, ,

[Editor’s note: Due to the volume of information related in this study, the second part of the RF analysis will be broken up into several parts. Thanks to readers for their many helpful suggestions about this study of the popular breeding pattern. Please note also that this section contains Table 7, which has the summary figures for the study arranged according to several criteria and subsets.]

The Rasmussen Factor 201 Part Two

At the end of part one of this lecture, I promised to evaluate the results of the RF qualifiers found among all foals sold in North America in 1999-2002 as weanlings, yearlings, or 2-year-olds. I will not keep you in suspense.

If 1.00 is the benchmark result (norm) for all 54,244 foals sold, the RF qualifiers came in at 0.9754. If 1.00 is the benchmark price (norm) for all 54,244 foals sold, the RF qualifiers came in at 1.04385. That’s right. They sold for slightly more than the benchmark and achieved results slightly worse than the benchmark. Which is exactly the opposite of what 99 percent of all people probably expected to see, given how widespread the belief in the efficacy of RF is (approaching dogma status).

I will explain how these numbers were derived in due time. Some other matters need to be attended to first.

Table 5 lists the 144 stakes winners found among these 3,886 RF qualifiers. The first column is the name, the second column is the price (W for weanling, Y for yearling, T for 2-year-old, dollar sign omitted), the third column is the rating of the individual stakes winners (PP standing for Performance Points, to be explained in due time), and the fourth column is the duplication(s) involved.

Back to Racehorse Breeding Theories, Chapter 12, page 245, for a moment: “Fappiano’s four percent rate of producing offspring demonstrating the RF is just about what we have found as the current average among the overall population of North American Thoroughbreds.”

Four percent is way too low. For these 54,244 foals, it is 7.16 percent (3,886 of 54,244). That is for sales foals, not for all foals. The last time I tried to ascertain the overall percentage of the population qualifying as RF was from a random sample of all North American-bred foals of 1995-2000. From 3,369 random foals, I found 193 RF qualifiers, or 5.73 percent, which is still a lot higher than the 4 percent figure quoted above.

Also keep in mind that 5.73 percent is significantly lower than it has been in the past. If you go back to North American-bred foals born in the 1970s, for example, you will find that 15 percent or more of all foals qualified as RF. Why? Because the female names most often duplicated back then appeared a lot more often than they do now. You had Selene (dam of Hyperion, Pharamond II, Sickle, et al.), Plucky Liege (dam of Sir Gallahad III, Bull Dog, et al.), Mumtaz Begum (dam of Nasrullah and second dam of Royal Charger, et al.), et al., ad nauseam. It is unclear at this time whether the ratio of RF qualifiers to all foals will continue to go down over time or start going back up again.

Table 7
Results and Prices
Group                 Foals      SWs      %        Performance Points  Average    PPI
Total                 54,244    2,041  3.76             1,279,004                 627         1
RF Qualifiers    3,886        144  3.71                     89,368                 621    0.975
2nd-5th Dams      542          19  3.51                      12,700               668    0.994
FO&D Patterns     184            7  3.8                           3,547                507   0.818

Group                    Foals                     Gross                Average         Maverage
Total                    54,244     $2,620,702,526       $48,313              150
RF Qualifiers       3,886            212,132,912            54,589              156
2nd-5th Dams         542              43,918,042           81,030              183
FO&D Patterns        184               14,051,097          76,365              179