![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
dodgy? you must be from the UK |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
This outright fraud.
"Brocklebank was also the underbidder on the filly." Bockelbank bought the filly for $29,000 a day before. Any ideas why this guy was bidding on his own filly during the sale ? There should be jail time for this guy. They can't just let this go. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
This thread needs constant exposure. Another outstanding article by Ray Paulick.
Last edited by sumitas : 10-26-2006 at 12:44 PM. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Agreed. Those "pinhookers"...uggggggh. Also, I know you're not albetty. Geesh! DTS |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
thanks DTS, i have better things to do than masquerade around under another nic, although it is halloween
...here are some questions 1) were this pinhooker and Chase in cahoots to defraud an unsuspecting owner ? 2) was there collusion in the FT office to get this filly in this sale after she was sold the day before ? there's enough evidence here that the KY attny general needs to start a criminal investigation about this event. Last edited by sumitas : 10-26-2006 at 03:56 PM. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You ask some good questions. I wish I knew the answers. My guess is that in the "fine print", there's an option to offer the horse for sale as listed or scratch out. The last thing we need is to have more suspicions. Just the appearance of "dirty" is clearly not what we need. Shady stuff is just that. I have to look at the rules (2004?). I sure hope they answer all the doubts that have been raised. DTS |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because Brockelbank was the underbidder on his own horse there needs to be an investigation surrounding this "sale." I don't think his arrogant quotes are anywhere near enough to put this to rest.
|