No offense, but the original poster said the picture is of a purebred dog, and "Labradoodles" and "Goldendoodles" (along with all the other "doodles", "poos", and so forth) aren't purebred.
They're mixed breeds; crossbreeds** if you want to be precise. As I understand it, no "doodle" breeder - even the original Australian breeder who tried to get a hypoallergenic service dog by crossing Labrador Retrievers and Standard Poodles - has yet managed to create "doodles" which fit the definition of purebred.
Terminology nerdiness follows:
The definition of purebred is animals which, when bred to each other, produce *consistent* offspring, and "doodles" don't. IIRC, that's why the original project was scrapped; even after several generations, the dogs weren't consistently producing offspring with the hypoallergenic coat the breeder was trying to create.
"Consistent" doesn't 100% pertain to looks, incidentally; it also pertains to inherited working ability. For example, working-line Border Collies and Jack Russells have a lot of variance in appearance, but can be defined by their herding and hunting ability.
A crossbreed, btw, is generally understood to be the offspring of two purebred dogs, one purebred and one crossbred dog, or two crossbred dogs that are the same mix.
"Mixed breed" is a fairly generic term that covers both deliberate crossbreeds and accidental ones, as well as random-bred dogs (dogs with three or more breeds in their background), aka "mutts".
Soapbox mode on:
Despite all the marketing hype, crossbred dogs aren't really "hybrids", "hybrid vigor" does NOT truly exist in the domestic dog, and mixed breeds are not healthier than purebred dogs. Genetics is genetics, and crossing dog breeds doesn't prevent negative traits from being passed on!
The worst case I've personally witnessed involved a couple who paid $900 for a "Goldendoodle" puppy, believing that the dog's alleged "hybrid vigor" would give them a healthy pet for their kids. Tragically, the Golden parent came from a line with severe hip dysplasia, the Poodle parent from a line with epilepsy, and the puppy inherited both. He was crippled before he was a year old, started having seizures at two, and had to be euthanized before he was three.
The reverse is also true - purebred dogs, as a whole, are not healthier than mixed breed or crossbred dogs as a whole, they're just more predictable. It is true, though, that searching for and buying from a *good* breeder (one who does health screening etc.) can reduce the chances of the dog having inherited health problems.
It's also true that genuine randombred dogs - dogs which have *multiple* breeds in their background - have lower percentages of *some* inheritable disorders, usually recessive ones.
Soapbox mode off.
Apologies for the soapbox - but it comes from years of working with dogs professionally, and seeing over and over and over the sad results of people buying into marketing hype on dogs, or relying on "old wives' tales" rather than facts.
It also comes from years of being annoyed by people on both sides of the issue - purebred owners who look down their noses at shelter dogs and crossbred working dogs, and mixed breed owners who want to run down purebred dogs. I own or have owned all three types of dog, so any type of breed snobbery irks me.
