Could a horse win the KY Derby as 4 yo?!

[Dark Horse]

I recently re-examined California Chrome's races. My conclusion, granted, stands or falls with my methodology. I had noted that CC was overcoming all sorts of obstacles that other horses couldn't. Race after race. His 'grid' for the KY Derby, for instance, showed nothing special, where other winners of that 20 horse stampede have standout off-the-charts grids. The same for his other wins. Somehow, for some reason, CC was the odd one out. I love the horse and his achievements, but either he was some sort of super horse that could overcome what no other horse could, or there was another explanation.

Puzzled by the curious case of California Chrome, I decided on a hunch to enter a December birth, two months prior to his recorded date. This little experiment completely flipped the picture. Suddenly, with the horse now two months older, every single one of his wins jumped off the page! From absolutely nothing (February) to undeniably excellent (December). There was the real Chrome, effortlessly joining the other Derby winners!

But could CC have been born in December? Horses are bred to be born early in the new year. Could it have been a premature birth? I asked my mentor about premature births, who pointed out that they certainly occur, even as early as November, but that they never appear as such in the records. After all, with a cutoff date of January 1st, it would completely undermine the horse's racing career. So the 'reality' is that there are no horses born in December...

With this new bit of information I had come full circle. I had started with the inexplicable nature of Chrome's wins, had followed this with an experimental adjustment to December, and ended up with precisely the type of reality, surrounding premature births, that is swept under the carpet. In other words, I now had a POSSIBLE reason for Chrome's collection of inexplicable wins, as well as a solution in that very same reason.

In my opinion it's POSSIBLE that Chrome, technically, ran as a 4 yo in the Derby. I add 'technically', because the rigid January 1st date is perhaps too inflexible. If people invest thousands in breeding, then why should their money be wasted in case of a premature birth? But bettors, without whom this game ceases to exist, deserve to know. Two months difference at that age is big.

[Greyfox]

Sorry.
But to be honest, you haven't presented any evidence here worthy of looking at twice and that's a hell of a charge to make based on mere suspicions.:ThmbDown:

[Dark Horse]

Sorry.
But to be honest, you haven't presented any evidence here worthy of looking at twice and that's a hell of a charge to make based on mere suspicions.:ThmbDown:

I precluded it with the admission that it stands or falls with my methodology. This topic is not to prove the case. That can be done, but is a whole different ballgame. I was relating an experience, and did so to raise awareness to the fact that this happens in horse racing, with CC as a possible high profile example.

[Greyfox]

I precluded it with the admission that it stands or falls with my methodology. Can I prove it? Yes. But I would first have to unveil and teach that methodology. Am I going to do that on this forum? Nope.

This thread is not to prove the case. I was relating an experience, and did so to raise awareness to the fact that this happens in horse racing, with CC as a possible high profile example.

Essentially, you are charging the connections with fraud.
In the absence of your so called methodology you could be exposing yourself and possibly PA to a libel action.
I think that this thread should be closed down.

[Dark Horse]

Essentially, you are charging the connections with fraud.
In the absence of your so called methodology you could be exposing yourself and possibly PA to a libel action.
I think that this thread should be closed down.

Before opening this can of worms I asked PA if he was ok with the topic.

You got your hat on too tight. You're acting as if premature births are untouchable. This is all part of horse racing. Open season.

[Greyfox]

Before opening this can of worms I asked PA if he was ok with the topic.

You got your hat on too tight. You're acting as if premature births are untouchable.

But I don't have a loose screw rattling around.

[Dark Horse]

But I don't have a loose screw rattling around.

If PA wishes to close this topic I'm perfectly fine with it. Sorry I wasn't aware of your self-ascribed moderator status.

[Greyfox]

If PA wishes to close this topic I'm perfectly fine with it. Sorry I wasn't aware of your self-ascribed moderator status.

I'm not a moderator.
I gave my opinion on your horrible accusation.

[mostpost]

Do you also believe that Ann Dunham forged a Hawaii birth certificate when her son Barack was born in Kenya, because she knew he would one day run for President of the United States?

[Dark Horse]

I'm not a moderator.
I gave my opinion on your horrible accusation.

Are you saying that a discussion revolving around the reality of premature births that are not reported as such should be taboo?

[Dark Horse]

Do you also believe that Ann Dunham forged a Hawaii birth certificate when her son Barack was born in Kenya, because she knew he would one day run for President of the United States?

No. I'm suggesting that this is standard practice. But never mind.

PaceAdvantage, this topic is not leading to anything constructive. Please be so kind to erase it.

[davew]

Do you also believe that Ann Dunham forged a Hawaii birth certificate when her son Barack was born in Kenya, because she knew he would one day run for President of the United States?

Ann's parents lied about who was the father.

