Saturday, 6 July 2013


Channel4 Racing Sponsored by Dubai



David Ashforth at the Derby Awards 6.12.10

 David Ashforth:
Twice voted journalist of the year
PICTURE: Dan Abraham

Please scroll down for Racing Post Coral Eclipse update Tuesday July 9th

Dead-heats are becoming extinct and it's sad to see


Pic "What was wrong with the Sherlock Holmes method when it came to a photo-finish?

"THE trouble with dead-heats is that there aren't enough of them. So credit to Dave Smith, even though he did make as error of judgement in calling a dead-heat at Kempton and has been judged unsuitable for making any further judgements. Dead -heats, and plenty of them, that's what racing and more particularly, punters, need.
"We need them even more since noses were invented. It was bad enough being beaten by a short head; it's worse being beaten by a nose . It will be worse still when digital technology moves on to hairs, and whiskers.


"There used to be a lot more dead-heats before photo-finish cameras were invented.. In the USA, cameras were commonplace by the early 1930s but, ten years later, they still weren't in use in Britain. The Jockey Club didn't believe in acting hastily but, after a rush of blood to the head, in 1947 one of the newfangled devices was used for the first time, at Epsom.
"They were so successful that, less than 20 years later, in 1966, it was proudly announced that, by the end of 1968, photo-finish equipment would be operated at most courses. By 1983, photo-finish cameras were in use everywhere. In those days, with the Jockey Club and racecourses, it was rush, rush, rush.
"In the meantime, judges' verdicts could be controversial . Famously, and possibly factually, a judge, having announced a startling verdict, descended from his box to be confronted by an irate punter. Clinging to politeness, the punter said: "Are you sure you got that right, sir? It must have been very close."
"Yes, it was," replied thee judge "damn close, and I don't mind telling you, it got my treble up."
"Smith's mistake is the latest in a long line. In 1967, in a four-runner chase at Newcastle, the judge declared that Tant Pis had beaten Moidore's Token by a short head. Later, he declared that it was the other way around.
"In 1973, the judge at Carlisle announced Brother Somers had won by a head from Brass Farthing. It was a surprise to Ian Johnson, Brass Farthing's rider, who was convinced he had won. Driving home, he heard on the radio that the judge had made a mistake. It was Brass Farthing who had won by a head.
"Smith might feel aggrieved that he was not given the same length of rope to hand himself as 'Calamity Jane' Stickels, who survived a string of blunders until 2006 when committing a blunder too far. In 1994, at Kempton, Stickels declared a dead-heat between Absolom's Lady and Large Action before realising Absolom's Lady was the winner. Five years later, in the Superlative Stakes at Newmarket, she announced that Full Flow had beaten Thady Quill, then announced that Thady Quill, had beaten Full Flow.
"Sent for re-training, Stickels finally impaled herself by calling Welsh Dragon the winner at Lingfield, when Miss Dagger held a more compelling claim, having reached the winning line first.
"In the absence of Smith, Stickels and their forerunner, and with Scan-O-Vision scanning the winning line up to 2,000 times a second, producing pictures containing millions of pixels, dead-heats are in danger of extinction.
"Of course, it's nice if yours is declared the winner but it's horrible if it's not and, when there's barely a pixel in it, most punters, and probably most owners, trainers and jockeys, too, would happily settle for a dead-heat. Trainers Richard Lee and Venetia Williams said so after Milo Milan and Rydalis dead-heated at Ludlow in January and, while waiting for the result of the photo-finish between Teetotal and Ayasha at Pontifract on June 23, my bet is that most backers would have opted for a dead-heat, which is what they got.
"They were paid out in the traditional way, at full odds to half the stake, which, if you work it out in the traditional way, at full odds to half the stake, which, if you work it out, suits bookmakers much better than half the odds to the full stake. Still, no ones perfect and, if you ask nicely, I'm sure they'll change their ways.
"The arguments for making full use of the latest technology to settle results is irresistible, but the fact that it's rational doesn't make it welcome. I'd like to see judges equipped with just a reasonable photograph and a magnifying glass. Sherlock Holmes managed perfectly well with one. Indeed, who could forget its value when examining the hat in The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle?
"If judges would just stick to magnifying glasses and, when in doubt, announce a dead-heat, it would be a better (punting) world
"Sadly, it's too late to go back. We must look forward, which brings us to today's Coral Marathon at Sandown. It looks to me as if the winner will be Repeater.
"Great news!  By the end of this year, every Arena racecourse fixture will have a big screen. Excellent." YES, Yes, Yes!
J Margaret Clarke
 Turfcall Comment


