe that Danehill's influence was vastly different in both cases (whereas dosage would actually say that it was consistent with Danehill's overall influence). If a dominant stallion like Danehill's influence is so diverse to the extent perhaps to be non-existent, the entire breeding industry model that relies on stallion influence could be seriously flawed. The choice of accepting the time honoured lessons of dosage, or rejecting a stallion model of breeding would make for interesting reading.
|
||
don
Champion Joined: 05 Oct 2010 Status: Offline Points: 330 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
As strange as it may seem to some every horse has a mother [who contributes a bit more than 50%]
|
||
John H
Champion Joined: 23 Feb 2007 Status: Offline Points: 849 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
But if her sire was Vain (as in the case of Denman's dam to keep it on topic) then her aptitudinal contribution to her foals is invariably swayed way towards "speed".
|
||
brogers
Champion Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Location: Lexington, KY Status: Offline Points: 1106 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
John,
Progold, The statement "Byron's argument would lead us to believe that Danehill's influence was vastly different in both cases" is not remotely close to the truth. As it relates to aptitude, Danehill's influence on his foals was equal to every foal he ever sired. He could only pass on 50% of what he had to any foal. The resultant foals were equally as influenced by the genetic code found in their mother (moreso if you believe mtDNa haplotypes have an influence on performance, it hasn't been proven yet but it may be the case). Both you, I and a horse are bound by genetics and genetics is not like mixing paint, it is like selecting marbles. Dosage would have us believe that if the sire is blue and the dam is red that when we mate them, we end up with purple. That flies in the face of every genetic tenet known to man. If a sire has the ability to make a horse a stayer or a sprinter and the mare has the ability to make the horse a sprinter or a stayer then it is like having four marbles, two red and two blue in a sack and picking out two randomly. You might get two red, two blue or one red and one blue. Danehill's influence as far as aptitude is concerned was the same, he put two marbles into the sack....no more, no less. How they come out of the sack depends totally on what went in from him and the mare. "....the entire breeding industry model that relies on stallion influence could be seriously flawed"... Again, you are misconstruing things to suit yourself here. Danehill and for that matter Encosta de Lago, Redoute's Choice and Zabeel are easily explainable with genetics and inheritance. Let's say for argument that there are 10 genes that relate to superior performance in the thoroughbred (there are more but 10 will do for this case). To be a G1 horse you need to have 7 of these. You could have them in any position so one G1 winner might have position 1,2,3,6,8,9,10 filled in while another could have 3,5,6,7,8,9,10 -either way is going to mean you are a G1 horse. You could have the good performance gene in one copy (so let's say it is Good:Bad) which means that you got the good copy from one parent and it expressed and the bad copy from another parent but it is recessive. You could also have the good gene in double copy as both parents gave it to you so you are G:G. Either way, as long as the good copy is expressed you are ok. So as a racehorse you are good on the racetrack but when you go to stud you have to send those good genes to your foals. So let's presume that you are a stallion and all 7 of your good genes are in the G:B format so you pass on a G or a B to your foals. The chance of the stallion passing all 7 genes in G format to his foals is 128/1. This is why a lot of good racehorses fail. A stallion like this, while great on the racetrack, has to rely heavily on the mares that they are given to have good genes in the same areas (i.e position 3,5,6,7,8,9,10) preferably in G:G format, or the mares have good genes where they are missing them (1,2,4). So what makes Danehill, Zabeel, Redoute's Choice and Encosta de Lago so special? Well, what is likely is that instead of having their 7 in G:B format, they have these performance genes in G:G format (at least some of them but not all of them). Because they are G:G, their foals must get a G gene from them. Thus, they sire more good horses. The sire that has the most performance genes in a Good:Good format is the best sire. This also explains nicks. Let's say for example that Redoute's Choice is a G:G sire in positions 1,2,4 and 7 and a G:B sire in 3,8 and 9. He has 7 of the bases but in three of them (3,8,9) he could pass on the B (bad) gene. Now let's say Zabeel is a G:G sire in positions 3,8 and 9 (along with others in different form elsewhere). Because he is a G:G in positions 3,8 and 9, all his offspring get this G (good copy). So when Zabeel daughters are mated to Redoute's Choice, every Zabeel daughter carries a G gene in 3,8,9 which helps Redoute's Choice because he has a 50% chance of passing a G gene on or a B gene in that position. While every Zabeel mare would have the G gene from her sire she may have a B gene come from her mother. This means that you would have a G:B (Redoute's) mated to a mare carrying a G:B which gets back to the four marbles in the sack. There is a 25% chance that the foal will be a G:G on that one position, 50% chance it will be a G:B and a 25% chance it will be a B:B. If it is that simple then why don't nicks work 75% of the time? Well, we just looked at one position (gene) and in the case above we are talking about 3 genes in Redoute's Choice having the potential to pass on the bad gene so it is the same effect we talked about above only this time it reduces the chance each gene being good so if it is 75% chance then with another gene added it is 56% and another makes it 42%, etc. Of course all of this is only 30-50% of the picture. If the mare isn't fed right or the foal lies in the mare incorrectly or it isn't fed right, then this all compromises the picture. Good horsemanship and sound genetics go hand in hand. |
||
Abel Tasman...Keen Ice...Divisidero....Verrazano...Catchy...Carrick...Ivictory...
|
||
Riceman
Champion Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1501 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
But, your final para is the key and goes to the heart of what I've been saying for years with my 10% genetics 20% environment 70% luck formula.
What has yet to get proper attention in the field of genetics is the role of enzymes as they affect the display of genetic potential. And enzymes are directly affected by the environmental factors and the chemistry at play from such. The environmental factors are not purely the environment but take into account the raising, training, and sustaining components as well.
|
||
John H
Champion Joined: 23 Feb 2007 Status: Offline Points: 849 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I'm glad you think so Riceman (and we all know your vague point) because the way I see it Byron has moved from explaining things in terms of Ss (etc) to CT (etc) to now GB (etc). Red and blue and purple ? For heaven's sake.
