Bluebag said:Bozo who is a parasite of the game giving nothing and taking all he can get said nothing of the accidental eye gouge by Boyd nor did he call his old mate Mal reilly a coward who after being a master of the liverpool kiss sued a player in the UK after receiving his own treatment and having his jaw broken..
Selective memory, Bozo.
Brohman is and was right intaking action and had it happened to Bozo he would have had a writ served before the game was over.
legend said:Does anyone have the audio?
If your boss told you to break the legs of an opposition company executive just before a big conference or something would you do it? Boyd was a mental and the selectors knew he'd listen.JoeD said:What gets lost in all this is Boyd's claim, (which is eerily similar to MG'S) that he was instructed by Aust selectors to take out QLDers. Does anyone believe him?
Spot on, Bozo being a total bozo!Raider_69 said:Bozo is a rugby league relic, a man past his time, and out of his mind. Brohman should have leant across the table and elbowed him in the jaw, see if Bozo would leave it in the call box... i highly doubt it
Azkatro said:Looks like the biggest issue making all this flare up is that Les Boyd seems to view himself as a victim of what he did and what's more, doesn't particularly show any remorse either. Daryl Brohman has his dignity, and if Boyd was more of a man he would be the first to admit and accept that what he did was disgraceful, and show some bloody regret.
brohman said:Les said something along the lines of, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do that to you''. My father told him to piss off, and he left.
So you think Boyd is lying?If your boss told you to break the legs of an opposition company executive just before a big conference or something would you do it? Boyd was a mental and the selectors knew he'd listen.
No, not lying, but his apology was insincere as he felt justified.innsaneink said:So you think Boyd is lying?
CrazyEel said:No, not lying, but his apology was insincere as he felt justified.
I think it is quite plain that if he was truly sorry and didn't do it intentionally then he wouldn't be trying to vindicate what he did by citing the urging from selectors. That's simply justifying why he did it not being apologetic for having done it.
In any case I recall watching the incident at the time and have never had any doubts it was intentional, it was pretty bloody obvious.
I did enjoy watching the bastard against the poms though
Oh absolutely, I totally agree with you there, was a lot of interstate politics in those days.innsaneink said:I'd reckon he was given a gereen light.