|
Shackleford Comes Into 2011 Belmont Stakes as an Underdog
At the rate he's going, you would think that Shackleford would be plum out of critics by now. At the Florida Derby in early April, Shackleford raced to a second-place finish after coming into the race as a 68-1 longshot. At the Kentucky Derby, his odds improved to 23-1, and was one of the race's pacesetters before fading to a fourth-place finish. At the Preakness Stakes, Shackleford overcame 12-1 odds to beat out Kentucky Derby winner Animal Kingdom for his first win in several months. As such, you would think that Shackleford would be one of the clear favorites for the Belmont Stakes. He is, but he's also kinda not. On Wednesday, the posts and odds for the third leg of the Triple Crown. Shackleford drew the No. 12 post, and was given 9-2 odds. That makes him the third favorite behind Animal Kingdom (2-1) and Nehro (4-1), who didn't even race in the Preakness Stakes. So what gives? Is there a legitimate gripe against Shackleford? Or is this a case of him simply not getting the respect he deserves. If you were to ask trainer Dale Romans, it's the latter. MUST READ: One Fact About Each Belmont Stakes Horse
“He’s not getting the respect he deserves,” Romans said on Thursday at Belmont Park, according to the Associated Press. “Let’s see what happens after the race.” I'm sure Romans meant to say what we'll see what happens during the race. After all, that's what really matters, right? The truth is that there is a reason why Shackleford is being underrated. Whether you prefer to call him a pacesetter or a front-runner, he does tend to tackle races at full throttle the whole way. In a 1.5-mile race like the Belmont Stakes, that could be his undoing. As such, the general thinking is that Shackleford will have to hang back a little bit, conserving his energy for a closing burst. Seeing as how that's not really his style, that might not work. Then again, Shackleford has been making it a habit of proving us humans wrong in recent weeks. We shall see if he can do so again.
source: |