Yesterday  the 127th running of the Coral-Eclipse at Sandown Park attracted bumper crowds. (a Jockey Club Racecourse)  (wondering what Richard  estimates  to be the income  of this one day's racing alone?) ( where is such money as this actually going?) (not to the majority of horsemen thats for sure)

A DAY IN THE HEAT of blazing sunshine that scorched the very last drop of moisture out of the turf  MUKHADRAM  4 9-7 partner PAUL HANAGAN trainer William Haggas and owner Hamdan Al Maktoum were denied their sporting chance to win this £241,017.50 prize by the unsporting attitude of JAMES DOYLE and trainer Roger Chalton.

It could be said that JAMES DOYLE stole the winning £241,017.50 prize and only received a five day suspension for doing so. When earlier this week Dave Smith was sacked by BHA over a photo finish call, and the ladies final at Wimbledonwas won by Marion Bartoli (FR). Without a racehorse, but on centre court with a net, a racquet and some balls she beat Sabine Lisicki (GER) 6-1. 6-4 . It won't be so easy however for Andy Murray (GB) this afternoon when he tackles Novak Djokovic (SB) in the men's singles final on centre court. Live BBC 1 12.50 - 6.00 Sue Barker presents the coverage. YES,YES, YES Andy wins 3 sets to love, WOW you better believe it. After all his years of always trying, never giving up trying no matter what, with his Mum and friends back up support always there in the background. A great day for World Tennis. Andy at the end was so stunned, I don't think he could believe that he had actually won. Presenter Sue Barker was there with her lovely, careful guidance, Lloyd, Becker, McEnroe, Henman.  The crowds were unbelievable. Andy the first British men's singles title winner for 77 years. An amazing day that helps to put the true perspective back into sad bad old Britain's governments. Andy throughout his career, life and times most certainly has done his bit to put the Great back into Britain.

Further history was made at the championships for American and Polish players. For the first time since the 1912 Wimbledon Championships no American men advanced past the second round which was their worst showing at the tournament in over 100 years.[6] For the first time ever in a Grand Slam, a Polish man made it to the semifinal stage of a major after Jerzy Janowicz defeated countryman Łukasz Kubot in the quarterfinals.[7]
In the final match, Andy Murray defeated Novak Djokovic in straight sets to become the first British man to win the Wimbledon title since Fred Perry won in 1936, ending a 77-year drought. He was also the first Scot to win the Wimbledon title since Harold Mahony in 1896.[8] Djokovic had advanced to the final after an epic and gruelling 5-set semifinal against Juan Martín Del Potro. At 4 hours and 43 minutes it made history as the longest semifinal ever contested at Wimbledon, breaking the previous record set by Boris Becker and Ivan Lendl at the 1989 Championships.[9]

Andy Murray

Current tournament:Wimbledon (Men's Singles)
N. Djokovic
A. Murray
Jul 7, Completed
A. Murray
J. Janowicz
Jul 5, Completed
A. Murray
F. Verdasco
Jul 3, Completed
A. Murray
4th Round
M. Youzhny
Jul 1, Completed
A. Murray
3rd Round
Further history was made at the championships for American and Polish players. For the first time since the 1912 Wimbledon Championships no American men advanced past the second round which was their worst showing at the tournament in over 100 years.[6] For the first time ever in a Grand Slam, a Polish man made it to the semifinal stage of a major after Jerzy Janowicz defeated countryman Łukasz Kubot in the quarterfinals.[7]
In the final match, Andy Murray defeated Novak Djokovic in straight sets to become the first British man to win the Wimbledon title since Fred Perry won in 1936, ending a 77-year drought. He was also the first Scot to win the Wimbledon title since Harold Mahony in 1896.[8] Djokovic had advanced to the final after an epic and gruelling 5-set semifinal against Juan Martín Del Potro. At 4 hours and 43 minutes it made history as the longest semifinal ever contested at Wimbledon, breaking the previous record set by Boris Becker and Ivan Lendl at the 1989 Championships.[9]2
T. Robredo
Jun 28, Completed
A. Murray
2nd Round
Y. Lu
Jun 26, Completed
A. Murray
1st Round
B. Becker
Jun 24, Completed
All times are United Kingdom Time

