Re: RC: endurance prospect

[Tivers@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/4/00 3:36:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, CMKSAGEHIL writes:

<< Well, I got mine from the geneticists.  Since they are scientists and not 
breeders, does that make me safe?  Or is it still babble because you don't 
personally happen to "believe" in their science?
 
 Heidi >>


As you may know, I prefer not to "believe" anything. A geneticist studies 
genes, and I have no quarrel with that science. But the genome of the horse 
has yet to be unraveled and no one has yet attempted to define the genes 
which produce or contribute to performance in the horse. At least, that was 
the situation when a group of top geneticists gathered together on Long 
Island a couple of years ago. There was a Nobel Prize winner among these and 
they admitted that they didn't have a clue--yet. They wanted funding from the 
Grayson Foundation and the Jockey Club--representatives of both were 
present--but these organizations preferred that the geneticists focus 
elsewhere than on the "performance gene" since pedibabblers were having so 
much fun touting one theory or another and gigantic Thoroughbred yearling 
prices were the result of the wondrous "mystery" and "romance" of breeding 
Kentucky Derby winners. 

My talk at that gathering pointed out that the difference between a $15,000 
claimer and a $30 million Triple Crown winner was essentially 4-6 seconds 
difference in performance at a mile. And that this difference could easily be 
overcome with proper conditioning and nutrition--the typical Grade I winner's 
exercise protocol consisting of a little more than a mile a day.

ti