Kent D...again

[DiscreetCat=Monster]

Originally Posted by Round Pen

I am Sorry I just can't respond to this because I am still ROFLMAO

I just got that, ha that is the funniest thing i have heard this week!!!!!!


Then we could have them run the opposite way as well, NO

[ironprospect]

I do not post often and may not expess my self as well as I would like to.

But I would expect as the more "Veteran Posters" of this site chime in they will agree will my view

just because the view provided by the cameras do not provide conclusive proof of interference does not mean it was not the truth

it only means that the lack of a camera angle provided at most racetracks in North America that would have shown that closing a hole with a horse up to the saddle of the horse in front would be disqualification grounds but without a defininate camera view. The Stewards had no option but to leave the winner up.

That does not make they're call correct.

[timmgirvan]

I don't usually bet on anything Kent rides...it hurts too much

[GPK]

Two jocks I wouldn't bet with someone else's money:

Kent D. and Mike S.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

I don't usually bet on anything Kent rides...it hurts too much

HOLY COW!!!
You heard it here folks!
I agree with Timmgirvan!
Finally, something that is total agreement!
There really IS hope!!!!
HOLY COW!!!!!!

DTS

[Round Pen]

OK Seriously there is not a race track in the Country that there would have been a definitive camera angle to determine if there were indeed been a reason to disqualify.


It is a judgement call when this happens and 99 times out of a hundred a horse trying to Squeeze up the rail on the far turn will not get through.