In Tennis (without the racehorses) Dead- Heats are termed at present to be Match Tie-Breaks.
The political and horseracing governments Rules of British Horseracing at present do not consider the racehorses rights and needs, as neither do they consider those of the people who work with  them, their rights and needs. These governments have been getting away with doing this over centuries of failed leadership. That is the reason we have the present Rip Off Britain attitude within governments, due to the fact that governments have found they can get away with doing so ongoing over centuries.  The social stigma attached to British Horseracing is evil,  as described and clearly felt by Champion Flat Turf Rider Richard Hughes in yesterday's Racing Post Quote "
"Why races run for peanuts should not count in title chase
"THERE has been talk recently about making changes to the jockeys' and trainers' championships. I had my own suggestion, one which fell on deaf ears at the Professional Jockeys Association. Rather than changing the dates of the season, I proposed any race under a certain value, say £2,500 to the winner, shouldn't count towards the jockeys' or trainers' titles..
"Therefore, if certain tracks want to put on a race worth peanuts, they'd run the risk of the big names not coming. If the top trainers and jockeys knew their winner wouldn't be recognised, they'd think twice before running at the track - I know I wouldn't bother.
 "This would have two positive consequences: first if the big names didn't turn up it might force the racecourses' hand to put money into their prize fund. Second it would help the lads in the weighing room who are struggling to make ends meet pick up a a few more rides and, hopefully, some winners too.

"Sometimes we feel like racecourses are taking the mickey out of us with derisory prize-money. We basically feel we're running the show for them and doing all the hard work but getting less out of it than we were 15 years ago, even though petrol is more than twice the price and living costs are rising all the time. There are an awful lot of jockeys in the last few years who have given up because they can't make the game pay.
"It's not just the usual suspects among the smaller tracks who are offering poor prize money either. For example, at Newbury last month there was a crowd of 9,000 for a meeting with live music after racing. But despite a huge attendants, prize-money was pathetic.

"It's the same story at Windsor. I go there every Monday night and the place is packed, It takes 15 minutes to get in or out, it's so busy. But despite the crowds, the prize-money is a disgrace. One of the races I won on Monday was worth less than £2,000 to winning connections.


"Windsor gets big crowds, good horses, the top trainers and the best jockeys, so it's disgusting they don't see fit to offer prize-money reflective of that situation. Windsor's my lucky track, I've had a lot of success there and our owners like to watch their horses race there, but the prize-money situation leaves a bitter taste.

"If we were to count only races worth a certain amount of money for championship purposes, it would give those tracks not pulling their weight a big wake- up call. And, ultimately, it would cost racecourses only a few thousand pounds across a card to bring races up to standard. That doesn't seem a lot to ask.

What has the Sinking of the RMS Titanic got to do with horseracing?

1912 - 2013

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For the musical work by Gavin Bryars, see The Sinking of the Titanic.

The sinking of the RMS Titanic occurred on the night of 14 April through to the morning of 15 April 1912 in the north Atlantic Ocean, four days into her maiden voyage from Southampton to New York City. The largest passenger liner in service at the time, Titanic had an estimated 2,224 people on board when she struck an iceberg at 23:40 (ship's time[a]) on Sunday, 14 April 1912. Her sinking two hours and forty minutes later at 02:20 (05:18 GMT) on Monday, 15 April resulted in the deaths of more than 1,500 people, which made it one of the deadliest peacetime maritime disasters in history.

WHEN the Titanic sunk 101 years ago it was found that all the workers on board had their living quarters down in the bowls of Titanic. They all lost their lives because they were completely trapped there with no chance of escaping. Upstairs downstairs style.


We have seen similar governmment handiwork along these lines recently relating directly to horseracing with what is termed now to be "Stud and Stable Staff". Nothing about bloodhorse literacy. Nothing about a true career structrure.  But all about ensuring cheap labour entrapment within British Horseracing. Always on tap. A British multi billion pound horseracing industry, run as a charity. Something that does not quite ring true. The horses can't talk. Or can they?


