“How else would you get 2nd and third dams inbred to those sires unless someone actual inbreeds to them?”
I do not understand your point at all.
There were slightly more than 5,000 foals with second, third, or fourth dams by the four sires in question among these sales foals of 2003-2007. Some also had duplications of the sire in question higher up in their pedigrees (through the sire). Some did not. Offhand I would guess that the split could be about 50-50.
But my point was that the duplications were irrelevant. These four sires obviously functioned well as sires of second, third, or fourth dams. BETTER than they functioned when duplicated overall. BETTER both in overall terms and contrasted to their prices.
I thought that was a better approach to breeding a good horse (or picking a good horse out of sale). I thought I expressed THAT. Perhaps I failed to make myself clear.
Perhaps you wished to make the point that if I make enough FUN of inbreeding, the practice will actually DECREASE, and then I will have a DEARTH of material for COMEDY. If that is the case, then I do not disagree too much.
Except that the human need to practice duplicating names in pedigrees is a lot like its need to develop romantic/sexual obsessions. Or its need to rely upon alcohol and/or drugs of various natures as its dependencies of choice. In other words, it will NEVER completely go away. I have no WORRIES on that score.
Breeders will NEVER change their minds based upon whatever I have to say, no matter how COMPELLING the EVIDENCE I put before them. Human nature is human nature. It does not change. It is IMPERVIOUS to logic or facts.
So I am a DON QUIXOTE. But at least I KNOW that and function accordingly.
Hope this answers your comment or question (which I did not understand) at least somewhat and not TOO FOOLOSOPHICALLY!!!!!!