[mostpost]

I would think that as with humans, there is a birth certificate involved. I would guess that the birth certificate is filled out by the attending veterinarian. I feel pretty certain that these certificates are sequentially numbered and a great deal of suspicion would be raised if a certificate with a number from December turned up with a date from February. I think yours is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard in a long time. I don't know what your "methodology" is, but if it comes up with this result, I think you need a new methodology.

[Stillriledup]

But I don't have a loose screw rattling around.

I love outside the box thinking. Don't be "that guy" who is afraid of change and offbeat topics, evolve, its 2014, stretch your mind and don't get offended by people who do.

[nijinski]

http://youtu.be/_iFG9isQpzs

I'm sure if he was born earlier someone from Harris Farm would have
been talking .
Enjoy the Video !

[nijinski]

Dark Horse , no problem with being curious . That's what makes life interesting .
I think though , these days it might be hard to hide the proper DOB when
registering .

But there were some kids attempting to break big into baseball who were older than the rest , from the DR I believe . They tried , lol.

[lamboguy]

i have bred horses in New York and Kentucky and now in Pennsylvania, Indiana and Maryland for about 30 years now. i have always scheduled foals to drop in March at the earliest. the only reason is because when they drop and are done with their suckling period of time and are ready to graze on the grass, the grass is green. that is very important for the development of the horse. i have never bred in California so i have no idea when the best time is to drop. my guess is that if CHROME dropped early he would not have turned out so good.

[duncan04]

Wow my head hurts :bang:

[tucker6]

http://youtu.be/_iFG9isQpzs

I'm sure if he was born earlier someone from Harris Farm would have
been talking .
Enjoy the Video !
Great video. You have to admit though, CC was born in a manger, so a December baby is not out of the question. :D

Sometimes people look so closely that they start seeing things.

[Frost king]

As with most premature births, whether in humans or animals, health complications occur. Whether mental or physical, issues are part of the day to day routine. California Chrome, would have not developed into a WORLD CLASS ATHELETE, if he had been born premature. He would have been gelded along time ago, in an effort to make him a viable racing animal. In fact most premature births result in increased BREATHING ISSUES, so California Chrome never would have made it to this level.

[OverlayHunter]

Two months difference at that age is big.

Dark Horse, I don't know whether or not you are correct that premature foals born in December get designated a birth date in the year they'd have been born had the pregnancy gone full term. It seems to me that there are a number on this site who would know the answer to that (lamboguy?).

Where I believe your premise is faulty lies in the quote above from one of your posts. To the best of my knowledge and experience, premature births of 2 months never produce full weight, fully developed foals. In their first two months after premature delivery they are merely playing "catch up" to where they should have been had they been born at full term. If anything, a higher percentage of premature foals will have physical and mental problems relative to those born at full term - a distinct disadvantage at odds with your quote which suggested these foals are ahead of the game. Perhaps the fact these foals won't reach the development of a full term foal until the next year may be why they are included in the next year's crop (if, in fact, that is what happens).

[magwell]

My guess is no vets at plenty of farms when these foals are born and if one is born lets say in December, its probably like some off track training tracks its the honor system and they get registered as Jan. foals,but I have no proof of this that I can speak about or would I if i did ............;)

[nearco]

As with most premature births, whether in humans or animals, health complications occur. Whether mental or physical, issues are part of the day to day routine. California Chrome, would have not developed into a WORLD CLASS ATHELETE, if he had been born premature. He would have been gelded along time ago, in an effort to make him a viable racing animal. In fact most premature births result in increased BREATHING ISSUES, so California Chrome never would have made it to this level.

Who said anything about premature births? The implication is intentional timing, to give the horse an advantage.

[nearco]

My guess is no vets at plenty of farms when these foals are born and if one is born lets say in December, its probably like some off track training tracks its the honor system and they get registered as Jan. foals,but I have no proof of this that I can speak about or would I if i did ............;)

It happens, but probably not as often as some people think. It is major fraud though, and the JC would strike you off if they caught you.
Around Lexington the JC have "inspectors" who are out in late December looking for any early foals.

[nearco]

Here's an interesting article about the subject from about 10 years ago.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/29657/jockey-club-rule-changed-inspections-possible-of-early-foals

[elhelmete]

Crock of manure.

Please everyone recall that at the time of his birth, CC was just another Cal-bred schmo.

Back to earth....

[nearco]

Crock of manure.

Please everyone recall that at the time of his birth, CC was just another Cal-bred schmo.

Back to earth....

Exactly.
Also the idea that they could fudge his birth date by 7 or 8 weeks is a bit funny. A couple of days or a week, yeah maybe. But not a couple of months.

[Tor Ekman]

Like a book by Dick Francis about a murder committed to cover up fact that a top bred colt was born late New Year's Eve rather than early morning New Year's Day.

[PaceAdvantage]

Weird how upset some people are getting. Going so far as to invoke Obama when it is clearly forbidden to mix politics with the racing section.

