 |
| These hounds would approve of my pick to win the Belmont Stakes. |
Fret not, though: This is the most legitimately exciting Belmont Stakes since at least 2008 -- when a Triple Crown was on the line for Big Brown -- and, quite honestly, even longer than that.
The lack of quality in that field was such that it was almost deemed a foregone conclusion that Big Brown would win it. There was a buzz like there is around any potential Triple Crown winner, but it was far from a big showdown situation.
It's actually the first year since 2005 that the Derby and Preakness winners have met in the Belmont. It's absolutely great for racing to have this type of "rubber match." A Triple Crown on the line is far better, for sure -- people tune in just to "not miss it" -- but in terms of those actually interested in the racing itself, this field has the highest quality depth I can recall competing in the Belmont for quite some time. Eight horses that ran in the Derby -- including the top seven finishers -- are in this field. They're not all great horses, but they're all pretty darn interesting.
At the very least, it's about 100 times better than last year's field ... which was unfortunately when I decided to attend the Belmont Stakes. Gah.
Anyway, down to brass tacks:
The Belmont is not unlike the Derby in that it is further than any of these horses have ever run before, but it's also certainly further than any of them will run again. In today's racing world, it's a true dinosaur of a race. At 12 furlongs (1.5 miles), it is, as one Daily Racing Form writer put it, 6 furlongs + 6 furlongs. In other words, twice the distance of the most "normal" race in North America today.
I would posit that it doesn't take a special horse to win the Belmont as much as it takes a "different" horse -- a horse that is bred differently than most horses are these days. Speed is king in modern-day racing, and the stamina to get 1.5 miles is simply not in the DNA of most top-flight horses these days.
So, examining any distance limitations in the pedigree is paramount. That's one key theme.
Another key theme is that Belmont is a weird track. For one thing, it's ENORMOUS and has long turns, but it also is known as BIG SANDY for its high sand content. Some horses love this and some horses can't stand this. So the other "big picture" item we'll take into account is the past success/failure of horses who have run or worked out on this track.
Finally, we have to upgrade horses that are close to -- but not on -- the pace. It seems almost counter-intuitive -- that horses who run their best late in races should love the extra distance to "catch" the frontrunners -- but that's usually not the case. Instead, they've usually used up more of their energy just to "keep up" earlier in the race, so they lack that big closing kick they're able to display in shorter races. Take the following stats from the Daily Racing Form:
"• From 1979 to 1991, if your horse was in front after the opening mile, it was better than a 50-50 proposition to hold on. Seven of 13 winners fit that profile, including Conquistador Cielo, Swale and Danzig Connection – three of Woody Stephens’s five consecutive Belmont winners from 1982-86.
• Since then, however, only two of the last 19 winners led after a mile – Point Given (2001), probably the best modern-day horse not to win a Triple Crown, and Da’ Tara (2008), who wired the field as the rank outsider while 3-10 favorite Big Brown was eased."
So, if we can find it as we look through the 12-horse field, we're looking for a horse that has run well at Belmont, shouldn't mind the 12 furlong distance, and has shown the proclivity for rating just off the pace.
1. MASTER OF HOUNDS (10-1): My knee-jerk reaction is that this is the horse to bet on in this race. Put in a better-than-it-looks fifth-place finish in the Derby and has a pedigree similar to Animal Kingdom's in that he should be able to run all day -- the dam is from Great Britain and had an average winning distance of 10.6 furlongs, while the sire was Kingmambo, whose average winning distance was 8.5 furlongs. The question marks are: 1. How much does taking three trips across the Atlantic in less than six weeks drain a horse? 2. How will he take to the Belmont track? This is still a horse that ultimately figures to be better on turf, but he got over it just fine at the Derby. He did show the ability to sit right off the pace in the UAE Derby two starts back, so I'm not worried about him being too far back. I'm worried it's going to be a "trendy" pick and therefore get bet down, but he's still definitely under serious consideration.
