There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Nice bet 
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 30
|
By:
1.16 £16,366
|
|
By:
just watched it again and dartmouth still won
 wtf |
|
By:
The cameraman focus on the loser after the line then lay it !
|
|
By:
When you need De Sousa....
|
|
By:
won everywhere apart from the line
|
|
By:
That will teach one to oi oi one's horses home. @RoyalFamily 2m ago
|
|
By:
Queen just kicked in the tele.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
you couldnt have watched the slow motion , and still thought dartmouth had won
|
|
By:
Moore ridden out of it by Ronald Macdonald ffs.
 |
|
By:
They all finished pretty bunched up considering the distance, bit of a suspect result I think. Backed sheikzayedroad who didn't get any room before staying on
|
|
By:
equine flew Joined: 28 Aug 02
Replies: 1480 25 Aug 17 14:37 Queen just kicked in the tele. PJ Mac leaving his wheels in the car park, just in case  |
|
By:
if it were layed near line it was done on basis there would be a stewards..but then got the jackpot cos it looked winner doing over.
|
|
By:
in real time cardenden
|
|
By:
Yeah very weak event for the grade..... two **** that found less for pressure, and a horse who is better than these but no form over 2m gets chinned....
|
|
By:
wazza , why wouldn't you lay one close home at 1.16 if there was a head bob likely ? ( there was a horse between 1st and 2nd so no chance of a stewards although I admit short price layers can have that on their side )
|
|
By:
Was every chance of a stewards and a reversal in 2nd had won. 2nd caused winner and 3rd horse to drift right over the track
|
|
By:
if
|
|
By:
What problem is that to the dartmouth layer ? No chance of the winner losing it. correct ?
|
|
By:
james is correct....
every chance it would have been a 1.01 job imv if it hadn't veered right and more than likely the stewards would've got involved.... |
|
By:
1.01 was layed on the basis of a forthcoming stewards..not a man in world thort dartmouth hadnt held on going over line.
|
|
By:
i thought lowest price was 1.16....?
|
|
By:
1.05 lowest
|
|
By:
think he means its 1.01 the 1.16 was laid on the basis there might be a stewards
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
disagree that looked 1.01 minus stewards possibility...honestly thought Montaly had nodded perfectly and dived for remote
|
|
By:
1.05 was lowest...?
fk sake my graphs must be slow then.... i was surprised Dartmouth didn't hit 1.01 with the thin in running liquidity we are subjected to now. |
|
By:
going past the line 'live' i thought Dartmouth had won duncan...
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
think vast majority did, HH
|