Other people then think it's ok to post profanity...

Touchy touchy...

Mind you, this is only one man's theory based on his own proprietary information where he was trying to make his figures make sense.

Don't think this rises to the level of libel, especially given how famous the actors involved....but I'm sure we have lawyers out there who will privately advise me if they think otherwise... ;)

[Tom]

We can't agree on who will horse of the year, now, we can't even agree on what year! :lol::lol:

[Dark Horse]

Dark Horse , no problem with being curious . That's what makes life interesting .
I think though , these days it might be hard to hide the proper DOB when
registering .

But there were some kids attempting to break big into baseball who were older than the rest , from the DR I believe . They tried , lol.

The fact is that there are no thoroughbreds born in December. That of itself should ring a bell. Unless no horse is ever born prematurely, of course.

But I wasn't looking for that answer. I stumbled upon it. It all started with Chrome's results making no sense whatsoever when placed next to other horses. So I have the consistent method to back up the finding, but I fully appreciate that others may not believe a word without a close inquiry of that method. That would be my first inclination as well, and it would be the correct scientific approach. If I ever write a book about my method, which would not serve my purpose, I'll be sure to include a chapter about California Chrome. Meanwhile, the topic can be less specific and focus on the general practice of prematurely born horses not being given an accurate date. The motivation behind that should be obvious. People invest thousands of dollars in breeding.

Thanks for this link, nearco. http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/29657/jockey-club-rule-changed-inspections-possible-of-early-foals So greed is also apparent in the extension of the breeding season to where it starts earlier. Still, with no December foals as a consequence... I doubt the Jockey Club pulled that out of thin air just to make an interesting statement.

[jballscalls]

The fact is that there are no thoroughbreds born in December. That of itself should ring a bell. Unless no horse is ever born prematurely, of course.

.

I've met breeders who have told me they've had horses in late December. I think they just report the foal a few days/weeks later on January 1.

[classhandicapper]

I don't see anything particularly unusual about California Chrome's PPs or development. He did develop somewhat explosively, but that's not too unusual for 3yos. Most of his early starts were on synthetic. He had tough trip in the Golden St Juvenile in his first start on dirt. He may just like dirt a lot more.

I think a reasonable case can also be made that his performance in the BC Classic was his lifetime best race. If so, then he continued to develop well into the year.

[horses4courses]

What a load of nonsense.

I believe that Elvis is still alive.
I believe that no one ever set foot on the moon.
I believe that there were 6 shooters in Dallas.
I believe that the missing Malaysian airliner is looking for Amelia Earhart.
I believe that Santa is coming in a couple of weeks.

A conspiracy theory on CC's birthday?
I'm not crazy, ya know...... :lol:

[Dark Horse]

I've met breeders who have told me they've had horses in late December. I think they just report the foal a few days/weeks later on January 1.

Thanks. Skeptics to this practice are very welcome to present records of December births. I was told a December date may also be turned into a February birth, to avoid people taking too close a look. Combined with the earlier Jockey Club focus we may have quite a hole between the definition of a 3 yo and reality.

FWIW, California Chrome was reported to have been born very big, and was kept in quarantine (away from other horses, and exposed only to people) for his first months. Certainly no proof in itself, yet certainly not inconsistent with an earlier birth either.

[Dark Horse]

What a load of nonsense.

I believe that Elvis is still alive.
I believe that no one ever set foot on the moon.
I believe that there were 6 shooters in Dallas.
I believe that the missing Malaysian airliner is looking for Amelia Earhart.
I believe that Santa is coming in a couple of weeks.

A conspiracy theory on CC's birthday?
I'm not crazy, ya know...... :lol:

Feel free to present a single record of a December birth for US thoroughbreds. That is, if you can see the larger issue through your forest of funny stuff.

[horses4courses]

Feel free to present a single record of a December birth for US thoroughbreds. That is, if you can see the larger issue through your forest of funny stuff.

So, let's say a horse is born in December, which I'm sure happens.
Short of having a patrol going from farm to farm, what is to be done?

The maturity edge gained by a 2yo born that early is significant.
That's assuming, of course, that the horse is a runner in the first place.

Switching a horse's birth date by one month is not that big a deal, is it?
Every horse born in December, and it must be a pretty small crop, should
not be banned from running for the sake of a couple of weeks or days.

Applying this unusual scenario to a Kentucky Derby winner is a real stretch,
and with no evidence to back it up, is best ignored.

Actually, it smacks of a far fetched argument against CC as HOTY.

[banacek]

Your two month theory might have some validity:

Barbaro: April 29, Funny Cide: April 20, Fusaichi Pegasus: April 12, Big Brown: April 10, I'll Have Another: April 1, Mine That Bird: May 10

[baconswitchfarm]

Thanks. Skeptics to this practice are very welcome to present records of December births. I was told a December date may also be turned into a February birth, to avoid people taking too close a look. Combined with the earlier Jockey Club focus we may have quite a hole between the definition of a 3 yo and reality.

