Chinese whispers. That incident gets better every time it is mistold. Senior reacted to Wilkin; Wilkin didn't react back. Saints got the penalty. But Keith Senior is as thick as pig$hit, so no wonder it all panned out that way.

He could keep his counsel? He does have the ability to think Bailey is a tool, discuss it with his friends and not go running to the press bitching about him.

IMO, he shouldn't have waited. He shouldn't have done it. He'd already clocked that Leeds senior players weren't impressed, they can deal with it internally if they feel the need to and Saints can deal with it the next time they play. I'd love him to defend our young lads - but this is RL. You defend your lads out there, on the grass, where it is won or lost.

If you think the Wilkin / Senior incident was a calculated play by Wilkin not to react, you're really wearing the rose tinteds. Wilkin, and actually the Saints pack generally, didn't front up to Senior's aggression and were bullied. Not for the first or last time.

What a childish response! You sound straight off the schoolyard with your language. 'Bitching about him'



Why should he keep his counsel? He was defending our young players. Good on him and I hope he continues. I wish there were more people like him on the planet, namely those who stand up for people in a more vulnerable position. Maybe there would be fewer victims of crime if there were.

Whatever. We don't agree, so I'll leave it at that.

Wilkin's argument is that Bailey has been doing this kind of thing for years. He initially kept quiet. He then made the point in the media. Nothing changed (either Leeds have no problem with Bailey's antics or they do but they can't control him). So he's stressed the point more forcefully. Wilkin introduced the youngsters into his argument but I don't think there's any place for gloating over [iany age[/i. League players have always shared a strong camaraderie and players who attempt to rub noses in get a bad name.

I don't have any issue with Wilkin's appraisal of Bailey. Indeed, I'd say it's tame in comparison to my own (and most other fans outside of Leeds). The guy is a thug who was rightly jailed for barbaric violence. Since he's returned he's often been involved in ugly incidents.

Do Wilkin's actions harm England's chances? I don't think so. Wilkin's a good pro and will go about his business without issue. From what I've seen over the years players generally lock the real world away in a box when they enter the pitch and "issues" rarely come into it.

As stated, a player should feel no pressure to self-censor - provided he is prepared to stand or fall by what he says. We've killed off most of the characters on the pitch and it seems like we are determined to silence all criticism off it.

If he lobbed his johnson in the mouth of a Saints fan in celebration would you say "why is it wrong for Bailey to celebrate in any way he likes"?

No? So we've established that you DO think there are boundaries to acceptable behavior. Wilkin's point is that Rob Burrow, Danny Buderus and the captain Jamie Peacock DO NOT engage in this sort of behavior. Which suggests THEY (the ENTIRE RHINOS TEAM minus Bailey) don't think it is acceptable behavior.

I mean, if you want to defend gloating that's your business. But I can't say that I'm surprised.

Is she fit?

Well yes I think that there are boundries to acceptable behaviour, but lets keep at least some perspective Bailey didnt sexually assault anyone did he. He celebrated.
And yes, I have no problem with gloating, its part of the bounty of victory, it has been throughout hisotry. In fact the only people who do have a problem with it are the losers.

Well that is what he has done, he sounded like when you get two women together and they start bitching about their 'friend' in those vague terms women love to use.

If Makinson is vulnerable and needs standing up for he shouldnt be on an RL pitch. Maybe if Saints had less vulnerable players and more Ryan Baileys then they would have lost yet another Grand Final.

The time to put Bailey in his place is the 80minutes on the pitch, not hiding behind the press. If Wilkin doesnt want Bailey lording it over him, beat him.

Not a bad Bailey impression.



If that's the case, why is it that Peacock, Burrow, McGuire et al don't gloat?

Given the legendary feats of "bitching" I've seen you rise to over the years I'm surprised you can write such with a straight face.

In fact, I'm sure I've got one of AP's posts saved somewhere in which he highlights a quite extraordinary temper tantrum. If I get five minutes I'll dig it up.

Its not a requirement. Its an option. And Peacock, Burrow, Mcguire et al dont take half the stick Bailey does, im not surprised he wanted to ram it down some peoples throats. He had earned the right to do so. And if it so bad why is Graham held up as some kind of hero considering his 'celebrating' in 2008 semi in front of the leeds fans and his hissy fit and refusal to shake hands in 2009?

That would obviously impress us all.

jamiefoster22 Jamie Foster
Erd my comments back from post GF interviews regarding ryan bailey. Basically just stating the OBV's, nothing every1 wasnt already thinking.

If a player chooses not to gloat throughout his career it is an ethical requirement. It is NOT an option.

well you best get on to Mr Graham demanding an apology for his behaviour in 2008 before leaves then. It would be disappointing if he left this country not making amends for his unethical behaviour.

See if you can get in touch with Muhammed Ali too. Im sure in retirement he would want to seek forgiveness for his lack of ethics.

Irrelevant.

Made me laugh, hearing it on WishFM.

Reporter: "What do you think about Ryan Bailey's behaviour?"

Foster: "I don't want to say too much. But he is an absolute joke"!!!

Almost on a par with Ron Atkinson's "I never comment on referees and I'm not going to break the habit of a lifetime for that prat."

Reading back through the thread, not allowing Jon Wilkin a 24-hour hotline to The Sun would be an "anti-intellectual" prohibition on "expressive and thoughtful discussion".

It's not about self-censorship, it's about sense. Stirring up discord publicly is just unnecessary. I suppose if having the wit to address things, if they're so vital, through channels other than a red-top newspaper is self-censorship then I'm in favour of it. It does not reduce your "character".

And these characters on the pitch we've killed off? The likes of Roy Haggerty, Chris Arkwright, Paul Round (from my generation), and plenty even more "characterful" before then? If you're so fond of them, and their on-field faults, then I don't see how you can so easily call Bailey, a man from a very bad background who was jailed at 18 but has been a disciplined and successful professional sportsman since then, a thug.

I hope you're right about the lack of effect on the England camp, by the way. It's not so much on-the-pitch that I'm worried about, it's feelings in camp. But hopefully everyone can self-censor their feelings and rise above it.

Or just obvious examples highlighting your double standards.

Who equated being a "character" with thuggery? I didn't. The only person I mentioned was Alex Murphy and that was in relation to a comment that was funny at the time and was even funnier when it exploded in his face. By all means attempt to draw a link between my interpretation of a "character" and condoning thuggery. I can tell you it will be a wasted exercise.



It would be even better if players said what they felt and discussed things like adults rather than children.

It might be if you had any evidence in relation to my thoughts on either. You don't. Which kind of highlights your inability to debate more than anything else. The fact is you didn't know the difference between an option and an ethical restraint. You were found out and so you hastily tossed in two random names and hoped for the best. I correctly identified their irrelevance and you claimed victory.

Try harder next time.

So if, by chance, the try in the last minute had been scored at the other end, where the Saints fans were, you'd have had no problem with Bailey doing that in front of them?

Yeah, as long as he isn’t swearing at them or outright insulting them I wouldn’t have problem with it. He has earned the right to celebrate by winning.If people cant deal with the opposition celebrating victory they really shouldn’t be allowed out of the house.

What is needed is for Redhall to come up with a Rugby League version of Aristotle's ethical theory of the golden mean. Something which is a balance between the free speech as exercised by Bailey, and the ethical restraint demanded by Wilkin;

You can whoop but not holler when celebrating, you can congratulate a team member on a try saving tackle, but not mock an opponent when they knock on.....etc etc.

And perhaps those po faced posters, will take the time to reflect on the folly of repeating Urban Myths in an attempt to bolster their own Agendas, and acquaint themselves with the term rehabilitation?