|
By:
He was probably clue less to how it would run , nothing clever in that , just very suspect ,imo
|
|
By:
If they were clueless as to how it would run then why is it suspect?
|
|
By:
" some training feat " my ass lol , they will have backed it ! , would not have been ridden to win like it was ,
|
|
By:
You don`t back a horse to win then put another up to beat it , lol , suspect imo
|
|
By:
What on earth has - "they will have backed it," - got to do with, " some training feat " my ass"?
An Entirely illogical outburst. Of course they backed it - it was AIMED specifically at the race - Why? - Because ... The Winning OWNER's SON RODE it - and the same Father and Son won this SAME race last year. |
|
By:
Sorry , my paper had down the same trainer for the winner , and the second ! , did not realise they were different trainers ,
|
|
By:
Your sarcasm does not become you.
We are well aware that Mullins trains BOTH ... and, at an educated guess ... You backed the other one. |
|
By:
I think he also trained the second fav , beaten about 60 lenghts ? All i am implying that if it was a great training feat as you suggest , did said trainer have much of a clue about how each horse would run as reflected in the betting ? thats all , You might think that a trainer might have a better idea of how his horses may run ? imo , And no i did not back the other one , but by the betting i assume alot of other punters did , it`s just an opinion
|