FWIW, California Chrome was reported to have been born very big, and was kept in quarantine (away from other horses, and exposed only to people) for his first months. Certainly no proof in itself, yet certainly not inconsistent with an earlier birth either.


My grandfather was around standardbred breeding operations when I was young. It was common for farms who stood the stud and were keeping the foals to breed for a October or November foal , then register them for the following year. Pretty common practice. Guys would joke about certain breeders who raced in 2 year old stake races having to do the 3 year old dental work before they brought the horses off the farm to the track. It is not that wild an accusation .

[biggestal99]

Usually if you get "christmas surprise" you get your foal papers dated jan 1, no big deal

Allan

[horses4courses]

My grandfather was around standardbred breeding operations when I was young. It was common for farms who stood the stud and were keeping the foals to breed for a October or November foal , then register them for the following year. Pretty common practice. Guys would joke about certain breeders who raced in 2 year old stake races having to do the 3 year old dental work before they brought the horses off the farm to the track. It is not that wild an accusation .

I'm sure that this happens.
Anyone who thinks they can get an edge in this game will resort to anything.

[biggestal99]

My grandfather was around standardbred breeding operations when I was young. It was common for farms who stood the stud and were keeping the foals to breed for a October or November foal , then register them for the following year. Pretty common practice. Guys would joke about certain breeders who raced in 2 year old stake races having to do the 3 year old dental work before they brought the horses off the farm to the track. It is not that wild an accusation .

Of course harness racing allows IE which allows early foals.

Tb stud farms open mid feb for live covers.

Allan

[horses4courses]

Feel free to present a single record of a December birth for US thoroughbreds. That is, if you can see the larger issue through your forest of funny stuff.

"Premies" should be granted Jan 1st as a birth date automatically.

Breeding to have an early foal is another story.
There should be lifetime bans from the sport for those found guilty of that.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Remember that the Univeral Northern Hemisphere Horse Birthday of Jan 1st is completely arbitrary. They could have made it Dec 1st, but it is just easier to use the Jan 1st & new year date for the full year.

[onefast99]

http://youtu.be/_iFG9isQpzs

I'm sure if he was born earlier someone from Harris Farm would have
been talking .
Enjoy the Video !
That's better than the testimony given in My Cousin Vinny!!!! Priceless....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL4HdaZXuOw

[iceknight]

I recently re-examined California Chrome's races. If people invest thousands in breeding, then why should their money be wasted in case of a premature birth? But bettors, without whom this game ceases to exist, deserve to know. Two months difference at that age is big. :lol::lol::lol: Please explain how many thousands were invested in the Chrome breeding operation. How much was Lucky Pulpit's stud fee in.. ahem what 2009 or 2010?

This was his fee in 2012: http://www.bloodhorse.com/stallion-register/stallions/131655/lucky-pulpit/auctions/2012

[elhelmete]

It all started with Chrome's results making no sense whatsoever when placed next to other horses.

This happens 100x a day...how is this unique?

This is like me saying I lost my car keys and then getting on a plane to look for them in Tahiti.

[elhelmete]

:lol::lol::lol: Please explain how many thousands were invested in the Chrome breeding operation. How much was Lucky Pulpit's stud fee in.. ahem what 2009 or 2010?

This was his fee in 2012: http://www.bloodhorse.com/stallion-register/stallions/131655/lucky-pulpit/auctions/2012

Exactly. CC was 99.99% more likely to be a one-and-done (S) MCL 5000 at Stockton than anything he ultimately turned out to be.

[iceknight]

This happens 100x a day...how is this unique?

This is like me saying I lost my car keys and then getting on a plane to look for them in Tahiti. But you know it is brighter and sunnier in Tahiti so you can search better! Besides there won't be any snow to bury your keys under?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect

[elhelmete]

But you know it is brighter and sunnier in Tahiti so you can search better! Besides there won't be any snow to bury your keys under?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect

Dave Jacobson's number don't make any sense to me compared to other trainers.

Can you prove he's not the sasquatch?

[mostpost]

Weird how upset some people are getting. Going so far as to invoke Obama when it is clearly forbidden to mix politics with the racing section.

Other people then think it's ok to post profanity...

Touchy touchy...

Mind you, this is only one man's theory based on his own proprietary information where he was trying to make his figures make sense.

Don't think this rises to the level of libel, especially given how famous the actors involved....but I'm sure we have lawyers out there who will privately advise me if they think otherwise... ;)
Oh come on!!! Seriously? I was merely pointing out the absurdity of Dark Horse's theory.

[castaway01]

Dave Jacobson's number don't make any sense to me compared to other trainers.

Can you prove he's not the sasquatch?

Look, don't deny the obvious...this massive $2500 stud fee operation had a long-designed plan to lie about California Chrome's birthdate, knowing with his regal breeding he would no doubt be a Derby, and quite likely Triple Crown, winner with that extra month of seasoning over his rivals. It also got him extra birthday presents.

I do have a picture of Jacobson and Sasquatch together, so I think he knows him but isn't actually part of the family.

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh come on!!! Seriously? I was merely pointing out the absurdity of Dark Horse's theory.But as others have shown, including those in the industry...it's really NOT that absurd a topic to ponder.

But you and a few others got so riled up, I found that to be a bit absurd. It's as if he insulted a member of your family...

[Greyfox]

But as others have shown, including those in the industry...it's really NOT that absurd a topic to ponder.

But you and a few others got so riled up, I found that to be a bit absurd. It's as if he insulted a member of your family...

Essentially Dark Horse has accused Steve Coburn and Perry Martin of fraud.
He has besmirched their reputations and the fine record of California Chrome and hasn't been asked to show a shred of evidence for his claim.
To water it down a bit Dark Horse has tried to intertwine his accusations with the fact that premature births are likely recorded late by some owners.
It is a horrible accusation and a horrible post.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey, I have no problem with most of the OP. The title of the thread had a question mark. The subsequent paragraphs had hedges galore ... marks of honest questioning ... no problem.

But then:

"Personally, I'm convinced that Chrome, technically, ran as a 4 yo in the Derby."

I'm sorry, that is nothing but a concrete claim, based upon some undisclosed methodology, without any basis in fact, having no evidence from the breeding farm whatsoever, and resulting in a smear of people that were never approached for answers. IOW, completely indefensible from either a logical or ethical standpoint. Low rent. Stupid, actually.He said "personally." Kind of like "In my opinion."

Why all the vitriol?

[clocker7]

But as others have shown, including those in the industry...it's really NOT that absurd a topic to ponder.

But you and a few others got so riled up, I found that to be a bit absurd. It's as if he insulted a member of your family...
That you don't recognize/concede that the OP went from the generality that "farms might cheat" to "this farm cheated" without presenting any evidence brings your own fairness into question.

I am a proponent of thinking outside the box as anyone, and have no illusions about cheating where money is involved. But where's the beef here?

[clocker7]

He said "personally." Kind of like "In my opinion."

Why all the vitriol?
Because it is beneath anybody with a brain or a conscience.

[PaceAdvantage]

Essentially Dark Horse has accused Steve Coburn and Perry Martin of fraud.
He has besmirched their reputations and the fine record of California Chrome and hasn't been asked to show a shred of evidence for his claim.
To water it down a bit Dark Horse has tried to intertwine his accusations with the fact that premature births are likely recorded late by some owners.
It is a horrible accusation and a horrible post.Oh please...stop with the melodrama.

"Besmirched"

He hasn't done anything but speculated on something that apparently has happened in the past (premature births being bumped up).

He said "Personally, I believe."

That's the same as saying "In my opinion."

Anyone can have an opinion. Try not to get so upset about it. He's an anonymous guy posting on a message board.

You're acting as if Beyer himself wrote about this in the Washington Post.

[Greyfox]

If you're not worried about what's posted here, I won't either.
If Coburn and Martin react to that, don't be surprised.

[PaceAdvantage]

If you're not worried about what's posted here, I won't either.
If Coburn and Martin react to that, don't be surprised.And I'm sure you'll be the first to send them an email

[Greyfox]

And I'm sure you'll be the first to send them an email

I certainly will not do that.

[horses4courses]

This thread is just plain ridiculous more than anything else.

But, it's starting to make sense as to why some
otherwise rational people are playing along.

I'm just surprised that something similar was
never brought up about Zenyatta.

Having never raced at 2, though, such a
theory would have been screaming out
"complete whack job at work here" .

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually, it smacks of a far fetched argument against CC as HOTY.And herein lies the source of most of the hate thrown at the OP... :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Exactly. CC was 99.99% more likely to be a one-and-done (S) MCL 5000 at Stockton than anything he ultimately turned out to be.I'm pretty sure the OP never claimed that they knew they had a runner the minute he was born....

[PaceAdvantage]

Look, don't deny the obvious...this massive $2500 stud fee operation had a long-designed plan to lie about California Chrome's birthdate, knowing with his regal breeding he would no doubt be a Derby, and quite likely Triple Crown, winner with that extra month of seasoning over his rivals. It also got him extra birthday presents.

I do have a picture of Jacobson and Sasquatch together, so I think he knows him but isn't actually part of the family.Again, I'm pretty sure this wasn't stated or even remotely implied as a possible motivation.

[clocker7]

I don't understand why PA thinks this guy is above criticism.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't understand why PA thinks this guy is above criticism.He's not above criticism at all.

It's the NASTINESS of it that surprises me.

Criticize all you want.

