Belmont Racetrack: Boisterous Will Win the Three Coins Up Today
One thing I rarely like to do is go against trainer/jockey connections that continually win big races when the race appears to be ideal for them.
That's the case today, in the featured race at Belmont. Grassy, with Ramon Dominguez aboard for trainer Christophe Clement is correctly the 9:5 morning line favorite.
Grassy, a five-year-old with four lifetime wins on the turf has proven to be very versatile with wins at Saratoga, Aqueduct and two at Belmont appears to be in very good form and is 1-for-1 at 10 furlongs.
The main threats in the race appear to be long shot Wishful Tomcat and Boisterous.
Wishful Tomcat is 15:1 but has a good chance to steal this race. This six-year-old has won 4-of-5 career starts on the Belmont lawn and appears to be the only speed horse in the field of seven.
With Wishful Tomcat on the lead, I expect Bold Hawk and Grand Rapport to be right off the lead.
Bold Hawk appears to be a nice horse but hasn't been the same horse since being inactive nearly three years. Jose Lezcano returns as the jockey, but appears to be in very tough here.
Grand Rapport is very interesting. This horse closed beautifully on Sept. 25 at Delaware when winning the Grade3 Kent in 1:48.3 with Ramon Dominguez. The fact that Dominguez appears to be choosing Grassy tells me that he believes Grassy is the better horse.
Boisterous is the pick. Currently at 5:2, with John Velazquez, this four year old appears ready to take another step forward and beat this pretty solid group of horses.
Boisterous has won at Belmont and on a yielding turf--which the turf is currently listed as. If the track is upgraded to good, Boisterous has also won with the turf in that condition.
With three wins in his last four starts, Boisterous is in good form and I really like the four furlong work on May 7 in 47.2. His lone loss, was a narrow defeat at a mile in Gulfstream Park, in what appears to to short a distance for him.
The Pick: Boisterous/Grassy and Wishful Tomcat/All.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?