Belmont 2012: Last-Minute Bold Predictions for Triple Crown's Third Leg
Dullahan has the best odds to win this year's Belmont Stakes.
Rob Carr/Getty Images
Admittedly, this year’s Belmont Stakes will be hyped far less than it was just a matter of days ago. The potential Triple Crown winner, I’ll Have Another, the horse who already won both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes, was scratched and retired yesterday due to issues with tendinitis.
So who could overtake the spotlight in this year’s Belmont with a chance at history off the table? It’s about that time to make some last-minute bold predictions.
(Note: race odds are those determined by Yahoo! Sports).
Dullahan (9-5)
While it’s not exactly a bold prediction to say that the horse with the best odds to win will take the race, this may be Dullahan’s race to lose.
Dullahan finished third at the Kentucky Derby behind I’ll Have Another and Bodemeister. Neither of those two horses will be running at the Belmont.
Can Dullahan step up in the absence of those two talented horses? We’ll have to wait and see.
Optimizer (15-1)
Optimizer will start with the No. 10 post position and would have raced side-by-side with I’ll Have Another for at least a second had he not been scratched.
Guyana Star Dweej is one of the biggest long shots in the Belmont.
Al Bello/Getty Images
At 15-1 odds, Optimizer is a long shot to win, but his 15-1 odds in the Belmont are decidedly better than the 30-1 odds he had in the Preakness.
Optimizer has four top-three finishes in the past year and a half.
Guyana Star Dweej (30-1)
We go from a bold prediction, to a really bold prediction. At 30-1 odds, Guyana Star Dweej is an even bigger long shot than Optimizer.
Nevertheless, he’s an intriguing dark-horse candidate for the Belmont and would certainly make for an interesting story considering how eccentric his owner/trainer is.
Plus, how great would it be if SportsCenter has to keep stumbling over the name Guyana Star Dweej for the next week?
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?


0 Comments
Loading comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete