Preakness 2012: Top Contenders Who Will Fail to Impress at Pimlico
It would be a huge surprise if I'll Have Another and Bodemeister fail to run into the money at the 137th Preakness Stakes.
The first- and second-place finishers at the Kentucky Derby are overwhelming favorites at Pimlico and for good reason. There is a lack of elite talent in the field and there are only 11 horses running.
So, again, it would be a huge surprise if Bodemeister and I'll Have Another don't run into the money.
There are other contenders, however, that won't fare so well.
Fifith-place finisher at this year's Derby, Creative Cause is currently a 6-1 favorite according to Sportsbook.com
The son of Giant's Causeway, this three-year-old colt had finished in the money in every race leading up to the Run for the Roses, seven of which were all Grade 1 or 2 races.
The horse has great talent, but has fallen to I'll Have Another in each of the last two races.
With Bodemeister also in the field and the likelihood of a long shot surprising, Creative Cause is one of the odd horses out.
Which Horse Is More Likely To Fall Short of Expectations?
Went the Day Well
Another 6-1 shot according to Sportsbook.com, this fourth-place Derby finisher had won his two previous races before the Run for the Roses.
With Johnny Velazquez in the saddle there is a chance this horse impresses, but much of the same arguments can be made against him as they were against Creative Cause.
This son of Proud Citizen simply won't have enough to hang with Bodemeister and I'll Have Another.
Daddy Nose Best
Yet another Derby runner, this 15-1 shot has the toughest draw of all.
Jockey Julien Leparoux has to decide whether to run with Bodemeister, who breaks from the No. 7 post, or sit back with I'll Have Another in the No. 9 hole.
If Daddy decides to settle down somewhere in between then he's going to be in big, big trouble. Unfortunately, that appears to be the most likely scenario.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?