When the Kentucky Derby winner crosses the finish line in front of 160,000 roaring spectators on May 5, there's a good chance it will have two copies of a gene that makes a horse a sprinter.

The so-called speed gene, which several laboratories say determines whether a horse prefers a short sprint, a marathon or something in between, is just one of the genetic markers identified in the search for the roots of elite performance in thoroughbreds. Now the race is on among five or six commercial laboratories to convince thoroughbred breeders and buyers that testing for this gene and other markers is the road to the Triple Crown. In the meantime, the geneticists behind these companies scramble to lay claim to the best markers for athletic traits. Major thoroughbred farms are signing up horses for testing, even though some say they're not sure what the results mean.

"We don't know what to make of it," says Elliott Walden, president, CEO and racing manager of Winstar Farms in Versailles, Ky. Winstar, the 685-hectare birthplace of 2010 Kentucky Derby winner Super Saver, is dabbling in genetic testing. "We don't know how to evaluate the information. We're still figuring it out."

He's not the only one puzzling over these tests, which start at around $500 per horse.

A presumed genetic advantage
Equix Biomechanics is a company driven by data. The Lexington, Ky., concern advises on thoroughbred buying and breeding after gathering a mountain of data including 36 separate measurements of bone and muscle groups and a computer analysis of the horse's gait. Operated by Equix president, J. Todd Stewart, who in his past life performed statistical arbitrage for hedge funds, and owned by another numbers guy, Gary Knapp, who also came from a career in finance, the firm feeds its many measurements into a mathematical model that spits out, theoretically, the perfect horse—one that moves quickly, efficiently and—for those with Triple Crown aspirations—with enough endurance to win the longest of the three races, the 2.4-kilometer Belmont Stakes. Big Brown, winner of the 2008 Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes, was bred by the numbers in this formula on Knapp's Monticule Farm in Lexington. Now, the company is adding gene profiles to its analysis.

Knapp recently had some of his own horses profiled. "I wasn't sure of the actual relevance," he says. "There are just so many variables impinging on the relative success of a particular runner that it's difficult to take one particular variable and say, 'That's the key.'"

Alongside this growing interest in the emerging genetic field are beloved traditions of an earlier century—the heavy reliance on pedigree to determine racing quality. Pedigree remains the major predictor of a horse's sale price, says geneticist Matthew Binns, of Midway, Ky.–based The Genetic Edge and former professor of genetics at the University of London's Royal Veterinary College. Unfortunately, it is a less capable predictor of performance. People view pedigree as a surrogate for genetics, Binns says, "but there's a very poor correlation between pedigree and DNA data."

Convincing the thoroughbred industry of pedigree's limits will take a revolution. Buyers routinely look back to a horse's 32 great, great, great grandparents when deciding which animal to buy. Binns points out that, on average, a great, great, great grandparent can contribute only about 3 percent of its genes to any individual. But even data-loving Knapp is in the sway of pedigree, extending his own analyses back not just five generations, but to the 128 ancestors in generation seven.

Pedigree versus genetic testing
Trading the pedigree tradition for genetic testing could save thoroughbred buyers money, the gene profiling companies contend. Emmeline Hill, the discoverer of the "speed gene," leads the Equine Exercise Genomics Group at University College Dublin in Ireland. She is also chairman of the commercial horse genetics laboratory, Equinome, Ltd., which she co-founded. She says her research shows buyers consistently overpay for horses that perform poorly. She evaluated the sale prices of 200 yearlings and compared the outlays with the animals' on-track performance.

5 Comments

1. 1. TheVodkaParty 10:32 AM 5/4/12

   Genetics make sense on paper, but all the science goes out the window when the horses leave the starting gate.My pick is “I’ll Have Another” – both in the race and when it comes to the Mint Juleps. But Is the Mint Julep the “Peeps” of cocktails? “Think about it. They’re booth sickeningly-sweet, consumed on only one day of the year and then actively avoided for the remaining 364. You be the judge. Here are my four favorite vintage Mint Julep recipes: http://thevodkaparty.com/the-mint-julep-is-it-the-peeps-of-cocktails/

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. cccampbell38 06:48 PM 5/4/12

   Being at the races, watching these magnificent animals do what they are born to do is a wonderful experience.
   
   But:
   
   If you have ever taken a close, behind the scenes look at horse racing you will undoubtedly conclude that it is cruelty to animals.
   
   These horses are so terribly inbred for the ultimate in speed and endurance that they are fragile and temperamental. They break down far too often and must be put down. They do not make good saddle horses and I don't want to mention what happens to those who are slow or old.
   
   I'm not against exploitation of animals per se but having seen what frequently happens behind the scenes I stopped going to the races.
   
   This genetic testing is just one more example of the way that these animals are used, abused, and cast aside if they do not measure up.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. mtloans 03:37 PM 5/5/12

   1) Horse Racing is a closed system. To race at the Kentucky Derby (Triple Crown race number one) the horse must be a registerd thorougbred. A thorougbred traces its ancestry back to 3 Arabian/Turkoman/Barb stallions and English mares in the 17th and 18th centuries. Imagine the 1,500 meters at the Olympics and the only people who could race are 18 year olds of British ancestry. No others may apply.
   
   2) Only one world record at any distance on turf or dirt was set by a 3 year old (see below). All others are 4 to 7 years old. Why 3 year olds? Because they can breed longer. Very simple. Everything I have read or heard first hand suggest that 3 year olds are too young and injuries are higher at that age.
   
   http://www.horsehats.com/horse-racing-records.html
   
   3) I have asked many horse folks why they race. Answer: to improve the breed. Who cares.
   
   4) Want to have faster horses and more variety. Try modern genetics, modern training methods with cross breeding every horse imaginable and limit racing to 4 to 8 year olds. There will be less money in the sport, but I personally would love to watch an Apaloosa/QuarterHorse/Arabian hybrid, for example clobber the thoroughbreds.
   
   5) I am not a horse expert. Having said that I don't believe there is much that I have written above that is too far off base. I would love to have an unbiased horse expert comment to see if my suggestions make any sense. Maybe they don't, but in a few hours I'll be glued to the television to watch the Kentucky Derby anyway, hoping for the new Secretariat, no injuries and a fun race.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. kienhua68 08:56 PM 5/6/12

   Seems they are late to the party. Genetics have been
   employed for quite some time on all kinds of creatures.
   It is the future of all living things we consume. Perhaps
   genetics will help to rid the world of inherited diseases and conditions in both humans and animals. That would
   represent real progress in the evolution we have out
   grown through technology and medicine.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Ideal.1 in reply to cccampbell38 12:23 AM 3/7/13

   I think research in genetics could only make horse racing better for the horses. If it was utilized more often, maybe breeders wouldn't have to produce so many horses. They could focus on producing a few genetically superior foals instead of playing more of a guessing game. One of the biggest problems in the industry is the overpopulation of horses. The ones who aren't worth as much end up in slaughter houses because thoroughbreds aren't good for much but racing. If there were fewer horses, fewer horses would meet a fate in the processing plant. Maybe by making the breed better, there would be fewer casualties. I don't know, I'm trying to see the positive side of this. There are definitely some things about the racing industry that need to change. I'm not disputing that at all, but progress being made and I think this genetic research could potentially help. I really hope it does.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this