Two long shot picks to win the 2025 Belmont Stakes
Guessing where the prices will go ahead of a Triple Crown race can be a tricky endeavor.
There will be a lot more casual money in the pool than in a normal stakes race, so things can get a little funky behind the window as punters back horses with their favorite name, story, or connections.
But the betting handle for the 2025 Belmont Stakes should be pretty easy to project. Most of the money is going to show up on the two favorites, No. 7 Journalism (8-5) and No. 2 Sovereignty (2-1).
In all likelihood, Journalism and Sovereignty will go off shorter than 2-1, which could make this the tightest margin between the favorite and second choice at the Belmont Stakes since Strodes Creek (13-10) and Go For Gin (3-2) in 1994, per Ed DeRosa of Horse Racing Nation.
It is easy to make the case for either Journalism or Sovereignty to win this race — the morning-line odds suggest it's essentially a 75 percent chance one of the favorites comes out on top — but there's a reason there are eight horses in this field, and not just two.
After all, Go For Gin and Strodes Creek finished second and third, respectively, behind third-favorite Tabasco Cat in 1994.
Here are my 2025 Belmont Stakes long-shot picks:
No. 1 Hill Road (10-1)
This price should balloon on race day.
Not only will the punters be lining up to back the two headliners, but Baeza will be a trendy third choice, and Rodriguez will get plenty of support given the fact he's trained by Bob Baffert.
That should set up a situation where Hill Road, who began his career in Ireland, will fly under the radar and hit the board at a big number.
To do that, he'll need the race to follow a specific script.
Like Sovereignty, Hill Road is a closer who will want the pace to be hot, and then melt down in the business end of the race.
Should that happen, Hill Road could pass plenty of tiring foes on his way to a surprising finish.
Crudo in his stall after his morning workout at Saratoga Race Course.
Gregory Fisher-Imagn Images
No. 5 Crudo (15-1)
There are a couple of horses that could earnestly attempt to go from gate to wire in this field.
Most pundits believe Rodriguez will be the horse that gets out into the lead from the jump, but Crudo could be right there with Baffert's entrant, or even jump out in front of the No. 3 horse.
Rodriguez will be the trendier pick between the two front-running horses.
Not only is he a Baffert-trained contender, but he will be fresh after he was scratched from the Kentucky Derby and skipped the Preakness.
Get the lowdown on the Best USA Sports Betting Sites and Apps
Those factors should keep his price in the single digits, while Crudo's odds hover around long-shot territory.
But the real reason that Crudo, trained by Todd Pletcher, is a live long shot at Saratoga on Saturday is that he just wired the field in the Sir Barton Stakes three weeks ago on Preakness Day.
The competition in that race was nowhere near what he'll face in the Belmont, but there's also a decent chance that this lightly raced horse owned by chef Bobby Flay and Jimmy Ventura continues to improve.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Carney needs to keep his eye on the source code as trade playbook is rewritten
By Jim Hinton and Alexis Conrad We keep talking about sovereignty like it's 1965. Flags, borders, boots on the ground. But in 2025, national power is built on source code, algorithms, patents and digital infrastructure. Canada is giving those away faster than we can build them. As Prime Minister Mark Carney tries to secure a trade deal with Donald Trump, the stakes are clear. These talks aren't just about commodities and contracts. They're about leverage. And if Canada doesn't control its own innovation, we don't have any. We can invest billions in defence and advanced technology. But if foreign companies own the intellectual property and control the data, then Canada doesn't hold the power. We're not building Canadian strength. We're financing someone else's. That's not sovereignty. That's surrender. Canada is prepared to spend up to $150 billion annually on defence by 2035. It's the largest investment in our history. But unless we change how we treat intellectual property (IP), we'll spend that money building technologies we don't control, strengthening companies that don't answer to Canadians and subsidizing the success of foreign nations instead of our own. Modern defence runs on dual-use technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, quantum and advanced materials. The kind that can be used in both civilian and military settings. Their value lies in code, data, algorithms and patents. And in Canada, we still don't treat any of that as a national asset. Each year, our universities conduct research worth more than $15 billion, much of which is publicly funded. But there's no national framework to ensure that the IP created through this investment benefits Canadians. Instead, we're watching it slip through our fingers. More than 75 per cent of Canada-funded AI research ends up in the hands of foreign companies, based on ownership data published by global patent offices. Between 