you said a 10 year old girl mate! perhaps your confusing her with yourself

I think you should reread the posts, thats not my interpretation of what he said

It always makes me laugh, Wigan fans going on about his off-field behaviour being the reason for his release, as if it mitigates the decision.

Whatever, his off-field antics have never affected my life in the slightest, but having a legend and champion player entertain me in the red V for the last 12 years certainly has.

You can take the moral high ground but whatever way you look at it, Wigan got the very sh*tty end of a very sh*tty stick. They lost out big time, and their loss has been our gain.

I never said a 10 year old girl.

Jusy to clear things up

I said young girl.

:1a9d74nh

Burn him!

It will be also interesting to see Wigan fans reaction if Long does something wrong when playing for Hull and Saints. I suspect there wont be as many threads as we are currently seeing.

But they subsequently tried to get him back TWICE despite those and further off the field antics.

Ssssh!

Dont let facts get in the way of a jealous pie eaters rant

Define teenager

13 to 15 you could say a young girl, 16 to 18 you could say young woman, which one is it to be.

Young woman, young girl, does it really matter? He was sacked for punching a her in the face.

Nothing that happened years later in respect of them resigning him alters that fact.

This thinly veiled attempt to justify it by making out she wasn't a child, not something that was said anyway, is pretty pathetic really.

I did NOT say child! I said you made her [isound[/i like a child because you kept calling her a 'young girl'!

If she's old enough to be pi$$ed in a car with her mates (also pi$$ed) then she is far from a 'young girl' in my opinion.

She wasn't ed though.

And you [iwere[/i the first to mention the word child, not Rogues.

It is you who is pathetic.

Personally, I have too much integrity to allow people to imply things that are untrue about other people. That is because I am a nice human being. That you seem not to have such integrity is a mark against you and not me. I have nowhere defended what Longy did, just challenged Rogues on what he was implying about who Longy did it to.

Yes, but not in the context he stated you soft tart.

Finished your hissy fit now?

It's clear that some people don't actually read what's in front of them. No need for all the arguments about the girls age. It clearly states she was a teenager and that she was the driver thus making her either 17, 18 or 19. Simples!

You are the one implying that he is accusing Long of being a child beater bringing the age of 10 into the thread.

He implies nothing of the sort. To anyone over the age of 40 an 18 year old is a 'young girl'. Are 18 year olds not young, are they not girls?

You bring that allegation into the thread, everyone else follows your lead.

You are the one that brings untrue allegations into the thread, not Rogues. He only says that he'd call a 10 year old a child. A term he [idoes not[/i use in relation to Long or this incident. [iYou [/ido. You also claim that the girl he thumped is drunk, an allegation that is proved to be untrue in the very excerpt you yourself post. Yet you are the one that has too much integrity to allow untruths to go unpunished?

It would be laughable if it wasn't so offensive given the subject it's about.



Yet you call me pathetic.

You are just ridiculous. I cannot take you seriously after that rubbish.

This is what he said:



Here are your replies:





You bring her being a child into it, you bring child beater into it.

You then say:



Does that not insinuate that she was drunk when he punched her? Yet your own quote, which you must have typed up yourself says



No mention of the girl he punched being drunk, yet you say that she was.

Oops. Integrity must be your middle name.

I'm from neither, so go for your life.

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... _Long.html and that was the end of that.

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... _Long.html and that was the end of that.

Nah plenty of life left it in. He'll no doubt be sued by Bradford as they need the money.

No way,that would end up very messy.

Bradford aren't very good when it comes to Court Hearings, hence their current lack of cash. Why not just give it a rest and agree that Longy has used a bit of poetic licence.

And no proof-reader, by the sounds of it!