Lou's contribution . . . worthwhile to the sport.

[Whirlaway]

As found in the Daily Racing Form, Wednesday April 29, 1981: http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/drf_series/original_drf_pt1.htm. How many critics in this group have produced a work "significant enough to contribute something worthwhile to the sport?" Should you have such a contribution, please provide a link.

[xfactor fan]

That's about right. The article is from 1981--29 years ago. And let's say the research was done over the previous 5-10 years. That makes the "contributions" at least 35-40 years old.

And the level of science that seems about right, 40 years out of date. And I've seen no indication that Louis is making any attempt to update his knowledge of genetics.

[DDT]

It is hard to believe that Leon Rasmussen plugged Lou's book when he introduced Dr. Roman and his theory as to dosage, however, the important thing to remember is that Dr. Roman's views on dosage as well as Lou's opinions on nicking patterns are theories and are unproved by scientific fact, and in this case it was Rasmussen's opinion that the theories were "significant enough to contribute something worthwhile to the sport". I have the opinion that if Mr. Rasmussen were alive today and able to read all of Lou's opinions as to P and NP crosses in a pedigree and how it relates to breakdowns contained in Lou's ongoing thread, he would be of the opinion that this theory is not significant enough to contribute something worthwhile to the sport. You are entitled to have your own opinion as to what significance to the sport, if any, Louis has contributed over the years.

DDT

[TJ]

What these people are talking about are breeding opinions, but some are unsubstantiated where it counts....and in time are thrown away. Personally when opinions of those I feel have substance are displaced I look to see why. As I know Leon Rasmussen had a great influence on the breeding of certain champions. Many have tried (and written articles) to knock his Rasmussen Factor (RF) present withing the first 5 generations of a pedigree. Articles were written by so called experts, as we have may have here saying that it is an irrelevant factor. I think if you asked John Nerud about that he would tell you the value of Mr Rasmussen and his intimate knowledge of breeding. The same goes for Dr. Roman's who tweaked Mr. Varola's original work into the updated Dosage System. Both these published men have also been responsible for the breeding of outstanding race horses. That is an accomplishment....when what you have written can make a change on the racetrack, you have reached the top. I can only speak of Dr. Romans and Mr. Rasmussen.....I know nothing of Louis' work that has been used to produce any outstanding horses on the racetrack. But just like there written works, this little post is simply my opinion....which has been OK on the racetrack and kept me above water in the business. TJ

[ElPrado]

Louis' main contribution right now seems to be advertising for trainers which need more horses.

[Sysonby]

Actually Whirlaway this sport is such that when you put up your own money, you are free to embrace or discount anyone you choose. There are people on this board who have bred and campaigned stakes winners, made broodmares and sold six figure horses- all to the best of my knowledge without the help of you or louis.

But louis at least has the guts to post his theories under his own name and he's been quite open that he has never actually bred or owned a horse. Since you won't let this go, what I am really curious about is your credentials which allow you to be so high handed with the rest of us.

Please provide a link.

[zinn21]

But louis at least has the guts to post his theories under his own name and he's been quite open that he has never actually bred or owned a horse. Since you won't let this go, what I am really curious about is your credentials which allow you to be so high handed with the rest of us.

Whirlaway wrote:

"How many critics in this group have produced a work "significant enough to contribute something worthwhile to the sport?" Should you have such a contribution, please provide a link."

I thought Whirlaway was defending Louis. Looks like you're reading his post like you read Zenyatta "floundering" at Churchill.

[TJ]

Actually is defending Louis correct?.....Louis was mentioned as a worthwhile contributor in the article Whirl posted. TJ

[DDT]

As a member of this forum since 2008 I have never read any posts where a member of the forum has tooted his/her own horn concerning published works, however, I have two articles published by American Turf Monthly that I personally feel were significant enough to contribute something to the sport on the handicapping level. With over 50 years of involvement with the sport, including an ongoing communication with Leon Rasmussen during the years 1982 and 1983 wherein several breeding theories were discussed, including the possibility of nicking, Louis' name and his book were never pointed out to me by Mr. Rasmussen. I have not read Louis' book because I have formed my own opinion as to nicking and I could care less what he thinks. The only manner in which I can form an opinion as to Louis' knowledge concerning breeding is based on what he has said and continues to say on his endless thread. His opinions fail to impress me, but then that is my opinion, and unfortunately for Louis, that opinion is shared by many other members of this forum. It does not mean we are right and he is wrong, we just have differences in opinion.

DDT

[Shammy Davis]

Whirlaway: You need to read Louis' book. There are only 2 pages of grammatically identifiable sentences in the entire book and those two pages are credited to Leon Rasmussen.