2005 and 2022, researchers at 50 Canadian universities co-authored scientific papers with scientists linked to China's military. More than 20 universities partnered with Huawei on hundreds of patents. Despite claims in 2021 that those ties had been cut, some filings continued as recently as this February, according to records with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It doesn't stop there. Patent office records also show that Dalhousie handed electric battery IP to Tesla, and that the University of Toronto gave AI patents to Google. The talent is here. Canada ranks among the top 10 countries globally for research output. But when it comes to turning that research into commercial value and retaining ownership, we fall off the map. Meanwhile, other countries are playing to win. The U.S. CHIPS Act is pouring US$52 billion into domestic semiconductor development, with strict rules around IP, jobs, and ownership. South Korea gives homegrown firms a leg up in defence contracts. Finland ensures its IP remains Finnish. All of them see innovation as a matter of national interest. Canada, on the other hand, is still playing by 1990s free-market rules in a 2025 global security economy. Our first major procurement decision after announcing the new defence policy was a contract awarded to an Australian company, with little evidence that Canadian options were seriously considered. We pat ourselves on the back for 'supporting jobs.' But labour without ownership doesn't build wealth, it builds dependence. If Canadian companies are just assembling someone else's tech, and don't own the IP or data behind it, we're not growing our economy. We're renting someone else's. And we're paying top dollar to do it. Sovereignty today means owning the foundations of innovation — the source code, the algorithms, the patents, the AI models and the infrastructure behind them. Without that, we are perpetually reliant on others for products and power. We saw it in our telecom sector with Huawei. We're seeing it in cleantech, where promising Canadian companies are bought up or moved abroad. And we'll see it again in defence, unless we change course. So what do we do? First, we need to make federal procurement a lever for Canadian ownership. Ask tough questions before signing deals, like who owns the resulting IP? Where is the data stored? Who controls it after the contract ends? Canada will look at opportunities to remove tariffs, Carney says Carney pledges $1.2 billion for lumber sector hit by Trump Second, we must connect innovation programs like ElevateIP to a national strategy focused on dual-use technologies, defence commercialization and domestic control. Third, we need to stop being shocked every time Canadian innovation ends up in someone else's hands. It's not a surprise. It's a system design failure, and one we can fix. We can build it here. We can own what we build. And we can sell it to the world on our terms. If we're going to spend $150 billion to defend the country, let's make sure we're not also defending everyone else's innovation pipeline along the way. Jim Hinton is an IP lawyer and founder of Own Innovation. Alexis Conrad is the principal IP advisor at Communitech. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Alexander Zverev vs. Karen Khachanov odds, prediction: ATP Toronto tennis picks
Gambling content 21+. The New York Post may receive an affiliate commission if you sign up through our links. Read our editorial standards for more information. Alexander Zverev and Karen Khachanov will meet in the semifinals of the 2025 Canadian Masters on Wednesday evening. Zverev, the No. 1 seed because Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner skipped the event, is a -250 favorite to defeat Khachanov, who is looking for his first Masters 1000 title since 2018. Zverev owns a 5-2 advantage over Khachanov in their career head-to-head, and he is 3-1 against the Russian on outdoor hard surfaces. ATP Toronto semifinals: Zverev vs. Khachanov odds Player Odds Alexander Zverev -250 Karen Khachanov +200 Odds via bet365 Perhaps it's unfair to compare anybody to Sinner and Alcaraz, but given Zverev's status as the No. 1 overall seed in this field, you'd like to have seen things go a little smoother for him to get to this point in the tournament, especially since he was coming off back-to-back losses before getting to Canada. Zverev has dropped the first set in two of his last three matches, and the other contest saw his opponent, Francisco Cerundolo, retire early. A win is a win, but when you're deciding on whether to back the tournament favorite at this kind of price, you'd want to see a more dominant performance. It's especially worrisome against a player like Khachanov, who can punish you in a number of ways. Not only does he have elite endurance, but he's a crafty player who can throw you off your rhythm quickly. Karen Khachanov celebrating a point at the Canadian Masters. AP Khachanov also comes into this match in top form, having won four in a row and 11 of his last 13 matches, with his only defeats coming at the hands of Taylor Fritz and Alexander Bublik on the grass. Both Fritz and Bublik are as hot as any player on the planet right now, and they are both terrors on the lawn. Khachanov has struggled in this head-to-head and he hasn't won against a top-10 opponent in 2025, but his form makes him worth a shot on Wednesday night. The Play: Khachanov +200 (bet365) Why Trust New York Post Betting Michael Leboff is a long-suffering Islanders fan, but a long-profiting sports bettor with 10 years of experience in the gambling industry. He loves using game theory to help punters win bracket pools, find long shots, and learn how to beat the market in mainstream and niche sports.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
