And the Kentucky Derby winner isn't

I've spent the past week discussing this year's Kentucky Derby with anyone who will listen, and although I've stuck my neck out to make Hansen my to pick, the most common thing I've said in these discussions is, "I don't like the horse, but he could win."

It's a tough Derby because so many horses can win, but you can't use them all, and some you shouldn't use at all. Horses like Gemologist and Bodemeister fall in the former category for me. Yeah, they can win, and are even more likely winners than some of the horses I'll bet, but I'm willing to take my stand against them. After $100 horses Giacomo and Mine That Bird won two of five Derbys, I got out of the business of saying "so and so" can't win , but that doesn't mean I need to spend money on certain horses.

Other than instanity-insurance "ALL" plays with horses I really like (e.g., Turallure in the Woodford Reserve), I won't have any money on Daddy Long Legs, Optimizer, Trinniberg, Prospective, Done Talking, or Liaison, and if I had to pick the least likely winner of the race it would Trinniberg.

I think the Derby is generally more kind to horses who race near the front of the pack than closers, but it's tough to ignore that the two aforementioned bombs were both closers. It's just impossible to think Trinniberg can go all the way with Hansen and Bodemeister in the second tier tracking him.

Optimizer is my second least likely winner. He's slow and his running style is a handicap. If the winner is a horse running late, I don't see how it's him.

The least likely winner doesn't mean that horse is most likely to finish last, of course, though 19 horses passing Trinniberg as he backs gamely through the field probably is the most likely last-place scenario.