Both British governments horseracing, and political are guilty of ripping off an estimated 75 percent of the population in this country every day. They are using medieval working practices, from long before the Titanic sunk, in their attempt to run this country. The prisons are full to bursting. We have desolate children with no true parent guidance. We see the old and weak distraught and miserably abused. No true caring anywhere in sight.


AND, we see two men David Cameron and George Osborne out wagging their fingers  as they strut their stuff  fobbing the British people off with their dishonest and misleading 

 'Lip-Service' . Puffed up with their own pride and self importance, like two drakes making it back from the pond. Quack, Quack, Quack.  Money man Osborne Quacking the loudest.

Les Misérables (musical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the musical theatre production. For the film adaptation of the musical, see Les Misérables (2012 film). For the original novel, see Les Misérables.

Les Misérables (/l ˈmɪzərɑːb/ or /l ˌmɪzəˈrɑːb/; French pronunciation: ​[le mizeˈʁabl]), colloquially known as Les Mis or Les Miz /l ˈmɪz/, is a sung-through musical based on the novel of the same name by French poet and playwright Victor Hugo. It has music by Claude-Michel Schönberg, original French lyrics by Alain Boublil and Jean-Marc Natel, with an English-language libretto by Herbert Kretzmer. Set in early 19th-century France, it is the story of Jean Valjean, a burly French peasant of abnormal strength and potentially violent nature, and his quest for redemption after serving nineteen years in jail for having stolen a loaf of bread for his starving sister's child. Valjean decides to break his parole and start his life anew after a kindly bishop inspires him to, but he is relentlessly tracked down by a police inspector named Javert. Along the way, Valjean and a slew of characters are swept into a revolutionary period in France, where a group of young idealists make their last stand at a street barricade.




"BHA defends rules on interference after Eclipse finish."
J Margaret Clarke Turfcall Comment:

"THE BHA yesterday agreed Britain's rules on interference, were not perfect, but argues they remain the best in the world as it responded to the debate over Mukhadram's unlucky third in Saturday's Coral-Eclipse Stakes. Heaven help the rest of the world then to include the horses, because they are being led astray. Plus self praise and fob off lip service are no recommendation for anyone.
BHA have no defence, today's Racing Post feature with the photograph, proves beyond all shadow of doubt this race goes to MUKHADRAM partner PAUL HANAGAN  due to highly dangerous interference from Al Kazeem, that stopped Mukhadram . It was not Al Kazeem's fault, it was his partner James Doyle's vague guidance that was at fault (inexperienced race riding)

The Hamdan Al Maktoum-owned four-year-old Mukhadram suffered severe and highly dangerous interference in the closing stages of this race,  due to James Doyle's out of tune, vague guidance in his riding of Al Kazeem.


The photograph as published with this feature in today's Racing Post shows clearly, that James Doyle is out of tune with Al Kazeem, you see a long length of rein in James' left hand flapping about totally out of touch, you see Al Kazeem with a bewildered expression, unsure of what exactly he is expected to do. Too late the damage is done, Paul Hannagan is left to snatch Mukhadram up in an attempt to prevent Mukhadram going through the rail. No one can buy experience. Mukhadram was stopped. Paul Hanagan is a Group 1 Flat Turf rider he has achieved much more experience than James Doyle. Paul Hanagan's experience possibly saved Mukhadram life.


"Grievances surfaced after the £425,000 Group 1 contest, with a number of Racing Post readers calling for prize-money to be redistributed, and each-way punters bemoaning lost returns.


There can only be one result to the 2013 Coral-Eclipse Stakes it is as follows:

Al Kazeem partner James Doyle caused severe and dangerous interference in this race, his place is not first, but last. (a  foul)

Mukhadram partner Paul Hanagan bore the brunt of the severe and dangerous interference he is the winner.

Declaration Of War partner Joseph O’Brien is second, etc as the finish panned out to be.

“Once the stewards had decided Al Kazeem would have won regardless of interference, (wrong)  the only matter to consider was whether successful  (successful?)  jockey James Doyle had been guilty of careless riding. ??????????? this does not mean that James Doyle

deserves the sack, or a cruel medeivil  punishment; he needs careful guidance from a true horseman so as he is able to work through with that horseman what he got so wrong, step by step, himself , if he is ever to be allowed to realise himself, what it was that he did wrong. He will of course be devastated if this race is taken off him, and Al Kazeem placed last because of something he got wrong. Which is in its self is a dreadful punishment to have to bare. Paul Hanagan  will not be wanting to go through an experience like that again in a hurry. As nether should he be expected to. Poor regulation and muddled bloodhorse illiterate rules are making British horseracing 99 per cent more dangerous, than it should ever be allowed to be.


