Epsom Derby 2012

Bar the Bull said:
his third dam Lingerie bred the 2007 Oaks winner Light Shift
Click to expand...

Love the naming of Light Shift btw. Reminds me of the all too infrequently quoted Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band (Vivian Stanshall):

You got a light, mac?... No, but I’ve got a dark brown overcoat.
 
Would there be tribal warfare, once all the individual previews are done, to put them in racecard order on their own Epsom Derby Day thread?
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
Yep, the clue is in the name Zen. Are you by chance the Breeders' Cup Classic winner?
Click to expand...

I thought so but wasn't certain. Unfortunately not. And to make matters even more complicated I am male and have little to no interest in US racing. I just like the horse.

Anyhow, back on track. I was wondering how a piece sold as a dosage analysis could come to the conclusions that you do. Camelot is an obvious one in that he is the standout form selection, and conforms to the typical dosage profile as well. However, if weight is to be attached to dosage as a method of selecting the winner then how can you justify your other conclusions?

You point out that those "in a band between about DI 0.8 and 1.4 appear best suited to the requirements of the race".

If "the best matches this year are Camelot (DI 0.94), Cavaleiro (1.00), Astrology (1.00), Thought Worthy (1.34) and Minimise Risk (1.40)", then how can all but Camelot and Astrology be eliminated as being only those with "realistic chances"? Is not the value in such a method in finding, or eliminating, horses that might otherwise be excluded from, or included in, calculations? If Cavaleiro, Thought Worthy and Minimise Risk are eliminated, despite the fact that they possess the the typical dosage profile, because they do not have a "realistic chance" is it not a form analysis rather than being based on dosage?

Secondly, why might we "add Imperial Monarch who appears at the head of our table but has also shown a turn of foot"? If he does not conform to the typical dosage profile of a Derby winner then surely he should be eliminated as a result if any weight is to be attached to the method?

Thirdly, why might we also add "the excluded Bonfire, for winning the Dante". Surely, if this is a dosage analysis, the fact that he has won the Dante is all but irrelevant?

You then come to the conclusion that the finishing order will be as follows:

1. Camelot - He does 'qualify' (DI = 0.94)
2. Imperial Monarch - Way outside your identified range (DI = 0.44)
3. Bonfire - No DI figure at all

So this is a piece sold as being a dosage analysis which as its conclusion has an obvious winner, in second, a horse that does not fit the typical dosage profile, and in third a horse who is not even awarded a dosage figure at all. Does that not suggest that dosage is a useless tool if you are unwilling to place any confidence in it when you draw your conclusions? Surely your three selections should be determined by their dosage profile when compared to what you identify as a typical Derby winner?

The fact that you discard the dosage findings and select (in opposition to dosage) two other horses on a form basis seems to do nothing but discredit the method.

I notice that on the website piece you include a finishing order down to 6th place which does include 4 of the dosage selections, in addition to Imperial Monarch and Bonfire. They are:

1) Camelot
2) Imperial Monarch
3) Bonfire
4) Astrology
5) Cavaleiro
6) Main Sequence

I simply do not understand how or why you have added Imperial Monarch or Bonfire in where you have. It seems as if you do not trust the conclusions yourself and therefore revert back to a couple of form selections for fear of the less obvious dosage selections disappointing and making you look foolish.

Your comments will be read with interest. Many thanks.
 
Marble said:
Would there be tribal warfare, once all the individual previews are done, to put them in racecard order on their own Epsom Derby Day thread?
Click to expand...

If I'm representing Camelot here's the extrated copy:

The Aidan O’Brien-trained Camelot just can’t please some folk. He was doubted before the 2,000 Guineas (with some going as far as saying the son of Montjeu couldn’t win the spring classic) and was also damned with faint praise after winning the Guineas as the best of a mediocre bunch. The fact is he won the race in fine style, almost counter to his natural stamina attributes, coming from off the pace and using his turn of foot to outperform his rivals, from a high class natural miler in French Fifteen. I commented in my 2,000 Guineas preview that despite showing eight stamina points in his Dosage profile he also has sharper dam side influences and was just the Montjeu progeny type likely do very well in the Guineas. However, this does not compromise his chances at 12 furlongs. Indeed, Camelot is a broad spectrum horse showing a good spread of points in his profile and the type that that should manage to win over a range of distances. Everything about him suggests that he will make up into a fine middle-distance individual and he will take a world of beating here.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Kingmambo is what is keeping him from being a stayer (in the Gold Cup meaning of the word).
 
