Quote boost="boost"Anybody know what Mcquire has to say about the incident? Jon Wells is the least bias of the presenters, prehaps he can interview Danny on Boots 'n' all and finally put it all to bed.'" i assume Danny McGuire has made a few comments to Jamie Peacock: www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/Pe ... 6539544.jp

Quote boost="boost"Anybody know what Mcquire has to say about the incident? Jon Wells is the least bias of the presenters, prehaps he can interview Danny on Boots 'n' all and finally put it all to bed.'" i assume Danny McGuire has made a few comments to Jamie Peacock: www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/Pe ... 6539544.jp

its not over-analysing anything. Its just your strange avoidance of simply admitting somebody said something a bit classless and a bit tasteless purely because it was a leeds player.

It doesnt need over-analysing, its fairly clear what he said and what he meant, and its faily clear it lacked class and was a fairly idiotic comment from a former professional who was forced to retire because of a neck injury. Your defence of it says quite a lot about you, but nothing we didnt already know.

Peacock shows himself up, then. After the heat of the last minute, having watched McGuire haul down Carmont as he tried to support Richards, arguably costing Wigan the chance of a win, is anyone genuinely even mildly surprised that players nearest to McGuire might have reacted by calling him a cheat?

Then, the claim that by doing this, the Wigan players actually delayed McGuire receiving treatment seems without foundation. If Clarke is to be criticised for his comments, then what about Peacock, claiming the Wigan players were to blame for delay in an injured opponent getting treatment?

What? So now you claim Clarke only said it because it was a Leeds player? That's nuts too.

nope, i didnt say that, read it again.

so you are saying it is sportsmanlike to stand over an injured player shouting at him?

in what way does it 'seem' without foundation? in the way that there is video evidence of Wigan players surrounding Mcguire whilst he is injured?

Er, no. Obviously it's not.




Because there is absolutely no evidence of any person wishing to treat McGuire was in any way restrained or hampered in doing so by any Wigan player. If you can provide evidence from any of the medicos that there was a delay in treatment caused by Wigan players then you have a good point, but I haven't seen any, any would think I would have if it existed. That is why to me it "seems without foundation". Does that help?



As requested, I have read it again. It says:

The "somebody" you refer to is Phil Clarke, and so you said:
"Somebody (i.e. Phil Clarke) said something a bit classless and a bit tasteless purely because it was a leeds player."
So yes, you did say that.

so why criticise Peacock for saying something you agree with?

other than the video evidence



its one sentence, read the whole sentence rather than starting in the middle of it. Somebody else is mentioned, and also what they are doing and why they are doing it. Your attempt to be a smart isnt going too well is it?

superleague.co.uk/article.php?id=19062 For calling Mcguire a cheat

superleague.co.uk/article.php?id=19062 For calling Mcguire a cheat

Two words pot & kettle spring to mind

I read the article, but cant see the apology from McCleannan for accusing Wigan players of causing the injury by foul play, as the clown said in the live broadcast after the match.

And I bet that if you did ask other Super League players that they would say yes he did cheat by "tackling" Carmont without the ball. Unless they play for leeds, then NO he didnt cheat

Clarke was clearly wrong to say what he said, Peacock has made clear what McClennan was complaining about with regards to Mcguire. McClennan should have been a bit more circumspect in his words but i can forgive anyone's outburst seconds after a close match and such a controversial incident.

Clarke however has no excuse for such a tasteless and classless remark in a written article days after the event.