The book (5th Edition) is a very limited hardcopy data base on nicks that worked prior to 1983 w/particular stallions (approx. 100 plus) that Louis' selected. It has very limited scope. It is apparent that Louis' put a great deal of time and effort into his "TB Nicking Patterns" but it in no way supports anything other than the fact that some mating combinations appear to have worked. Louis does not include data on all the matings that did not work and no where in the book does he express any opinions or thoughts on the subject of nicking. The data that he did calculate only pretains to successful matings and therefore is flawed.

Rasmussen, in the book's foreword primarily discusses the theory of "blood affinities." If Rasmussen did use Louis' data, he used it as a cross reference as it could be used for that. In the second paragraph of his foreword to Louis' book, Rasmussen stated, "Although I do not believe anyone has been able to scientifically explain the phenomenon of 'nicking', it has been a fact of life for numerous breeding generations that certain lines of blood appear to have an affinity . . ." It appears that Rasmussen qualified his thoughts in that second paragraph of the foreword. In the last sentence of the foreword, Rasmussen says "Thoroughbred Nicking Patterns offers convincing evidence that 'a nick in time' is a worthwhile way to improve your chances of breeding a better race horse." Nothing new here. That sentence was the last complete sentence written in the book. From that point on Louis' provides a select and incomplete listing of successful matings. That's it. There is no theory. No discussion. No conclusions. It is just 601 pages of lists. Simply, Louis' book is a limited list of successful matings. I'd compare it to a book on amortization tables.

I've never met Louis, but we joined this board about the same. He is a kind and generous man who is very enthusiastic about the TB and horseracing. I know this from reading his threads and from the fact that, after all my opposition to his "inbreeding thread," he was kind enough to send me a copy of his 5th Edition to examine. That being said, aside from his collateral experiences on the backstretch and self-publishing his book, he has very little knowledge of the complexities of horse breeding and equine genetics.

Let me put it this way. Would I trust Louis' to hold my wallet? Yes. Would I trust Louis' to teach a class on Equine Genetics and Breeding Techniques? No.

There is a difference between conversation and contribution. Louis' thread is conversation that he misrepresents as research.

[Whirlaway]

" I have two articles published by American Turf Monthly that I personally feel were significant enough to contribute something to the sport on the handicapping level."

I am always interested in reading the works of those that were there during the classic days of Thoroughbred Racing and interesting you had conversations w/Mr. Rasmussen. If possible, please post those articles, we would be interested in reading them.

[TJ]

.................I've never met Louis, but we joined this board about the same. He is a kind and generous man who is very enthusiastic about the TB and horseracing. I know this from reading his threads and from the fact that, after all my opposition to his "inbreeding thread," he was kind enough to send me a copy of his 5th Edition to examine. That being said, aside from his collateral experiences on the backstretch and self-publishing his book, he has very little knowledge of the complexities of horse breeding and equine genetics.

Let me put it this way. Would I trust Louis' to hold my wallet? Yes. Would I trust Louis' to teach a class on Equine Genetics and Breeding Techniques? No.

There is a difference between conversation and contribution. Louis' thread is conversation that he misrepresents as research.

Hi Shammy,
I agree with your thoughts concerning Louis, certainly helpful and enthusiastic.....he goes right along with what he believes in and comments roll off his back like water on oil. We all have to agree and I may be there sooner than some other's.....Lou's threat will be going on long after we're gone, at this point it's almost a living being:>) TJ

[Shammy Davis]

TJ wrote:

. . . We all have to agree and I may be there sooner than some other's.....Lou's threat will be going on long after we're gone, at this point it's almost a living being:>) TJ

Well said.

Louis is not an "easy nut to crack." I don't ever recall in any of his threads that he cried "foul." I know a few occasions when I was wrong or incorrect and I've had to return to him w/hat in hand. We still disagree and I don't believe he knows what he talking about but Louis doesn't need Whirlaway or anybody else to take up for him. Louis has the best defense against his critics. He ignores us.

TJ's last post is certainly well taken on my part.

[DDT]

Whirlaway

I do not know who "we" are but the articles were written in 1996 and the first "The Double Beyer Advantage" was published in the March, 1997 edition. The second ""The Well-Meant Shipper" was published in the December, 1997 edition, hardly the classic days of racing, but, you can contact the magazine and see if they can get you a copy, unfortunately I do not have any copies myself.

DDT

[TJ]

Whirlaway

I do not know who "we" are but the articles were written in 1996 and the first "The Double Beyer Advantage" was published in the March, 1997 edition. The second ""The Well-Meant Shipper" was published in the December, 1997 edition, hardly the classic days of racing, but, you can contact the magazine and see if they can get you a copy, unfortunately I do not have any copies myself.

DDT

Hi DDT,
Oh yes, I knew I remembered your monica...think we may have spoke of this some time ago. Was the double beyer advantage your creation, or was it an article you wrote concerning it's merit? TJ