2. STAY THIRSTY (20-1): I'm a little surprised they wheeled STAY THIRSTY back out for this one, but I guess when you spend $500,000 on a horse, you want to give it every opportunity to prove that it was worth the investment. Coming off a flat Florida Derby effort, I thought he offered some value in the 25-1 or 30-1 range for the Kentucky Derby. He never got close to that, thankfully, and I saved some money as the 17-1 shot ran an uninspired 12th. At this point, I'm inclined to say he's just not good enough, but on the other hand, he still is well-bred and he has been ripping it up at Belmont. Four furlongs in 47.4 was good for 2/72 on May 22, and he then went 6 furlongs in a blistering 1:12 on for 1/4 on May 29 and 5 furlongs in 1:00.4 for 3/15 on June 5. He was second in his lone start -- his first ever -- at Belmont last July. He might actually really like this track. Worthy of consideration.
3. RULER ON ICE (20-1): Third in a better-than-it-looked Sunland Derby wasn't bad, but a second-place finish in a $50,000 stakes race at Pimlico the last-out was kind of embarrassing. I'm not quite sure why this horse is here, especially given the lack of pedigree (AWD of 6.7 and 6.6, respectively) and a lifetime high speed fig of 93. Hard to justify putting any money down on this one.
4. SANTIVA (15-1): I liked SANTIVA in the Derby and he ran reasonably well, finish sixth 5.5 lengths back of ANIMAL KINGDOM. Like NEHRO, he has taken a break since. The pedigree bodes well (ADW of 8.5 and 7.3) and I still like his mid-pack style/ability to rate. He beat Astrology, who ran a strong third in the Preakness, last November. As I mentioned in AK's writeup, if you put stock into horses that look strong after the wire, SANTIVA wanted more in the Derby as he was gaining at the end. (Again, I don't, but ... ) I do wonder at this point if he's just a good -- not great -- horse. But at 15-1 and up -- which I think it will be due to the bigger names in this race -- he looks good.
5. BRILLIANT SPEED (15-1): His connections thought a seventh-place finish in the Derby was worthy of giving him another shot in the Belmont. I don't. This is still a turf horse. A couple Belmont workouts have resulted in times of 1:00 (third of eight at the distance) and 1:03 (third of three). Not too impressive. His one race on the Belmont main track was his first, where he put up a speed fig of 74 and finished fourth. The pedigree is the one plus here, but that's not enough.
6. NEHRO (7-2): Trendy pick in the Derby figures to be a trendy pick again, but I still say this horse isn't a winner. He's been second in three straight races to Pants On Fire, Archarcharch and Animal Kingdom. Not much shame in the second-place run against AK, but the other two are questionable. He'll be overbet and his 4 furlong work of 50.8 seconds was 30/33 at the distance on June 6. Makes me wonder. On the other hand, he'll be fresher than many of his main competitors. The pedigree suggests this distance won't be too bad, but AK is a much, much better bet than Nehro at this point.
7. MONZON (30-1): I'm just scratching my head. This horse has been sixth, fifth and sixth in three graded stakes starts, and now he's in the final leg of the Triple Crown. Best speed fig was 95 in his last-out (at Belmont in the Peter Pan), but seeing as how it was a sixth-place finish, it's hard to give much credit for that. Definite pass.
8. PRIME CUT (15-1): Ran third here in the Peter Pan last out, so that's a plus. 2-2-2 in 7 lifetime starts is solid enough. Sold for $475,000 back in 2009, so the breeding is there. I think he'll like this distance less than many others, though, and he hasn't shown that he can beat the best yet -- Alternation is a fine horse that decided to pass on the Belmont, so there's not much shame there, but he was also beaten by Derby Kitten in the Lexington. If you want to take a shot in the dark with a longer odds horse, you could do worse.
9. ANIMAL KINGDOM (2-1): As it turned out, a slow break and a slow pace in the Preakness (after that blistering first quarter, I was still f'ing right about the pace being slow!) ultimately did Animal Kingdom in. Some people like to think it matters if a horse that's closing passes another horse after the wire -- as if that shows the measure of willingness or "how much the horse has left" -- and if you're one of those people, you won't like that Animal Kingdom never did pass Shackleford. I am not, however -- the jockeys are pulling up, the horses know the race is over ... so what's the difference? Anyway, this is the type of "different" horse that I was talking about. With German blood on the dam's side and Brazilian on the sire's side, this horse should be able to run all day. The average winning distance for the sire was 7 furlongs -- not great, but OK -- and the dam was 10.5 furlongs -- really, really great. In his one workout at Belmont, he turned in a bullet of :47.6 seconds, so the track doesn't seem to bother him at all. His run in the Preakness says otherwise, but he was midpack in most races before that (including 12th of 20 at the Derby). A very deserving favorite.
