|
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2011
2:47 PM |
xzoNwG boyfdvexoxvy, [url=http://zzgkcrvgoeob.com/]zzgkcrvgoeob[/url], [link=http://nusanlvxgacp.com/]nusanlvxgacp[/link], http://atuburmuswvo.com/ |
|
Oct 16, 2011
10:31 PM |
l2jSma zgagjorkrmce, [url=http://ixahjidivjgo.com/]ixahjidivjgo[/url], [link=http://awazkngzyssp.com/]awazkngzyssp[/link], http://zzzqvcwgsboy.com/ |
|
Oct 10, 2011
12:17 PM |
QohdCn fhfexfhlobnl, [url=http://qhvxvoqhtgtu.com/]qhvxvoqhtgtu[/url], [link=http://lxmshcqpdnvb.com/]lxmshcqpdnvb[/link], http://xhvidrqtvnkk.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 05, 2011
10:09 AM |
urls3.txt;5;5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2011
3:59 AM |
S7Iyt6 ulxrwovvziyr, [url=http://nwlbwvxqhook.com/]nwlbwvxqhook[/url], [link=http://tutfwhgklevo.com/]tutfwhgklevo[/link], http://ysjbsvgvlbvi.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2011
1:50 AM |
RVnRnc ktsbeizkirnt, [url=http://lroeftwmknki.com/]lroeftwmknki[/url], [link=http://hbrimbsupood.com/]hbrimbsupood[/link], http://revrdhwwmfge.com/ |
|
|
|
Sep 07, 2011
11:58 PM |
agha soulflower zumwalt
44302 monarchy vgt
rjyf sauders mfah
idrhhf medecine pelagius
67021 |
|
Sep 07, 2011
11:49 AM |
pollute |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2011
3:06 AM |
WPzmFB bvkaggfivwjt, [url=http://nefsvtruhssd.com/]nefsvtruhssd[/url], [link=http://fxkydxoeptms.com/]fxkydxoeptms[/link], http://trwzjkdjfngo.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 13, 2009
11:30 AM |
Grindstone to Birdstone to Mine that Bird...ONE thing holds true--- They eat mud better than most. You just had to think one of the Bird bred horses would get a piece. I picked the wrong one....Summer Bird ran well enough and could be a real threat at Elmont, especially with a soft track. |
|
May 12, 2009
9:28 PM |
American breeding concentrates on speed because American racing concentrates on speed. The american thoroughbred is really for the most part genetically equipped to run a mile to a mile and an eighth. This Derby was really no exception. The fact that Birdstone won the Belmont and the Travers, Grindstone won the Derby and Smart Strike has sired horses that can run a distance of ground means that he probably has stamina in his blood. I don't think we can interpret dosage the same way anymore. You have to look distance influences that aren't chef-de-races in the pedigree. Dosage can be a springboard and can still show balance in a pedigree, but can't be the only evaluation of a Derby winner anymore. You always needed more than Dosage. |
|
May 11, 2009
5:59 PM |
papa clem will be the one. to beat. 336 real good chance. my pick will be on him.Check the races he was enter in all qualty horses he ran against.win-place your on top.pioneer of nile and papa clem excato box.add muskment man for trifeca box. my pick |
|
May 11, 2009
5:52 PM |
papa clem will be the one. to beat. 336 real good chance. my pick will be on him. |
|
May 10, 2009
6:10 PM |
THE BOTTOM LINE IS BIRDSTONE IN HIS PEDIGREE, HE WON THE TRAVERS AND THE BELMONT THAT YEAR ON THE SLOP.MIND THAT BIRD OBVIOUSLY LOVES THE SLOP. HOW CAN HIS DOSAGE BE SO HIGH WITH HIS FATHER WINNING THE BELMONT SOMEBODY MISSED THE BOAT..
LET IT RAIN BUFFALO,N.Y KEVIN CULLEN |
|
May 08, 2009
7:16 AM |
With Dosage I was under the impression that the lower the better. And I thought that the guideline was to throw out any horse above 4.0. I mean who would have thought a horse by Yonaguska would get a mile and a quarter? |
|
May 07, 2009
6:49 PM |
where does one find the dosage index for each horse/race |
|
May 07, 2009
1:58 PM |
Is the dosage index printed anywhere in the pp's? |
|
May 07, 2009
5:35 AM |
I thought you could not win the derby with a dosage # greater than 4.00 when did this change? |
|
May 06, 2009
5:28 PM |
This Gooley is no genius to say the least. In order to correctly use dosage, the guidelines are UNDER 4.00, not OVER. It goes to show dosage is just voodoo thinking and not worthy of thought by any reputable or serious handicapper. Your other three handicappers opinions were all well thought out. |
|
May 06, 2009
4:51 PM |
Will not hit the board in either of the next two Triple crown races. Reminded me of all of the crap that happened at Monmouth Park during the breeders cup ! His name should be Mind that Mudder instead. Watch for the class in Pioneer of the Nile or Mr Fantasy come back in run true to form. The Bird and his connections will go down in history as the luckiest winner ever of the derby. Oh by the way small horses don't sink in the mud, they glide over the top. I wonder what kind of chaulks if any that he had on.