ESPN completely sheds disguise of objectivity with NFL deal
Good morning and welcome back to The Morning Win, where I'm still allowed to voice an opinion on just about anything in sports without fear of consequence. Today, the same can't be said about ESPN after it was announced Tuesday that Disney agreed to sell a 10 percent equity stake of the network to the NFL in exchange for the rights to distribute the NFL Network and RedZone Channel. Reaction to the news seemed mostly negative, as fans on social media worried ESPN might ruin a couple properties they enjoy which... yikes. Really tells you how people feel about ESPN these days. There's also the obvious gambling conflict that comes up with ESPN Bet. But that's not the part I'm concerned with right now. What jumped out to me about this deal is the journalism of it all. ESPN is the biggest sports media company in the country. It's supposed to cover the NFL. How on earth can it do that objectively if the NFL is a part-owner? ESPN DTC: Everything to know about the new streaming service The answer, of course, is it probably can't. This deal is ESPN completely taking off any disguise of being a trusted source of hard-hitting, independent journalism. At least when it comes to the big, bad National Football League. Or at least it won't be able to shake it if there's a controversial story handled a certain way. The truth is, this was always the case. Has been for a while. When you earn the broadcast rights for games from a league as powerful as the NFL, you have to be a good little partner to keep those rights. Let me say that ESPN has done good work on the journalism side, from the writers who cover each team to the investigative stories penned by Don Van Natta Jr. and Seth Wickersham. And Disney CEO Bob Iger recently told the Wall Street Journal "nothing in this deal in any way changes ESPN's approach when it comes to journalism," and he's right, because ESPN always tip-toed in its coverage. But remember when the network suspended Bill Simmons in 2014 for calling Roger Goodell a liar? That happened to one of its most popular sports personalities when the NFL only had a fraction of the power and influence it'll have now. But here's the thing: Even as ESPN likely played nice all along, the network at least cared about its optics before. Even if objectivity was compromised, the Worldwide Leader in sports separated itself enough to give an impression its writers and personalities had the freedom to hold partners accountable if necessary. Now? That veil is completely gone. Ripped off overnight. ESPN has completely leaned into the "E" of it all. The NFL is boss. So, yeah, ESPN might ruin the NFL Network and RedZone, but that's not the part I'm worried about because ESPN's coverage of the NFL will probably ruin ESPN first. PSA: STOP THROWING THINGS AT WNBA GAMES! I really didn't think it'd become necessary to address this, but people can be stupid sometimes and love to give us constant reminders of how stupid they can be. So here it is: Can we please stop throwing sex toys on the court at WNBA games? It's not funny and it never was. Not the first time, and not the latest time during Tuesday's game between the Fever and Sparks, which Sophie Cunningham addressed in a tweet and Sparks coach Lynne Roberts had this to say about: "I think it's ridiculous. It's dumb. It's stupid. It's also dangerous. Player safety is number one. Respecting the game. All those things. I think it's really stupid." At least one of the people caught for throwing something at a game has been arrested and faces multiple charges. I personally hope they catch the others too. This is getting out of hand. Quick Hits: No more smelling salts ... Spider-Man is back ... and more The NFL has a new ban on smelling salts and ammonia inhalants and at least one player is taking the news really hard. George Kittle said he considered retirement over the ban. Filming for the new MCU Spider-Man flick, Spider-Man: Brand New Day, is underway, and this one photo from the set has me so fired up for the release. The Mystics traded all-star guard Brittany Sykes to the contending Storm. Here's Meg Hall with trade grades for the surprising deal. If the Cowboys stink this year, it won't be because of the bad vibes created by Jerry Jones or an absence of Micah Parsons. It'll be because new coach Brian Schottenheimer wears a backwards visor. Umm, OK. This article originally appeared on For The Win: ESPN and NFL deal brings in objectivity questions