10. MUCHO MACHO MAN (10-1): If MMM was going to win a Triple Crown race, it was going to be the Preakness. However, he lost a shoe (AGAIN!) and finished sixth. This horse is also making me scratch my head. Why run him again? His pedigree suggests that this is much too far for him, and as well as he ran in the Derby, he still has only won two of 10 lifetime starts. That said, his lone work on the Belmont main track was 5 furlongs in :59.4, which was best of 15 at the distance. Still, at 10-1, I can find better uses for my money.
11. ISN'T HE PERFECT (50-1): But ... but ... why is this horse here?!? Finished ninth in the Preakness ... and that was after he got this comment from me before the race: "Amazingly irrelevant. I'm not sure why he's here. He hasn't finished better than fifth in three graded races. Figures to sit mid-pack and just hang out there for the whole race. I would be absolutely floored if this horse won." Obviously, this horse is not worthy of anything.
12. SHACKLEFORD (9-2): It's not that a frontrunner can't win this race -- as the stats show, that was actually a big advantage for a time. It's that I'm not sure THIS frontrunner can win this race. He has such heart and that race he ran in the Preakness was simply inspiring, but his pedigree indicates this is going to be a tough distance for him. I do believe he'll get SOME pressure on the lead from PRIME CUT, so it's not going to be the walk in the park that the Preakness ultimately was. That said, even if it is, I don't think Animal Kingdom will be as far back as he was last time. Shackleford won't get away with holding off Animal Kingdom, a horse that was 14 lengths back at the first call in the Preakness. And he's going to have to hold it longer. Trainer Dale Romans says Shackleford has a "high cruising speed," which, if true, would make him an idea Belmont candidate. I just think, based on the pedigree, the way he dropped off in the Derby is indicative of what will happen in the Belmont. Especially in this race, with so many reasonably solid horses around, you have to make some tough decisions to avoid betting the whole bunch. I can't advise a bet on Shackleford at anywhere under 8-1.
----
I have a good bit of distaste for a number of horses in this field.
At this point, I'm considering:
MASTER OF HOUNDS
STAY THIRSTY
SANTIVA
PRIME CUT
ANIMAL KINGDOM
Could maybe consider:
SHACKLEFORD
Per usual, here's my tiered breakdown of where I expect horses to be:
FIRST TIER: SHACKLEFORD, PRIME CUT
SECOND TIER: MASTER OF HOUNDS, STAY THIRSTY, MUCHO MACHO MAN, NEHRO, SANTIVA
THIRD TIER: RULER ON ICE, ANIMAL KINGDOM
FOURTH TIER: BRILLIANT SPEED, ISN'T HE PERFECT, MONZON
SHACKLEFORD, breaking from Post 12, will be sent hard to get that early lead. There's literally no other true early speed in the race, BUT ... since PRIME CUT is breaking from Post 8 and SHACKLEFORD will be breaking down hard inside, PRIME CUT almost has no choice but to go with him. PRIME CUT is not an on-the-lead horse, but he's a right-there horse -- he has never been further back than two lengths at the first call. Unless he wants to jump SHACKLEFORD's heels, I think he gets sent hard enough to keep SHACKLEFORD off of the rail entering the first turn.
MASTER OF HOUNDS, NEHRO and ANIMAL KINGDOM have all shown tactical speed in their races, and I think NEHRO will roughly duplicate his Derby race -- press the pace from about three lenghts off of it. ANIMAL KINGDOM will not be as far back this time out. I would be downright shocked if he is. Everything I saw in the Preakness and everything I hear from Graham Motion about it being a "tactical" race tells me he'll be closer up -- more mid-pack, six lengths off like he was in the Derby. MASTER OF HOUNDS remains the toughest to figure, but his UAE Derby race was run nearly on the lead throughout and I expect his connections to also send him a bit harder than the Derby, when he was eight lengths back at the second call. Breaking from the rail will also necessitate a bit more early speed.