Heck, you'd think he was comparing someone to the Nazis the way some react on here... :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Dear Greyfox and others:

I used all my editing skills to rewrite a few bits of Dark Horse's original post in this thread (including the title).

I hope everyone can relax a little bit now...

[clocker7]

Until I see something more fleshed-out beyond talk of a "grid," I'm filing this away as Uranus Paranoia.

[GatetoWire]

This thread is hilarious

Thanks to Dark Horse and PA for making my day. If you waited until April 1st it would have been perfect!!

[Tall One]

I don't understand why PA thinks this guy is above criticism.



I dont understand how this thread has gone 5 pages....:D

/Tahiti

[elhelmete]

I'm pretty sure the OP never claimed that they knew they had a runner the minute he was born....

Agreed but it would seem logical that the incentive to cheat a birthdate on a modestly (some would say pedestrian) bred horse would be far less than to do so for a regally bred one. Although I guess you could say...well, never mind.

And it's not as if there aren't scores of horses at the moment whose 3yo resumes are hard to reconcile...funny how just CC seemed to be the one perplexing DH and his system (at least until the original post was edited a few times).

I just believe if you're going to suggest one of the least probable causes for something, you better have a lot more evidence.

[letswastemoney]

I think this thread is silly too, but can grid be explained at least?

[elhelmete]

I think this thread is silly too, but can grid be explained at least?

My guess is he uses the supposed actual foaling date as a starting point and views performances and milestones through that lens. A fancied up version of "late foal vs. early foal" idea. But I could be wrong.

[letswastemoney]

My guess is he uses the supposed actual foaling date as a starting point and views performances and milestones through that lens. A fancied up version of "late foal vs. early foal" idea. But I could be wrong.I see. It seems like horses develop at different rates depending on their family and trainer style. I've never thought too hard about considering whether a horse is an early or late foal.

[Cratos]

I recently re-examined California Chrome's races. My conclusion, granted, stands or falls with my methodology. I had noted that CC was overcoming all sorts of obstacles that other horses couldn't. Race after race. His 'grid' for the KY Derby, for instance, showed nothing special, where other winners of that 20 horse stampede have standout off-the-charts grids. The same for his other wins. Somehow, for some reason, CC was the odd one out. I love the horse and his achievements, but either he was some sort of super horse that could overcome what no other horse could, or there was another explanation.

Puzzled by the curious case of California Chrome, I decided on a hunch to enter a December birth, two months prior to his recorded date. This little experiment completely flipped the picture. Suddenly, with the horse now two months older, every single one of his wins jumped off the page! From absolutely nothing (February) to undeniably excellent (December). There was the real Chrome, effortlessly joining the other Derby winners!

But could CC have been born in December? Horses are bred to be born early in the new year. Could it have been a premature birth? I asked my mentor about premature births, who pointed out that they certainly occur, even as early as November, but that they never appear as such in the records. After all, with a cutoff date of January 1st, it would completely undermine the horse's racing career. So the 'reality' is that there are no horses born in December...

With this new bit of information I had come full circle. I had started with the inexplicable nature of Chrome's wins, had followed this with an experimental adjustment to December, and ended up with precisely the type of reality, surrounding premature births, that is swept under the carpet. In other words, I now had a POSSIBLE reason for Chrome's collection of inexplicable wins, as well as a solution in that very same reason.

In my opinion it's POSSIBLE that Chrome, technically, ran as a 4 yo in the Derby. I add 'technically', because the rigid January 1st date is perhaps too inflexible. If people invest thousands in breeding, then why should their money be wasted in case of a premature birth? But bettors, without whom this game ceases to exist, deserve to know. Two months difference at that age is big.
I don't believe CC was a 4yo in the 2014 Derby and if he was; wouldn't CC been a very young 4yo?

[clocker7]

There's as much evidence that Secretariat was roided as there is that California Chrome was a 5 year old.

But hey, let's speculate out of our butts ...

[nijinski]

It was all about the shoe change for CC ,That's no lie!

[Dark Horse]

To demonstrate the curious case of California Chrome, and address the larger issue of horse players being given wrong data, I may set up a blog in my spare time. No priority at all so progress will be slow, but it will be under curiouschrome.wordpress.com. Aside from that, let this be my closing statement:

I love California Chrome. He's obviously a great horse. Even if I succeed in proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he was not born in February 2011, but in December 2010, that does not in any way discredit him (although, technically, it would have made him a 4 year old in the KY Derby). Rather, it would show a vulnerability in horse racing, where breeders, to circumvent the rigid January 1st date by which the age of a horse is measured, may add a month or two to the date of birth, in case of December or November foals, or stand to lose much of the investment they made. Since there is no tangible difference between a December 31st and a January 1st foal, yet that one day makes a difference of one year in the age of the horse for racing purposes, horse racing may have to revisit this issue to ensure greater fairness and transparency. As things stand today, there are no December births, at least not on record, for US thoroughbreds. In other words, not the breeders, but the horse players, who make the sport possible, end up with the short end of the stick in the form of incorrect data. As shown here, the issue has been on the table for some time: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/29657/jockey-club-rule-changed-inspections-possible-of-early-foals



'Full disclosure' - I have no interest in discrediting CC during this sensitive HOY time of year. But that will not prevent me from sending him a nice birthday card before Christmas.

The integrity of horse racing is an important topic to me. In any way, form, or shape. FWIW, I once e-mailed a trainer about his cheating. I got a e-mail back filled with profanities. A year or so later, he send me a LinkedIn invitation. lol

[Greyfox]

Even if I succeed in proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he was not born in February 2011, but in December 2010, that does not in any way discredit him (although, technically, it would have made him a 4 year old in the KY Derby)..

You're on a fool's errand.
The only people who will believe your proof will be yourself and a few conspiratorial wingnuts.

[Dark Horse]

You're on a fool's errand.
The only people who will believe your proof will be yourself and a few conspiratorial wingnuts.

If you say so. You're obviously a loser at the track. In the world of sports betting your 'conspiracy theorists' are known as 'contrarians', and respected accordingly.

[Greyfox]

If you say so. You're obviously a loser at the track. In the world of sports betting your 'conspiracy theorists' are known as 'contrarians', and respected accordingly.

Obviously. :lol:

[Dark Horse]

Obviously. :lol:


Good to agree on something.

[horses4courses]

that will not prevent me from sending him a nice birthday card before Christmas.

Awww.....how nice.

I wonder does Hallmark do a "double whammy" card
for a birthday like that so close to Christmas?

Imagine the odds.
Sort of like taking down an entire Daily Double pool.
The "immaculate conception" parlayed to the
Derby winner born 2 months earlier than stated.
The stuff that dreams are made of...... :rolleyes:

Happy holidays!

[Dark Horse]

Awww.....how nice.

I wonder does Hallmark do a "double whammy" card
for a birthday like that so close to Christmas?

Imagine the odds.
Sort of like taking down an entire Daily Double pool.
The "immaculate conception" parlayed to the
Derby winner born 2 months earlier than stated.
The stuff that dreams are made of...... :rolleyes:

Happy holidays!

You're one of those guys trying too hard.

[horses4courses]

You're one of those guys trying too hard.

I have no problem at all with closer scrutiny on foaling dates accuracy.
Pointing a finger at a specific horse with zero proof?
Ridiculous.

[elhelmete]

I have no problem at all with closer scrutiny on foaling dates accuracy.
Pointing a finger at a specific horse with zero proof?
Ridiculous.

Yep.

Although there are a bunch of $10K claimers whose form have baffled me that I now clearly suspect may be a foaling date issue. I look forward to DH's methodology.

[ten2oneormore]

Bayern's dam Alittlebitearly was, as her name suggests, born prematurely on December 14, 2002 which made her almost useless for racing purposes.

[biggestal99]

Your methodolgy concerns 2 year old foaling date, at what point will the others born in january, feb, mar catch up to cc.

Allan

[PaceAdvantage]

I find it interesting...all the EXTREMELY personal and negative criticisms (dare I say offensive) being thrown the OP's way...

Which is quite unusual, considering this board is filled with thread after thread of supposed wrongdoing going on in some corner of the sport...often with little to ZERO proof...and I can't recall someone getting attacked this hard in one of THOSE threads...

Be it the never-ending threads concerning late odds drops...the supposed betting after the bell threads...all the finger pointing at whatever trainer of the moment happens to be winning "too often" for someone's liking...or is winning "the wrong way."

You name it, there are accusations and theories galore on this message board about what you could easily label as FRAUD within the industry.

But this thread is preposterous to some. It has somehow crossed the line. For some reason, it deserves some seriously rude comments thrown Dark Horse's way.

I guess it's because it mentions CC. All of a sudden, that team is off limits from scrutiny. Although you should have seen all the names that owner was being called after the Belmont Stakes.... :lol:

You guys are a funny bunch sometimes.

See, the bottom line is this. Dark Horse obviously has some non-conventional handicapping/analysis angle that he uses relying on foal date. He noticed something unusual about CC and brought it to everyone's attention, along with a possible explanation as to what might be causing the anomaly.

Instead of embracing innovative thinking and trying to glean perhaps something NEW to consider when dealing with rapidly maturing 3yos, a lot of people in this thread dismiss him entirely and call him names. That kind of tells me right there that whatever it is he's looking at might be worth investigating from a handicapping perspective. Following the crowd gets you nowhere.

Some of you really ought to be ashamed of yourselves...acting as if DH insulted your mother...half of you somewhat misinterpreted what DH was writing anyway, likely due to CC being the focus of some possible negative attention, which immediately sent you into a tizzy... :lol:

[elhelmete]

I personally would have reacted the same no matter which current "hot" horse DH singled out. It's poor form and is just as spurious logically as someone blathering on about ONE late odds drop scenario.

