"im the one with the gazza stick."

No, you're not.
And as everyone of my clan graduated from the oldest known school in history (the School of Life) , my word is final.

"...not surprisingly I was a bit revved up. People said later that Terry Venables should have calmed me down, not let me run on the pitch in that state, but that hyped up condition was normal for me. It was how I usually went on to the field: desperate to do well, all wound up. Terry knew that, and he knew how to handle me"

Case closed

====================

You have cited what you allege to be a passage from gascoigne's ghost written book.

the passage conflicts with all the other evidence that has been aired.

I would point out not only that the passage conflicts with all of the other evidence and information which is available, but also that the alleged quote comes from a ghost written book of a man who has been sectioned under the mental health act.

Bear in mind that In another interview gascoigne said,

"'I once spent a whole night convinced that a packet of wine gums in my room was staring at me. I was at my Dad's and I woke him up. He told me to eat them. I was so scared it might not work but I did, and from that point onwards the staring stopped.
'Another time I took some money out of a hole in a wall and then ran after a man I was sure had just robbed me. It turned out to be a lamppost. I tackled it so hard I injured myself and went to hospital with internal bleeding."

He therefore does not seem to be the most reliable of witnesses.

Gascoigne has also contradicted the statement which you have quoted above himself, for example in the interview where he says,

"I felt I didn't deserve (a winner's medal). I'd acted like a mad bast***."

(http://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/may/18/seven-deadly-sins-wrath-paul-gascoigne-gazza)

One of the countless articles that I could cite on the point from other sources would be the one here :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1386127/Gazza-madness-Its-20-years-moment-defined-superstars-crazy-career.html

which describes the game, "when a pumped-up Paul Gascoigne ran amok with devastating results".

The same article by the way says "it was the catalyst for a downward spiral in an injury-plagued career....Gascoigne served notice of what was to come by sinking his studs sickeningly into the chest of Forest's Garry Parker in the opening seconds. It was an horrific challenge.'I wish I'd got sent off for the first tackle on Parker,' he admitted. I nearly took his windpipe out! It was a terrible tackle I suppose....When I see the challenge I cringe myself. It's the biggest regret of my career".'

The following interview

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1388132/Martin-Samuel-Life-road-Gazza-went-wrong.html

described gazza;s state going into the game in a way which appears to accord with the first hand evidence. It states,

"That week was the beginning of the end. By the time Gascoigne was in the Wembley tunnel five days later, he was in a bug-eyed frenzy of anticipation, uncontrollable and bouncing off the walls. He had even received sedatives the night before, because Tottenham staff were so worried about his hyperactive state. It was all over very quickly.
Gascoigne committed a horrendous foul on Garry Parker, for which he should have been sent off, then another on Gary Charles in which he ruptured the cruciate ligaments around his right knee. It must be a terrible thing to make one mistake and have your life forever altered, but that was what happened.
He was still good several years later, but never rediscovered the exceptional talent he displayed at the World Cup in 1990."


These do not seem to corroborate the quote you have provided, in fact they suggest that the quote is not reliable.

All of the other evidence that you have presented has been discounted and ridiculed, and all of the other information and evidence which relates to the incident supports a contrary view to the one which you have presented.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Did your really old school not teach you to read?
===========================

another hopelessly dimwitted comment.

in my previous post i explained that i had read the quote and :

-showed that the player had contradicted the quote in other interviews
-showed that the player was unreliable as a witness after being sectioned.
-showed that other sources contradicted the statement
-pointed out that all of the other information and evidence contradicts the statement
-pointed out that all of your other attempts to justify your position have been ridiculed as being based on lies and ignorance

for you to suggest in response to my post that i didnt read the quote, merely serves to underline the point that you are an ignorant moron.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Yes, but

==============

but, you've got a completely unreliable quote that has been contradicted by the same person and various other sources ? and all the other comments youve made have been total rubbish and contradicted one another, and all the other evidence shows that i was right and you were wrong, you mean ?

does the fact that you are trying to rely solely on a quote from someone who has been sectioned, and which has been contradicted by himself and other sources, not indicate to you how feeble your argument is ?

the fact that you think that this is stronger than the other points youve made, really just goes to show that you fully appreciate the ignorant clueless bullcrap youve been spouting in all your other points, doesnt it ?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Billy ?

do the words

"I was way too hyped for the match"

ring any bells at all ?????

they are the words which immediately precede the quote you used about gazza kicking lampshades.

why did you not include these words when you pasted the quote ? did you not think they were relevant ?

do you not think when he says "I was way too hyped for the match", that it conflicts with his (alleged) statement, "that hyped up condition was normal for me. It was how I usually went on to the field",

ie with the only thing you are trying to rely on after 31 pages of comments?


Bearing in mind not only that he has contradicted himself on the point, that other people have contradicted it, that all the other information available suggests that it is wrong, and that he's been sectioned under the mental health act, and also that he contradicted it in the same source that you've quoted from (but which you did not disclose), where do you think that leaves your argument ?

you think that's case closed do you ?

you havent even got a line of argument that's worth wasting breath on. you dont know what you are talking about.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

You mean the book he worded

Fack me Walrus you've been done saaaaan!

Back in your cage, it's winter season

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

maybe he means open it, shut it, and throw it in the bin ?

I'm throwing in the for the Walrus

It's a TKO

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator