A different, widely circulated story suggests that Peel urinated on the pitch before being dismissed by Hawke. Woodhouse, writing in 1989, suggested that "it is difficult to ascertain the truth behind this long-standing tale", while Hodgson observes: "I have never been convinced of this account because it has always seemed to be so much out of character for a cricketer of that time when so much stress was placed upon behaving 'like a gentleman' even in one's cups." Mick Pope writes: "The more recent accusation that Peel urinated on the pitch remains unjust, unproven and such a myth ... that it should have no place in any study of Bobby Peel, the cricketer." The story originated in a cricket publication, "Cricket Quarterly", in 1968. The historian Rowland Bowen, in an article called "Fresh Light on the Dismissal of R Peel in 1897", claimed that an "aged Yorkshireman of 85" told him that Peel had urinated and that this was a common practice then. Subsequent research by the historian Irving Rosewater established that Bowen's information came to him second-hand. The 85-year-old had not used the word "urinated" but had actually said "pissed at the wicket", meaning that Peel was drunk ("pissed" being slang for drunk) on the pitch ("at the wicket"). Rosewater suggests that this was merely repetition of the already known story, not the new information claimed by Bowen. Rosewater self-published his findings in a book called "An Unjust Slur on Bobby Peel" in 1997.