[letswastemoney]

I personally would have reacted the same no matter which current "hot" horse DH singled out. It's poor form and is just as spurious logically as someone blathering on about ONE late odds drop scenario.I would have too.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm all for constructive criticism, and feel free to shoot as many holes in the original poster's words as you feel you must.

But let's leave the vitriol and the feigned outrage ("How dare you, you fool!") out of it...

The way t-bred ages are determined, EVEN IF it were proven that a horse technically won the Derby as a 4yo, it doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things, given the arbitrary, official Jan 1 designation.

[raybo]

Your two month theory might have some validity:

Barbaro: April 29, Funny Cide: April 20, Fusaichi Pegasus: April 12, Big Brown: April 10, I'll Have Another: April 1, Mine That Bird: May 10

So, what does that say about Bayern: May 5th?

[raybo]

If a couple of months makes no difference then why are horses bred with the January 1st date in mind, at all? Why would anyone care if a horse is born in February or May? The fact is that, at actual age 3, horses are still developing and many go on to be better runners the next year. So, if a horse is not actually 3 years old when the Derby rolls around, while all the others in that race are actually 3 years old, why wouldn't one consider immaturity as a factor, especially when they go on to beat the same horses later?

I have no doubt that horses are born prior to January 1st, every year, and not registered until after January 1st, whether the birth was in late December, or mid November. One doesn't have to know that a horse is going to go on to be a Derby horse, much less win it, to be motivated to fudge the registration date. One would consider the, obvious, maturity level disadvantage that such horses will face in the near future, and try to alleviate as much of that disadvantage as possible, regardless of any thoughts of what the horse might be worth in the future. While I'm not in favor of singling out one horse, as has been done by the OP, but there is certainly proof enough to bring the problem of imposing a single birth date requirement on the whole population of registered horses, into public view and scrutiny. The January 1st age dating rule is ridiculous, IMO. If you're going to card races for 3 year olds, then each horse in the race should be in their 3rd year of life, period.

[Dark Horse]

I have no doubt that horses are born prior to January 1st, every year, and not registered until after January 1st, whether the birth was in late December, or mid November. One doesn't have to know that a horse is going to go on to be a Derby horse, much less win it, to be motivated to fudge the registration date. One would consider the, obvious, maturity level disadvantage that such horses will face in the near future, and try to alleviate as much of that disadvantage as possible, regardless of any thoughts of what the horse might be worth in the future. While I'm not in favor of singling out one horse, as has been done by the OP, but there is certainly proof enough to bring the problem of imposing a single birth date requirement on the whole population of registered horses, into public view and scrutiny. The January 1st age dating rule is ridiculous, IMO. If you're going to card races for 3 year olds, then each horse in the race should be in their 3rd year of life, period.

Agreed with January 1st problem. The foaling date as well as the breeding date should be on record. If the latter was within 11 months, or whatever the exact gestation period is, of January 1st, then the horse should be eligible for that year, even if he was born a few weeks early. That would be much preferable to the present scenario where a couple of months may be added to an early birth, which can certainly fool bettors who look at such things. (backing up the January 1st date itself wouldn't work, because breeders are just going to react accordingly, by extending the breeding season).

I didn't single out CC for a purpose. Until his race history pointed the way I had no idea about the December births.

[thespaah]

What a load of nonsense.

I believe that Elvis is still alive.
I believe that no one ever set foot on the moon.
I believe that there were 6 shooters in Dallas.
I believe that the missing Malaysian airliner is looking for Amelia Earhart.
I believe that Santa is coming in a couple of weeks.

A conspiracy theory on CC's birthday?
I'm not crazy, ya know...... :lol:
I believe in a constitutional amendment banning artificial turf and the designated hitter.
Opening Christmas presents on Christmas day rather than Christmas Eve.
I believe Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy.
I believe that people who believe there is past posting at race tracks are off their rockers.
And I do believe the more expensive the carpet the more likely the piece of toast will fall buttered side down,

[davew]

What happens to the horses born south of the equator?


Although I have no idea about CC, I have to imagine that a foal born late Dec may not be seen until January/February... especially if breeders/owners push them early.

[Saratoga_Mike]

What happens to the horses born south of the equator?


Although I have no idea about CC, I have to imagine that a foal born late Dec may not be seen until January/February... especially if breeders/owners push them early.

Aug 1 is used instead of Jan 1.

[ultracapper]

Bayern's dam Alittlebitearly was, as her name suggests, born prematurely on December 14, 2002 which made her almost useless for racing purposes.

She's a very well bred horse also. Must have been quite a disappointment, but her broodmare prospects wouldn't have changed. She dropped a nice one anyway.