Zenyatta said:
Anyhow, back on track. I was wondering how a piece sold as a dosage analysis could come to the conclusions that you do. Camelot is an obvious one in that he is the standout form selection, and conforms to the typical dosage profile as well. However, if weight is to be attached to dosage as a method of selecting the winner then how can you justify your other conclusions?
Click to expand...

You have to understand that Dosage is a tool used to help us in arriving at a result not one to be slavishly prescribed. It tells us only about stamina suitability not ability.Those selected purely using Dosage, i.e. the best matches in stamina aptitude terms are:

Camelot (DI 0.94), Cavaleiro (1.00), Astrology (1.00), Thought Worthy (1.34) and Minimise Risk (1.40).

However, I also say:

Contenders for the Derby, as a rule of thumb, require a blend of speed and stamina that conforms to a Dosage index (DI) of around 1.0 and a centre of distribution (CD) of around zero – or the best fit to this standard in relative terms of those taking part. In addition to stamina suitability (to which the Dosage system confines itself) other factors will of course play their part – not least the ability to handle the track and the prevailing going and how good the individual is to begin with.

Applying Dosage I’ve selected: Camelot, Astrology and Cavaleiro (I don’t consider the other two good enough to figure).

From the rest I’ve selected a horse who will stay more than enough in Imperial Monarch, who I’ve nominated as a St Leger type, but a St Leger type with a turn of foot, which ought to enable him to be effective here.

And Bonfire. The Dosage is of no use with Bonfire, but that doesn’t mean he is without a chance. I like the way the horse is shaping although I suspect he may not fully see out the trip.

As with all systems we are using it to help us in conjunction with a range a factors to arrive at as close an approximation of reality as a predictive tool as we can manage.
 
Last edited:
I will post the thread tomorrow after the final declarations are made. If anyone wants to get their final preview edited feel free to do so in time for final submission tomorrow.

Up to now we have the previews for

Camelot
Bonfire
Thought Worthy
Main Sequence (very lengthy but worth its slot:)
Imperial Monarch
Mickdaam

Could someone please submit a preview for: Astrology, Cavaleiro, Minimise Risk, Rugged Cross and Tower Rock. I'm thinking one of the dolly birds on here might assist with this lot? So It's not a male orientated thing?

I beleive Gareth Flynn is taking Father oF Science.

Also apologies to Simon who wrote a preview for Imperial Monarch, but will have to be omitted in favour of Edgt's, as it was his idea to do this. Hope thats ok Simon.

Thankyou.
 
Euronymous said:
Does Kingmambo's presence in his pedigree not temper enthusiasm even a tad Steve?
Click to expand...

It was the very reason I was so enthusiastic about him for the Guineas http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/2012/2012_2000_guineas_preview.htm
However I also say:

I commented in my 2,000 Guineas preview that despite showing eight stamina points in his Dosage profile he also has sharper dam side influences and was just the Montjeu progeny type likely do very well in the Guineas. However, this does not compromise his chances at 12 furlongs. Indeed, Camelot is a broad spectrum horse showing a good spread of points in his profile and the type that that should manage to win over a range of distances. Everything about him suggests that he will make up into a fine middle-distance individual and he will take a world of beating here.
 
Last edited:
Surely if dosage is an important consideration you should eliminate all those that do not fall within the required range, and then, when the likely candidates that conform to the dosage profile of the typical winner have been identified, your analysis could stray into form analysis to distinguish between the likelihood of each of the qualifiers figuring.

I don't see how your use of dosage adds anything at all to the strength of the debate because you have disregarded your findings in favour of alternative analysis. Why bother with dosage in the first place?
 
