There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
26 Oct 11
16:43
Joined:
Date Joined:
14 Nov 02
I think the others should follow
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 14
|
By:
Sky Bet wouldn't have laid a penny piece on either so it shouldn't hit them too hard.
|
|
By:
Reckon they would've paid out if they had 10k on My Mate Jake?
NOPE. |
|
By:
There was an objection AFTER the weigh in, bookmakers should have paid out
|
|
By:
Hills and Laddies pay out in shops,expect PP does but doubt the bald one does
|
|
By:
couldn't have been after weighed in weighed in shout,until then they are not officially weighed in.
|
|
By:
How could they be weighed in if the weight was the issue?
|
|
By:
the objection is raised at the incorrect weigh in not after
|
|
By:
Hills paid out online and then took it back off me .Can't understand why they're paying out in shops and not online.
|
|
By:
online they give BOG,in shops FPP so it is up to the individual.
|
|
By:
FPP shouldn't apply to DQed horses. Everybody would be cheating on purpose just to get paid out on FPP. It's plain wrong.
|
|
By:
on reflection shops possibly don't pay on COS objections,normally it is place demotions for riding offences. Aren't Skybet great? Now they can do it all the time.
|
|
By:
Hills paid out then took it back off me to to the tune of £200. I'm in talks with them now. I'm stating that the objection was after the weigh in. Am iI incorrect here?
|
|
By:
No............the weigh in exposed the shortfall in weight.
Punters never beat the Clerk of the Scales. |
|
By:
365 payed out and then revoked. They probably assumed FPP but then realised it wasn't the case.
|