“They decided he was and Doyle received a five-day ban. But there is no redress for horses (why not ?) who have suffered interference (a horse who is the victim of interference as Mukhadrum and Paul Hanagan ) that did not cost them the race. (Reminder one competitor in a horserace, any horserace is a horse and jockey.)


“Jamie Stier, BHA director of raceday operations and regulations, believes the rules in Britain are the best solution to a tricky problem and fairer than those in France, where rules on interference lean towards the disqualification of horses.


“Interference rules are some of the most emotive in horseracing and I’ve been involved in dozens of discussions worldwide to see if there is an alternative.” Stier said. (discussions with whom? The bloodhorse literate, or the bloodhorse illiterate?)


“Our current system is not perfect, but it is the best around.  (Is it?)We’ll continue to look at the rules and ways to improve them. (Yes, yes, yes)  We’re willing to act quickly if a better system can be uncovered. But at the moment we’re absolutely nowhere near moving away from where we are. (sad that)


“Racing is about the best horse winning. (punters perspective) That’s  why our rules are framed as they are. (wrong)  It would be completely untenable if a horse won a classic, a Grand National or Cheltenham Gold Cup by ten lengths and got disqualified. (how can a horse, any horse win any race by ten lengths and cause interference in those ten lengths? )Punters wouldn’t accept it. Then there is the innocent third party to consider, like, in this case. Declaration Of War. For stewards to work through races and start placing horses differently would be unworkable and unsatisfactory.” (the innocent third party?  what about the innocent second party?  the ones that  got mugged Mukhadram and Paul Hanagan?


“Al Kazeem would have been regulated in third in France, having caused interference that cost the victim a better finishing position. Declaration Of War would have been promoted to first.


“Stier said: “The Japanese were more aligned to France than us but now they have shifted our way. They must be satisfied the way we work is the best way.” Must they?


“In a letter to the Racing Post, reader and punter Barry Gore said: “The rules are negligent in doing absolutely nothing for such victims of interference. (Yes, yes, yes)


“The solution (to the Eclipse) is to let the winner on merit keep the race but to require the owner of the winner to forfeit 50 grand of the winning prize-money to the owner of Mukhadram. William Haggas  and Paul Hanagan could then receive their fair percentages of the prize-money.”


“But Stier responded: “How does that work if interference involves the seventh and eighth, and there’s no prize-money that far down?   Also, who actually compensates? If the offence is jockey-based then connections might feel they shouldn’t be paying out. It’s complex.


“Generally, jockeys are good at preventing interference, and that’s what we want from them: good, clean finishes.” From who’s perspective? The Horses? The Jockeys? The Punters? The Regulators? The Owners? The Trainers?


“Angus Gold, racing manager to  Sheikh Hamdan, backed the status quo despite his personal disappointment.


“I feel sorry for Mukhadram because he would have finished second, and for Sheikh Hamdan, who lost nearly £50,000 in prize-money,” he said. “Part of my job is to make him leading owner and that would have helped.


“But I’m all for keeping things simple; when you start talking about redistributing  prize-money you get into dangerous territory.


“There is no perfect solution and you have to accept that what happened is part of racing.
(Is it?) You can argue the point all day long, but stewards do a very good job. (Do they? ) This is a sport and things happen. We are dealing with animals, not machines. (Yes, yes yes)


“It would have been a travesty if Al Kazeem had lost the race. (Would it? ) And James Doyle, who is a fantastic young jockey, (is he?)  kept his whip in the right hand and, couldn’t have done a lot more.” (you don’t ride a horse with a whip) (you may carry a whip when riding a horse, but you need to know how and when to use it.)  (for instance Al Kazeem did not need whipping, he needed persistent accurate guidance from the saddle whilst attempting to win this race. Al Kazeem did not get that. Because of this another competitor  Mukhadram and Paul Hanagan got mugged. Caught up in someone else's problem.

System not flawless but there’s no viable alternative


Mark Storey considers whether Britain’s interference rules are fit for purpose in cases like the Coral-Eclipse conundrum. No, no, no British interference rules are way out of tune. As highlighted by the outcome in the  running and riding of Saturday’s Coral-Eclipse Stakes at Sandown Park.


