There\'s a ton wrong with dosage, I did a segment about that on Post Time years ago. Aside from a) only selecting certain sires in a pedigree to count (as if the others don\'t affect the genetics), and b) using extremely dubious methods to measure racing performance, they don\'t use any of the females in the pedigree. As I said back then, most of us would agree that our mothers had something to do with the way we turned out, for better or worse, and in the case of horses (and genetics in general) some traits are also only handed down through female DNA.
There\'s also this-- only a small number of males are used for breeding, as opposed to virtually all females. This means the males all come from a very small segment at the top of of the horse population, and the difference in stallions \"top\" to \"cheap\" is much smaller than on the dam side (sire is 99 or 98 percentile, dam can be 99 or 1). The reality is that almost any stallion can sire a good horse, but not all mares can throw one-- dams are far more important as a practical matter. The \"top\" stallions, however, get the top mares, which are hugely different than the ones the \"bottom\" stallions get. The \"Chef De Races\" got way better mares than the \"average\" stallion, and that has as much to do with their success as anything else.
We\'ve looked at doing a real Dosage using our data, it can be done-- one that would correctly measure performance and use all the pedigree influences (very tricky since you have to know how to weight different generations, and mares have a much smaller sample size of runners to go by). Some day, after the breeding industry has caught up with bettors and there\'s a market, we\'ll do the work.