Bob G Calif fishboneg@sbcglobal.net |
|
May 06, 2009
4:10 PM |
I doubt very much if Calvin Borel would be able to have the rail again and come from behind like he did in the derby, no one seen him coming,as he squeezed by close to the rail, if the jockey closest to the rail in the stretch see's him coming and moves onto the rail, borel gets shut off and would have had to pull up and take the horse wide, and would have lost all his momentum. It was a hell of a ride but I am looking elsewhere in the preakness. Bob. |
|
May 06, 2009
1:04 PM |
Watching the Derby race on video, you could almost see the race commentator scrambling through the papers on the desk to see who #8 was and the horses name while Mine That Bird was screaming past everyone to victory. Mine That Bird was never mentioned during the race (until the end) or in any handicapping analysis. Perhaps as mentioned in Gord Elder's article "to look closer at every horse and consider all relevant angles before coming to a conclusion."
Sandy - Marin County California |
|
May 06, 2009
11:15 AM |
I was very interested to see the comparative dosage figures listed by Michael Gooley, but I was under the impression that if dosage matters (and most experts seem to be saying that it doesn't anymore, if it ever did), then you should toss any horse with a DI of 4.00 or more, because it would mean that it couldn't get the 1 1/4 mile distance. The only post-Derby analysis I've seen before Gooley's that mentioned dosage attempted to show that the figure of 5.40 for Mine That Bird was misleading and wrong.
I'd really like to know why Michael Gooley is looking at the dosage figures in exactly the opposite way from (almost?) everyone else. Does this angle work for races other than the Kentucky Derby? For races other than this year's Kentucky Derby? |
|
May 06, 2009
10:26 AM |
I think you have the dosage numbers backwards. A high number is bad No one ever won the derby with a DI over four |
|
May 06, 2009
9:38 AM |
Mr. Gooley needs to do some research on Dosage. His article is EXACTLY backwards. A low Dosage number implies stamina. High dosage (5.4) would be sprint proclivity. As Yogi Berra said "You can look it up"
Bubba
Frisco Texas |
|
May 06, 2009
9:35 AM |
Mr Gooley, you might want to go back and take a course on dosage index. Since this figure has come into light since the late 80s in evaluting derby horses, it was the lower the dosage index the better for the stamina distance of the Derby, not higher. If you remeber correctly, Strike the Gold was the first horse ever that had a dosage index above 4.0 and has since been adjusted to 2.6. The only other horse that has ever been above 4.0 to win the Derby is Real Quiet. So in actuality you would have thrown out Mine that Bird based on dosage. It would problably be wise to do some research on the subject before just throwing numbers out in an article. |
|
May 06, 2009
9:30 AM |
How am I supposed to take your site seriously when Michael Gooley doesn't know that the LOWER the Dosage number the better bred the horse fo rthe Derby. Mine That Bird had the WORST Dosage number, not the best. |
|
May 06, 2009
9:08 AM |
WOW - WHAT A RACE - WHAT A KENTUCKY DERBY
|
|
May 06, 2009
8:44 AM |
I thought that the lower the DI means that the horse will perform better in the classics.
This is a reverse of what you are proposing.
What is your thought on this. |
|
May 06, 2009
7:57 AM |
Steve Roman's original assertion was that DI=4.00 was the cut-off for the Kentucky Derby; under 4.00 was fine, but over 4.00 meant the horse had too little stamina. How ironic that Mr. Gooley would want to use the same number as a 'higher the better' scale. Just goes to show how irrelevant Roman Dosage has become. |
|
May 06, 2009
7:37 AM |
I don't understand. I have always been a "dosage" person, but thought the horse's dosage had to be below 4. How does one figure Mine That Bird at 5.40... |
|
May 06, 2009
7:36 AM |
What total bull shit. Mine That Bird has zero chance in the Preakness. He is another phony, like so many others who will never win another major race. Nobody picked this horse to win, including the connections. The other horses were dragging and calling a cab. He merely picked up the pieces. If you do not attend the wedding, do not attend the funeral. |
|
May 06, 2009
7:12 AM |
I appreciate the good insights offered by these four handicappers. |
|
May 06, 2009
6:54 AM |
Nice Article, very Cool |
|
May 06, 2009
6:21 AM |
A high Dosage Index is an indication of speed in
a horses pedigree, not stamina.
