Preakness aftermath: Oh, well...that's horse racin'
By
-
By JIM MOORE
The Preakness Stakes last Saturday surprised a lot of folks (me for sure) because the winner - Lookin at Lucky - was not looking a lot better than several others - the second place finisher, First Dude, was essentially a low profile steed and though the "show" horse, Jackson Bend, was interesting there was just too much reason to believe Calvin Borel would bring Super Saver home for the win.
So there will be no Triple Crown winner this year - the last one being in 1978. And three weeks from now the Belmont, the last race of the Triple Crown, will be be anyone's race to win, or so it will seem.
The starting line for the Belmont has net been determined yet but there will surely be a plethora of fine horses to make the handicapping as esoteric as possible. With the roster not yet set it is difficult to even think of the questions to ask. However...at the moment I am intrigued by the Preakness's second-place finisher, the big gangly, low profile colt named First Dude.
From a trivia view - he is, in fact, named to honor Sarah Palin's husband, the "first man" when she was in the Alaska Governor's mansion, or igloo or whatever they have there. And the dam (mother) of First Dude was a mare named Run Sarah Run. But the trivia isn't the reason for the interest.
Some race fans think larger horses like First Dude are not as agile and thus have, or may have, troubles on the turns. I happen to be not convinced of that and I suspect anyone who ever watched the big filly Rachel Alexandra probably questions that theory too.
If I've seen anything seem to be characteristic of bigger, longer-strided horses it is that they often seem to fare better at longer distances. My completely amateur logic is that they gain a small amount of ground with every stride and thus the longer race which takes more strides equates to more gain.
Of course last Saturday's Preakness in which First Dude was edged out by Lookin at Lucky, a smaller than average Throughbred would seem to counter that. But... the Preakness was only a mile and three-sixteenths.
Given another furlong or two, First Dude (or Jackson Bend) might have won. And that is the interesting point because the Belmont is a full mile and a half and that, in my completely unprofessional opinion may play right into the fortune of a big colt like First Dude.
It's three long weeks until we find out.[[In-content Ad]]
The Preakness Stakes last Saturday surprised a lot of folks (me for sure) because the winner - Lookin at Lucky - was not looking a lot better than several others - the second place finisher, First Dude, was essentially a low profile steed and though the "show" horse, Jackson Bend, was interesting there was just too much reason to believe Calvin Borel would bring Super Saver home for the win.
So there will be no Triple Crown winner this year - the last one being in 1978. And three weeks from now the Belmont, the last race of the Triple Crown, will be be anyone's race to win, or so it will seem.
The starting line for the Belmont has net been determined yet but there will surely be a plethora of fine horses to make the handicapping as esoteric as possible. With the roster not yet set it is difficult to even think of the questions to ask. However...at the moment I am intrigued by the Preakness's second-place finisher, the big gangly, low profile colt named First Dude.
From a trivia view - he is, in fact, named to honor Sarah Palin's husband, the "first man" when she was in the Alaska Governor's mansion, or igloo or whatever they have there. And the dam (mother) of First Dude was a mare named Run Sarah Run. But the trivia isn't the reason for the interest.
Some race fans think larger horses like First Dude are not as agile and thus have, or may have, troubles on the turns. I happen to be not convinced of that and I suspect anyone who ever watched the big filly Rachel Alexandra probably questions that theory too.
If I've seen anything seem to be characteristic of bigger, longer-strided horses it is that they often seem to fare better at longer distances. My completely amateur logic is that they gain a small amount of ground with every stride and thus the longer race which takes more strides equates to more gain.
Of course last Saturday's Preakness in which First Dude was edged out by Lookin at Lucky, a smaller than average Throughbred would seem to counter that. But... the Preakness was only a mile and three-sixteenths.
Given another furlong or two, First Dude (or Jackson Bend) might have won. And that is the interesting point because the Belmont is a full mile and a half and that, in my completely unprofessional opinion may play right into the fortune of a big colt like First Dude.
It's three long weeks until we find out.[[In-content Ad]]