Let it Bleed.....Or Not

- Someone asked Steve Crist during a chat session on the Preakness this evening what he thought of Wilko’s chances, and he replied:

If he really had a serious bleeding problem in the Derby, then maybe. If not, he's a dead closer who should have run better than he did given the pace and the way the race fell apart.

It sounds as if Crist read the same conflicting quotes from Craig Dollase that I printed here. Isn't this a prime example of the kind of information that easily can and should be disclosed to the betting public? Did this horse bleed badly, or did he just have a “normal” amount of blood traces? What would Dollase be trying to do here by now playing down any bleeding, get a better price on his horse? I was looking today at the print edition of Bloodhorse, and they have pictures of the Derby field at various stages of the race, and I came to the same conclusion as Crist - Wilko should have run better from back where he was. Without an excuse, it was then just another of what has become his typical race - hanging at crunch time, and I would absolutely not bet on him. I feel as if I have insufficient information to make an informed decision about this horse.