Zenyatta said:
Surely if dosage is an important consideration you should eliminate all those that do not fall within the required range, and then, when the likely candidates that conform to the dosage profile of the typical winner have been identified, your analysis could stray into form analysis to distinguish between the likelihood of each of the qualifiers figuring.

I don't see how your use of dosage adds anything at all to the strength of the debate because you have disregarded your findings in favour of alternative analysis. Why bother with dosage in the first place?
Click to expand...

Because it tells us which ones are suitable from a perspective of stamina suitability (to which the Dosage confines itself). Other factors of course play their part – not least the ability to handle the track and the prevailing going and how good the individual is to begin with.

No single explanation has yet been made for the nature of the universe, it's unreasonable for any system to do everything for horse racing. There is no single formula you can apply. We have to use the tools at our disposal and try and test them.
 
Last edited:
Tower Rock has a much better chance than his odds of 66/1 would imply. Camelot is the clear first choice of the powerful Ballydoyle team and it is hard to see him meeting with defeat when he gets what should be his ideal conditions on Saturday. However, something has to fill the places, or take advantage should he disappoint, and Tower Rock could be just the candidate at a handsome price.

He broke his maiden at the 2nd time of asking when staying on well. He was then stepped up to Listed company where he was no match for Call To Battle. He wasn't the Ballydoyle first string that day and nor was he the next time he went to the racecourse in the Group 3 Ballysax Stakes. He chased home Light Heavy (and Call To Battle again) at a respectful distance but had two better fancied stablemates behind him. He was then sent to the Derrinstown when he again exceeded expectations when just giving best to Light Heavy in the closing stages. Yet again, Wrote, his better fancied stablemate, was well behind. Most importantly, he appeared to step up considerably on his seasonal reappearance when Light Heavy had been a convincing winner. This would suggest that he is a colt with a progressive profile who keeps on exceeding expectations. He has never started at any shorter than 5/1 and he will be freely available at 10x that price on Saturday. It could be that he is 'sacrificed' for pacemaking duties but that will be no disaster because in field with so few runners it is far from unheard of for a Ballydoyle pacemaker to slip the field and hang on in the places as the field try to close. On pedigree he is not guaranteed to stay, but his sire, Dylan Thomas was arguably seen to best effect over 12f, and the evidence on the racecourse suggests that he at least has a good chance of seeing out the trip.

As an O'Brien trained horse, from a good family, who finished 2nd (beaten a neck) in the Group 2 Derrinstown Stud Derby Trial, should he be 66/1? I would argue that he shouldn't.
 
SteveM said:
Because it tells us which ones are suitable from a perspective of stamina suitability (to which the Dosage confines itself).
Click to expand...

Why then have you selected Imperial Monarch to finish 2nd and Bonfire to finish 3rd?

Both are unsuitable according to your dosage analysis.

You say dosage selects A, B, C, D and E. On form I quite like A, but I don't like the others so I will select F and G instead, neither of whom conform to the typical dosage profile that I have established.

The dosage is irrelevant as far as I can tell.
 
Zenyatta said:
Why then have you selected Imperial Monarch to finish 2nd and Bonfire to finish 3rd?

Both are unsuitable according to your dosage analysis.

You say dosage selects A, B, C, D and E. On form I quite like A, but I don't like the others so I will select F and G instead, neither of whom conform to the typical dosage profile that I have established.

The dosage is irrelevant as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Not irrelevant it tells you which ones qualify in terms of stamina suitability (...but just this). Other factors may override stamina suitability in isolation. Other factors play their part – not least the ability to handle the track and the prevailing going and how good the individual is to begin with.

Imagine you set out to make a chest of drawers. You'd need a set of tools. You wouldn't get far with just a saw or just a hammer, etc.

I’ve selected Imperial Monarch, who should stay more than 12 furlongs, as runner up as the turn of foot he has shown ought to enable him to be effective here.

I've said the points total for Bonfire is insufficient for an accurate reading in this particular case (i.e. the Dosage is not equipped to say whether he will or won't stay). This does not mean he's no good. If he does stay well enough I expect him to be thereabouts. If he doesn't stay perhaps Astrology would be best placed to benefit.
 
