<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" version="2.0">
							<channel><title>New Posts For Thread: 1.07 Hazy Tom spec savers required for layers?</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/28606491/107-hazy-tom-spec-savers-required-for-layers</link><description>I only got a tiny bit on as my internet freezed!</description><item><title>Well done, didn't look good at one point on run in either.</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/28606491/107-hazy-tom-spec-savers-required-for-layers?post_id=511539881#511539881</link><description>Well done, didn't look good at one point on run in either.</description><pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:45:11 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>the only stewards would have been at the 1st wen awaywiththegreys jumped miles to left and still amazed he never made fehily unseat on hazy tom thank god he stayed on as i had 185 on it at 5/6 but heart stopper all the same lol</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/28606491/107-hazy-tom-spec-savers-required-for-layers?post_id=511533983#511533983</link><description>the only stewards would have been at the 1st wen awaywiththegreys jumped miles to left and still amazed he never made fehily unseat on hazy tom thank god he stayed on as i had 185 on it at 5/6 but heart stopper all the same lol</description><pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:55:49 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>I would have thought so JB definitely would have been able to trade out.</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/28606491/107-hazy-tom-spec-savers-required-for-layers?post_id=511531493#511531493</link><description>I would have thought so JB definitely would have been able to trade out.</description><pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:02:41 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>Would have been a shorter price in a stewards anyway.</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/28606491/107-hazy-tom-spec-savers-required-for-layers?post_id=511531435#511531435</link><description>Would have been a shorter price in a stewards anyway.</description><pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:01:11 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>Weighed in paid out</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/28606491/107-hazy-tom-spec-savers-required-for-layers?post_id=511531415#511531415</link><description>Weighed in paid out</description><pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:00:39 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>There is no way it will lose the race, doubt will even be a stewards.</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/28606491/107-hazy-tom-spec-savers-required-for-layers?post_id=511531375#511531375</link><description>There is no way it will lose the race, doubt will even be a stewards.</description><pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:59:43 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>probably because there should be a sstewards</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/28606491/107-hazy-tom-spec-savers-required-for-layers?post_id=511531279#511531279</link><description>probably because there should be a sstewards</description><pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:57:25 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>theyre expecting a stewards then a bounce in the odds, its only been going on for 10 years</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/28606491/107-hazy-tom-spec-savers-required-for-layers?post_id=511531267#511531267</link><description>theyre expecting a stewards then a bounce in the odds, its only been going on for 10 years</description><pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:57:15 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>I only got a tiny bit on as my internet freezed!</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/28606491/107-hazy-tom-spec-savers-required-for-layers?post_id=511531189#511531189</link><description>I only got a tiny bit on as my internet freezed!</description><pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:55:54 -0500</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
