One Thai newspaper claimed today that Australian Paul Goudie, 49, was bitten because he stood on the tiger's tail.
However, in an exclusive interview with Phuketwan yesterday, Mr Goudie, from Werribee near Melbourne, said he had no inkling of why the mauling occurred.
The truck driver and his son Jake, 16, both praised the handlers at the Phuket animal attraction and did not wish any harm to come to the tiger, a 15-month-old male.
At Phuket International Hospital yesterday, nurses were still draining blood from around Mr Goudie's wounds to his left leg and stomach.
Jake said the leg wound beneath bandages was still open and surgery would follow once the risk of infections had been reduced.
Mr Goudie's right leg was also bitten but to a less serious extent.
''The tiger couldn't get a good grip on my dad's stomach,'' Jake told Phuketwan.
Mr Goudie said he had been in pain from the tiger's teeth but that the reaction of Tiger Kingdom staff had been ''absolutely fantastic.''
The tiger was tasered as Mr Goudie was rescued.
Phuketwan broke the story of the mauling yesterday and was the only news outlet to speak to Mr Goudie and his son.
They had come to Phuket in a large family group but only Mr Goudie and two adult relatives went into the cage with the big cats.
One of the park's managers visited Mr Goudie in hospital yesterday with the District Chief for Kathu, where the Tiger Kingdom facility is located in central Phuket.
Media accompanying the pair were not allowed to interview Mr Goudie. The attack came on the fourth day of the Goudie's 15-day holiday.
'Thai Rath' newspaper reported today that the mauling came after Mr Goudie accidentally stood on the tiger's tail.
Tiger Kingdom opened on Phuket in July last year.
Thai Rak Thai - blame the foreigner. He did, he stepped on its tail. Not our fault.
What is Tiger Kingdom going to do to prevent another accident of the same...amputate all the Tiger's tails?
Posted by Tyler on October 23, 2014 11:16
Editor Comment:
There is no conclusive evidence either way about the tale. The newspaper does not quote a source.