Last edited:
Colin Phillips said:
TOWER ROCK is unlikely to get the trip and is presumably there as a pacemaker.
Click to expand...

That's my thinking too, as mentioned:

High Chaparral’s half brother Father Of Science is a Galileo/Darshaan cross, appearing near the top of our table, while Tower Rock, appearing at the bottom, completes Ballydoyle’s Epsom team as a likely pacemaker.
 
Last edited:
I am not saying it should be the be all and end all. However, your are making a selection when writing a piece specifically dedicated to using dosage to identify the Derby winner and you have made no apparent use of your dosage findings in your conclusion.

You successfully eliminate a good number of fancied runners because they fail to meet the requirements. I would have thought this was a good thing because it identifies runners that are fancied but which dosage says will be unsuited to the trip, but then they two of them are magically re-instated because you like them.

Let me put it this way, had you not done any of the dosage analysis at all it would appear that your conclusion would be exactly the same because it is in no way based on the findings from that analysis. It is based primarily on form analysis and your impression on each horse's chances.

If you want to dismiss dosage then that is fine but I don't understand how such a conclusion can be arrived at in a piece sold as being based on dosage. If A is the Derby field, B is dosage analysis and C is the winner you appear to have gone from A to B, then returned to A and gone to C without returning to B again. Your selections bear no resemblance to the conclusions drawn from your dosage analysis.
 
What strikes me Zen is that there is little statistical analysis in Steve's piece but given the wide audience he has to produce for then I suspect it's quite relevant he water's down his work and that's not to say that Steve doesn't actually have a sound education of statistical or research methods but unlike some he may not be choosing to use it.

I actually enjoyed the article and seeing some of the replies on OHR from members who have no experience with Research Methods you have to wonder what would be the point issuing such an in depth article mainstream and Steve's approach may be far more suitable.

I do feel you & Spooks attack on Steve on the other side was quite immature though.
 
Zenyatta said:
I am not saying it should be the be all and end all. However, your are making a selection when writing a piece specifically dedicated to using dosage to identify the Derby winner and you have made no apparent use of your dosage findings in your conclusion.
Click to expand...

You see that's where you're going wrong. I'm writing a piece which incorporates Dosage without excluding other factors. However, If it were purely on Dosage I've also identified those that are selected:

The best matches this year are: Camelot (DI 0.94), Cavaleiro (1.00), Astrology (1.00), Thought Worthy (1.34) and Minimise Risk (1.40).

However, we're talking about a race, not an academic exercise and my final selections take everything together.
 
Bruce_Savage said:
I do feel you & Spooks attack on Steve on the other side was quite immature though.
Click to expand...

It's not an 'attack' at all. It is a criticism, which I have voiced here, about the piece. The use of dosage strikes me as being limited in the first place (I am a sceptic), but I find it very strange when one of its proponents seems to all but dismiss it as a tool by ignoring what dosage analysis says in favour of his own opinion which is no doubt influenced by form and other factors. I fail to understand why this is dressed up as dosage analysis.

I don't expect Steve to use incomprehensible statistical techniques which the majority will not understand. I do expect him to actually use the results that he draws from the dosage analysis to arrive at his conclusions. Otherwise what is the point in doing the analysis in the first place?
 
Bruce_Savage said:
What strikes me Zen is that there is little statistical analysis in Steve's piece but given the wide audience he has to produce for then I suspect it's quite relevant he water's down his work and that's not to say that Steve doesn't actually have a sound education of statistical or research methods but unlike some he may not be choosing to use it.

I actually enjoyed the article and seeing some of the replies on OHR from members who have no experience with Research Methods you have to wonder what would be the point issuing such an in depth article mainstream and Steve's approach may be far more suitable.

I do feel you & Spooks attack on Steve on the other side was quite immature though.
Click to expand...


Spook's way of looking at races knocks anything i've read on most forums into a cocked hat..yer talkin nonsense Bruce..absolute nonsense
 
Back
Top