Remind me again what Equinome is actually saying. I know. That CC + TT could make purple ! Not one of us doubts that environmental factors are critical to the end result and also that there will inevitably be advances in the study of equine genetics which will improve our understanding of thoroughbred breeding. Even we Dosage boffins ! To give you a heads-up, a few months back I posted a list of stakeswinning full relations & made the point that many were raced by their breeder & trained by the same trainer & were therefore reared & trained under similar conditions, As well as have much the same distance requirements (hey), again in a majority of cases. At about the same rate as the Equinome results I would guess except Equinome is very, very limited in what it is actually saying, IMO. So back to Lonhro, the fact that so many of his SWs were reared & trained under the same "environmental" (inc mating planning) conditions is extremely important to his results on the track, as well as the aptitudinal issues already mentioned. |
||
brogers
Champion Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Location: Lexington, KY Status: Offline Points: 1106 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
In light on my comments above
|
||
Abel Tasman...Keen Ice...Divisidero....Verrazano...Catchy...Carrick...Ivictory...
|
||
brogers
Champion Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Location: Lexington, KY Status: Offline Points: 1106 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
John You are obviously missing the point...it can't be purple. You got a one from the sire and one from the dam, so the horse is one of these is then expressed in the horse as DOMINANT over the other resulting in the horse having the aptitude of the sire or the dam whichever gene is dominant in the allele. You don't get a mix of the two, you get one from each parent and then one of the two is dominant over the other.
|
||
Abel Tasman...Keen Ice...Divisidero....Verrazano...Catchy...Carrick...Ivictory...
|
||
John H
Champion Joined: 23 Feb 2007 Status: Offline Points: 849 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Byron
T:T (red) on C:C (blue) = 100% CT (neither red or blue - hence purple) This is exactly the criticism you levelled at Dosage unless I am missing the point. It is certainly not black and white anyway. |
||
Progold
Champion Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 3212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If I could just make the point that Dosage is not a study of genetics. Yes, we all realise genetic inheritance, but we are talking potenital aptitude (as well as the oft forgotten developmental issues of dosage especially important in Varola's work).
Quite simply, there aren't any good performance genes and bad perfomance genes. If racing ability was a single inherited trait, or even a combination thereof, it would be a very simple process to breed to these. Jus think if it was a grey horse you wanted, or a grey horse with a short neck, or a grey horse with a short neck and short cannons etc etc. Not that hard to breed in a few generations irrespective of the combination. Quite simply, racing ability is not genetically inheritable as such. The best it could ever do is predispose a horse to superior racing ability subject of course to Riceman's other factors that have to always be acknowledged. In the case of Danewin and Commands, how much was this a factor of their own racing performance?
With RC, EDL, Danehill and a theory that they express these good genes more often, it would be almost impossible to believe a concept where a mare would produce a better runner by another stallion (occasionally a pretty ordinary one but enough to produce a SW to get the mare her opportunity at these expensive stallions). Just have a look any Saturday at the list of stallions with runners at Sturday metropolitan meetings. It doesn't really reflect the wonder of the Sire's Tables all that well, even though a Sires' Table is apparently a measure of the ability of a stallion to pass on these "good" genes more often.
|
||
don
Champion Joined: 05 Oct 2010 Status: Offline Points: 330 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Never can be purple =is either TC or CT
|
||
John H
Champion Joined: 23 Feb 2007 Status: Offline Points: 849 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That equation is a direct quote from the Equinome website. They do not differentiate between CT or TC, by the way.
I think what both Byron & Don are saying then is that either T (red) or C (blue) will be dominant, with Byron saying the horse will have the aptitude of the sire or the dam, depending on what's what. But that is not what Equinome has found, is it ? They say that CT horses perform in a different manner to both CC horses & TT horses, being middle distance specialists in general terms. They are not in general specialist sprinters or out-and-out stayers as would be inferred if C or T were dominant, the way I think Byron implies. CT horses are neither dominant red or dominant blue the way I read the Equinome data. They might not be purple (which is just used as an example BTW being neither red or blue) either but they seem to race that way. At least that would be my impartial reading of the Equinome results. |
||
Progold
Champion Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 3212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Talking about the expression of individual genes can also be misleading. If we cross a thoroughbred with an arabian, we don't get either a thoroughbred or an arabian. We get a horse with a mix of genes which is neither thoroughbred nor arabian.
|
||
reng
Champion Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 2231 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Ultimately it is unknown whether a 'good performance' set of genes behaves like skin colour (with a blended result) or like tongue rolling (either can do it or can't). Or perhaps somewhere in the middle.
|
||
The problem with Opportunity is that it wears overalls and looks like work.
|
||
reng
Champion Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 2231 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
that should be HUMAN skin colour - horse coat colour is a set of either/or genes!
|
||
The problem with Opportunity is that it wears overalls and looks like work.
|
||
Run For Fun
Champion Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 14575 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Vigorous debate has always been welcome here Isis.
However personal abuse or denigration such as that above is totally unacceptable, and certainly won't be tolerated in the longer term.
Am absolutely certain I speak for the majority in saying so, and thus encourage you to positively contribute your knowledge and ideas to the forum.
|
||
It's hard to soar with eagles...
Cheers |
||
djebel
Premium Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Status: Offline Points: 53960 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
In fact its bordering on stalking. I get the impression Isis knows his/her breeding, we want to read his/her knowledge on the subject, this constant "stalking" for want of a better term is disappointing. |
||
reductio ad absurdum
|
||
Post Reply | Page <1234 5> |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |