Preakness 2012 Results: Creative Cause Proves He Has Bright Future
Despite finishing third in the Preakness Stakes and being deprived of any and all attention thanks to Bodemeister and I'll Have Another, Creative Cause proved that he has a bright future in the sport of thoroughbred racing.
Creative Cause followed up a disappointing fifth-place outing at the Kentucky Derby with an encouraging showing at Pimlico despite being blown away by the top two horses in the field.
You can't blame the horse or jockey Joel Rosario for getting beaten by superior horses. Creative Cause was in second place at the three-quarter mark before falling off the pace significantly and finished the race just under nine lengths behind Bodemeister.
Rosario did a great job of keeping Creative Cause from getting caught up in the pack despite drawing the No. 6 pole position. Went the Day Well started to the left of Creative Cause at No. 5 and finished the race in second-to-last place, so you have to give credit where credit is due.
Creative Cause made a hard charge at Bodemeister, which opened the race up for I'll Have Another after Bodemeister began to run out of gas. The Preakness was only the third time Creative Clause raced outside of California, so it's not a surprise that he wasn't able to finish atop the field, or at least finish closer than nine lengths behind Bodemeister.
The Kentucky Derby was the only time that Creative Cause finished worse than third place, a testament to his consistency as well as Rosario's talent.
He's had some great races against I'll Have Another and Bodemeister in the past. He beat Bodemeister at the Grade 2 San Felipe Stakes after running him down towards the end to win by three-quarters of a length. At the Santa Anita Derby, he almost come from off the pace to catch I'll Have Another, but fell short by just a nose.
He came up empty-handed and likely missed his chance at glory, but Creative Cause will definitely be a factor in the later Grade 1 races of 2012.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?