IT WAS right Al Kazeem kept Saturday’s Coral-Eclipse, despite interfering with the weakening Mukhadram 100 yards from the line. He would have won anyway. No, no, no  James Doyle allowed Al Kazeem to dangerously mug Mukhadram and partner Paul Hanagan taking his ground and blocking, stopping, cutting off  his run.


“It was correct, too, that James Doyle received a five-day ban for careless riding after Al Kazeem drifted right and squeezed Mukhadram into the rail with nowhere to go. Al Kazeem was the best horse in the race and the jockey received the appropriate punishment for his crime. No, no, no the jockey did not receive the right punishment at all.  James failed  his horse Al Kazeem badly,  allowing Al Kazeem  to seriously and dangerously  impeded Mukhadram and Paul Hanagan blocking and cutting off their racing path completely.


“But it was not fair that Mukhadram finished third. Had he not been impeded  the Hamdan Al Maktoum-owned four-year-old would have been runner-up instead of Declaration Of War. Mukhadram-Paul Hanagan won this race due to the seriously dangerous  interference caused by Al Kazeem -James Doyle (Jockey error) upon Mukhadram-Paul Hanagan . Placings remain unaltered after interference caused by Al Kazeem -James Doyle who were placed last.

“Connections of Mukhadram lost £46, 000 in prize-money and punters, cursing the seven-runner field, missed out on each-way bets, while others witnessed forecasts and tricasts going west. All punters worldwide deserve to be allowed to know the ruling on interference. Any and all types of interference. Of which there are many, all as bad as each other. Especially for the horses.


“Ought the rules to be changed so that, in this case, the Sandown stewards would have had the power to place Declaration Of  War third? No. Aidan O’Brien’s horse was an innocent profit of circumstance, several lengths back when the interference happened. Punish him and you just pass on the unjustice.  YES.
 EG: The innocent profit circumstance was Mukhadram, Paul Hanagan who according to sound bloodhorse literate reasoning won this race upon Al Kazeem-James Doyle dangerous interference. Punishment: Al Kazeen - James Doyle placed last by British stewards. Punishment enough, no more. Needed also Equus Kind Accurate Guidance for James Doyle.

“How about a new rule requiring connections of the winning horse to make up the effected loss in prize-money suffered by the impeded horse? No. Good in theory but unworkable in reality, (practice) and fraught with legal pitfalls. New rules? This is nothing to do with prize-money. This is to do with interference. Interference that stops another horse and rider from obtaining their true place during a race.  Effecting all placings.

“The biggest losers are punters. We’ve all been there. So surely part of the solution lies with the bookmakers, who are desperate for business and should be routinely offering refunds, or better, in cases like Mukhadram’s.  No, no, no interference, as this, is nothing to do with bookmakers. Interference does effect punters, and along the line the bookmakers.  But all punters all over the world deserve to be allowed to know what effect interference has during a race to the horse they have picked, the horse that, that punter believes to be the best horse in that race. Punters Perspective. Gambling Game. To Play. Or Not To Play.

The very first Qipco British Champions Day
Saturday October 15th 2011 Ascot
British BHA horseracing medeivel punishment burdened upon Christophe Soumillon Champion Jockey in France docked £50,000 Ascot prize in whip row.
15 October 2011 Last updated at 19:11




Racehorses Perspective
Breeders Perspective
Owners’ Perspective
Equus Zone Trainers’ Perspective
Equus Zone Trainers Team Perspective
Equus Zone Daily Handler Rider Minders Perspective
Equus Zone Riders Perspective (Jockeys)
Racecourse Perspective
Bookmakers Perspective
Punters Perspective
Betting in Theory
Betting in Practice


“The system in Britain is not perfect. But it is far better than the unsubtle tool in France whereby horses are routinely disqualified or relegated for any interference . Now that really is unfair.” In France they do recognise that interference occurs, and make an attempt to balance interference in practice.  Even if they may have got the punishments wrong.

On Saturday in the Eclipse. The very last thing on the stewards agenda was
Al Kazeem-James Doyle  mugging of Mukhadram-Paul Hanagan  refusing to recognize the near slaughter of Mukhadram-Paul Hanagan.


No comments:

Post a comment