As they turn for home, SHACKLEFORD and PRIME CUT continue to battle it out. SHACKLEFORD should ultimately put PRIME CUT away, though, but neither of these horses has the ability to get the distance.
As he did in the Derby, NEHRO is the first to strike the front, but MASTER OF HOUNDS looms large behind him on the outside. MUCHO MACHO MAN is out of gas and fades. SANTIVA and STAY THIRSTY stay on steadily but don't have the run that MASTER OF HOUNDS does.
Meanwhile, it's ANIMAL KINGDOM moving the best of all. With less than a furlong to go, MASTER OF HOUNDS passes NEHRO and only has to hold off ANIMAL KINGDOM for 100 more yards to win the Belmont Stakes.
It's tight at the wire. ANIMAL KINGDOM was flying but MASTER OF HOUNDS showed no signs of letting up. In the end, it is ANIMAL KINGDOM by a nose to claim two of the Triple Crown's three legs. MASTER OF HOUNDS is second.
In the other races, I felt like I had some semblance of the order they'd come home in. This time ... it's just a mess. I can't see SHACKLEFORD completely falling apart, but there are a lot of pressers that I like in this race. Here's my stab at it:
ANIMAL KINGDOM, MASTER OF HOUNDS, NEHRO, SHACKLEFORD, SANTIVA, STAY THIRSTY, BRILLIANT SPEED, PRIME CUT, MUCHO MACHO MAN, MONZON, RULER ON ICE, ISN'T HE PERFECT
---
Now, ALL OF THAT SAID ... I would only be betting ANIMAL KINGDOM AT 2/1 to finance my other bets. I like him, I like his connections, I think he's a great fit for this race ... but 2/1 doesn't offer much value here. A lot of things can go wrong.
CURRENTLY WORTHY OF WIN BETS:
MASTER OF HOUNDS (10-1)
POTENTIALLY WORTHY:
SHACKLEFORD (NEED 8-1)
ANIMAL KINGDOM (NEED 4-1)
SANTIVA (NEED 18-1)
STAY THIRSTY (NEED 24-1)
PRIME CUT (NEED 30-1)
HORSES I WON'T BET:
NEHRO
BRILLIANT SPEED
MUCHO MACHO MAN
MONZON
RULER ON ICE
ISN'T HE PERFECT
And that's it. As with my other previews, I will likely update at a later date below.
Good luck!
----
UPDATE 6/11, 3:50 P.M.: I am AMAZED that SHACKLEFORD is up at 9-1. Especially on a sloppy or even muddy going, that is a massive, massive overlay. OK, maybe not massive, but it's a great bet. Far better, in fact, than my "pick" to win in Master of Hounds at 9-2. That's just silly. I don't like hardly any of these horses on a sloppy going, but SHACKLEFORD is one that figures to benefit from it -- not only because of his Tomlinson figure of 419 (a figure that measures a horse's likely success on mud and the best in the field) -- but also because of his front-running style: generally, this helps frontrunners as speed carries better.
He also won't have to deal with mud in his face, which is a big question mark for other horses in this field.
Really, this sloppy/muddy going just MUDDIES things up entirely. MUCHO MACHO MAN is the only one that figures to really "get better" on the mud, but I never liked him to begin with and I still don't see it. MONZON figures to be about the same, but yeah -- don't see that one, either. I think NEHRO gets a major downgrade in the slop, so I'm actively betting against him in every possible way.
BRILLIANT SPEED should also be mostly unaffected on the slop, but he's a hard one to like, too, especially at the same price as SHACKLEFORD.
SANTIVA might be worthy of a slight upgrade on the slop -- he ran third in his only start on an off track, and that was his first race ever. Ditto on STAY THIRSTY -- he was second on an off track in his first start and figures to not be tremendously worse.
A sloppy track is bad news for ANIMAL KINGDOM and MASTER OF HOUNDS. It works against them in every possible way. I can't bet either of them at this point.
Based on current odds, my final plays will be:
SHACKLEFORD 8-1
SANTIVA 13-1
STAY THIRSTY 15-1
