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

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by 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.

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-raci...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]

Originally Posted by Dark 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)..

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]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

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]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

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.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Obviously.

Good to agree on something.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

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......

Happy holidays!

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

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......

Happy holidays!

You're one of those guys trying too hard.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

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]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

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....

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...