You are quite right, Viagra Man. Nothing libellous about stating who Edward Toller drove for, that's just a statement of fact. You'd think the paper would be delighted to get such a juicy story, and would stop at nothing to get to the bottom of it.
You are quite right, Viagra Man. Nothing libellous about stating who Edward Toller drove for, that's just a statement of fact. You'd think the paper would be delighted to get such a juicy story, and would stop at nothing to get to the bottom of it.
Thats typical of the attitude of the racing post , bury anything with a whif of controversy , that should be front page imo , the bookies obviously didnt approve
Thats typical of the attitude of the racing post , bury anything with a whif of controversy , that should be front page imo , the bookies obviously didnt approve
Surely punters have a right to know which jockey the driver drove for and from there they can draw their own conclusions. It's easier to say nothing and let punters bet away on horses who the jockey knows wont be winning...
Surely punters have a right to know which jockey the driver drove for and from there they can draw their own conclusions. It's easier to say nothing and let punters bet away on horses who the jockey knows wont be winning...
a bit dizzee 23 Apr 12:21 You are quite right, Viagra Man. Nothing libellous about stating who Edward Toller drove for, that's just a statement of fact. You'd think the paper would be delighted to get such a juicy story, and would stop at nothing to get to the bottom of it.
You have a very dry sense of humour, abd.
a bit dizzee 23 Apr 12:21 You are quite right, Viagra Man. Nothing libellous about stating who Edward Toller drove for, that's just a statement of fact. You'd think the paper would be delighted to get such a juicy story, and would stop at noth