Separate names with a comma.
It's a bit like with Big Buck's because Frankel wouldn't be conventionally attractive.
Very soft according to the RP.
He does look much tighter than he was at Newmarket two weeks ago. Thanks PN. He is some specimen.
Sir Henry saying the Queen Anne is more likely at Royal Ascot, but didn't rule out the Prince Of Wales'. I hope he goes for the Queen Anne because...
I don't think you'd like his diet very much . . . . <laugh>
He was fat as a pig 2 weeks ago so I can well believe it! <cheers>
Queen Anne - Eclipse - (Sussex maybe) - International - Champion Stakes Something like that I reckon.
There are always doubters. No doubt Excelebration was below par, Dubawi Gold this, everything else that, etc., etc. He is the best horse. It is...
He looks better than ever. Considering Excelebration was race fit that was an exceptional performance. On that evidence it looks a matter of time...
If Excelebration comes clear of the rest and Frankel batters Excelebration then it's not impossible that his rating would increase. Unlikely that...
Thomas Chippendale won't be winning the Derby either then!! <laugh>
Thomas Chippendale should have a stone in hand off this mark. That doesn't mean that he'll win though. At 3/1 he was definitely worth the chance....
Very sad, and devastating for connections. RIP <rose>
2.05 Bangor - Master Of The Game 2.15 Newmarket - Noble Mission 5.40 Newmarket - Wrotham Heath 3.05 Newbury - Thomas Chippendale 4.40 Thirsk -...
I thought 7/1 about Fencing was a big price but Segal has savaged that. No strong opinion because it looks very tight. I hope something comes out...
And the middle one. :bandit: <laugh>
Couldn't call this. It looks ultra competitive to me. Leaving it well alone but watching with interest.
I can't for the life of me understand why or how they have managed to make it so complicated! <laugh>
I don't think anybody has any idea how the scoring works. <laugh> However, as Ches says, I think it is heavily SP based so we should be far...
The Prince is getting stuck in . . . . <laugh>