Foe decades, any horse with a D.I. over 4.0 was
considered a throwout in the Kentucky Derby.
Using the Dosage Theory alone, Mine The Bird was
the LEAST likey winner. |
|
May 06, 2009
6:08 AM |
ISN'T IT THE THEORY THAT THE DOSAGE INDEX SHOULD BE LESS THAN 4.00 AND THAT OVER 4.00 THE LESS LIKELY IT IS THAT THE HORSE CAN STAY THE DISTANCE???? |
|
May 06, 2009
5:56 AM |
Michael Gooley's comments indicate that he knows nothing about Dosage index and its application to handicapping. All the studies conducted by Steven Roman and Dr. Varola (the 2 most prominent founders practitioners of the Dosage method of analysis)concluded that the higher the Dosage Index the LESS LIKELY the horse will be able to successfully handle so-called "classic" distances, like the mile and a quarter of the Derby. Conversely, they concluded that the LOWER the dosage index, the more likely it would be for the horse to run well at those longer distances. In fact, they (and Leon Rasmussen, the dean of breeding analysis) set a dosage index of 4.00 as the maximum figure at which any horse could be expected to run well at a mile and a quarter or more. They automatically "threw out" any horse with a dosage of 4.00 or higher. Thus, Mine That Bird, with a dosage of 5.40, would never have been cinsidered a likely candidate for victory in the Derby. He would be an automatic throw-out.
Harris Factor
Columbia, MD
hgfact@gmail.com |
|
May 06, 2009
5:29 AM |
Let's face it, the World of Handicapping and Handicapppers got taken by Mine That Bird. Yes, hindsight is always 20-20, but no one really paid attention to the Dosage Index and almost everyone discounted the winning jockey of the Kentucky Oaks to come back and win the Kentucky Derby. All I can say is congratulations to the horse, jockey and its connections! All three taught a valuable lesson: NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE HEART OF A WINNER!
Sherman R. White
Charlottesville, Virginia |
|
May 06, 2009
5:16 AM |
Let's face it, the World of Handicapping and Handicapppers got taken by Mine That Bird. Yes, hindsight is always 20-20, but no one really paid attention to te Dosage Index and almost everyone discounted the winning jockey of the Kentucky Oaks to come back and win the Kentucky Derby. All I can say is congratulations to the horse, jockey and its connections! All three taught a valuable lesson: NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE HEART OF A WINNER!
Sherman R. White
Charlottesville, Virginia |
|
May 06, 2009
5:06 AM |
i thought a dosage of under 4.0 was an indicator of breeding that would be able to "go" the Derby distance. It seems that these dosages would point out that they couldn't get the distance in racehorse time. |
|
May 06, 2009
3:51 AM |
I hope the last 'fellow' (being kind), Mr Gooley is being sarcastic. The higher the dosage, the least likely to handle the distance. Lower is better as it pertains to the Derby. |
|
May 06, 2009
3:28 AM |
I trust Gooley wrote his dosage piece tounge in cheek! Using reverse logic is cute. |
|
May 06, 2009
12:13 AM |
These were wonderful articles and useful my main pick was Musket Man but actually put 4 to win and 4 to place on the Bird..just because of Birdstone.I really enjoy your e-mails
|
|
May 05, 2009
11:55 PM |
Please forward to Michael A. Gooley, TrackPro.com
Dear Mr. Gooley:
I think you have the basic workings of the Dosage Index Theory backwards. Under the system, it is a D.I. that is no NO HIGHER THAN 4.00 (not one that is higher than the D.I.'s of all the other horses in the race) that identifies a horse as a likely contender in the Kentucky Derby. The 5.40 D.I. of Mine That Bird, highest in the field, singled him out as a dud, but in recent years, for a variety of interconnected reasons, Dosage Theory has lost a lot of its original significance. Most serious handicappers, the kind that really understand Dosage Theory, no longer take it into consideration when handicapping the Derby. Sorry to rain on your parade, but... Regards, John Marshall
jjmarshall@rogers.com
|
|
May 05, 2009
11:08 PM |
i THOUGHT THE DOSAGE OF A RANKING CONTENDER FOR THE DERBY NEEDED TO BE UNDER 4.00 ANYTHING OVER IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE MORE SPEED THEN STANIMA. ROMAN HAS HIS OWN WEB SITE THAT RANK THE DERBY CONTENDERS ON DOSAGE AND MTB WASNT IN THE TOP 10.THINK YOUR CONFUSING ALOT OF PEOPLE' |
|
