Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations
-
roy142857 - Posts: 2979
- Joined: 28 May 2011
roy142857 wrote:I don't know if a stupid question, but is there any possibility here of a police investigation? Some of this looks like fraud to me.
lhpirnie wrote:RunningSide wrote:Be surprised if Chinese government abandoned players with long bans,probably set up some coaching camp to train promising kids and keep their own game in tune.
No, CBSA will mirror the WPBSA bans, which means none of them will be allowed to do any official playing or coaching. I do know that Yan Bingtao had plans to do streaming (i.e. commentating on the Rigour streams). If that works out, they may attract a small revenue.
roy142857 wrote:I don't know if a stupid question, but is there any possibility here of a police investigation? Some of this looks like fraud to me.
Womble wrote:Womble wrote:My inside source (some old guy from my club who knows someone who knows apparently knows someone else) said they will not be announcing the penalties until Q School has finished. Cast iron information. You heard it here first.
Wow. My inside source (some old guy from my club who knows someone who knows apparently knows someone else) was right on the money. The results came out straight after Q School finished. And I thought he was full of rubbish.
Dan-cat wrote:No mention of that 10 nil German Master’s final unless i missed it?
LC wrote:So did xintong bet on matches knowing they where fixed?
Iranu wrote:The fact that Cao declined and reported the approach kind of shows why Murphy’s “automatic life bans for match fixing” is not necessarily the best approach.
Cao coming back having learnt his lesson and presumably helping this case has had more benefit than him not being on the tour for life.
HappyCamper wrote:LC wrote:So did xintong bet on matches knowing they where fixed?
zhao admitted to placing bets on behalf of yan in matches which yan was fixing.
he separately had an history of personal betting on snooker matches, but there was no indication in the report that these were on matches known to be fixed.
SnookerFan wrote:HappyCamper wrote:LC wrote:So did xintong bet on matches knowing they where fixed?
zhao admitted to placing bets on behalf of yan in matches which yan was fixing.
he separately had an history of personal betting on snooker matches, but there was no indication in the report that these were on matches known to be fixed.
I do think the whole betting on snooker matches thing, even if their matches that aren't fixed, is pretty stupid. How do people not know that it's against the rules by now?
Iranu wrote:The fact that Cao declined and reported the approach kind of shows why Murphy’s “automatic life bans for match fixing” is not necessarily the best approach.
Cao coming back having learnt his lesson and presumably helping this case has had more benefit than him not being on the tour for life.
SteveJJ wrote:Do World Snooker have more of a duty of care than shown up to this point?
How do they make sure new pro's understand the rules? Do they take it on trust that players read and understand the rules and code of conduct before signing the players contract?
It reads that the pandemic exacerbated their loneliness and financial troubles, which the WST can't account for, but what sort of support mechanisms could be put in place, especially for overseas players based in UK?
SteveJJ wrote:Do World Snooker have more of a duty of care than shown up to this point?
How do they make sure new pro's understand the rules? Do they take it on trust that players read and understand the rules and code of conduct before signing the players contract?
It reads that the pandemic exacerbated their loneliness and financial troubles, which the WST can't account for, but what sort of support mechanisms could be put in place, especially for overseas players based in UK?
SnookerFan wrote:Iranu wrote:The fact that Cao declined and reported the approach kind of shows why Murphy’s “automatic life bans for match fixing” is not necessarily the best approach.
Cao coming back having learnt his lesson and presumably helping this case has had more benefit than him not being on the tour for life.
I think Murphy's opinion was based on the idea that all of the Chinese players were being accused of the same thing. Ie. deliberately colluding with shady mafia dons, taking large sums of money and intentionally losing matches on purpose for the bribe.
I'm not massively suggesting that people in that situation shouldn't receive bans flat out, but I think it was maybe ill-advised for Murphy to say that, without actually knowing the full details of what the ten players were being accused of individually. There's a difference between deliberate match-fixing, and just not reporting an advance.
Murphy does have the habit of looking at life in black and white, and will often give out opinions without all the facts. Though he probably means well, and thinks giving his opinion helps the sport look like it has a zero-tolerance approach, this is a situation which really, isn't about him.
Iranu wrote:SnookerFan wrote:Iranu wrote:The fact that Cao declined and reported the approach kind of shows why Murphy’s “automatic life bans for match fixing” is not necessarily the best approach.
Cao coming back having learnt his lesson and presumably helping this case has had more benefit than him not being on the tour for life.
I think Murphy's opinion was based on the idea that all of the Chinese players were being accused of the same thing. Ie. deliberately colluding with shady mafia dons, taking large sums of money and intentionally losing matches on purpose for the bribe.
I'm not massively suggesting that people in that situation shouldn't receive bans flat out, but I think it was maybe ill-advised for Murphy to say that, without actually knowing the full details of what the ten players were being accused of individually. There's a difference between deliberate match-fixing, and just not reporting an advance.
Murphy does have the habit of looking at life in black and white, and will often give out opinions without all the facts. Though he probably means well, and thinks giving his opinion helps the sport look like it has a zero-tolerance approach, this is a situation which really, isn't about him.
Nah he was saying about Cao after the fact that he should have been banned for life and that any player who breaches the rules should be banned for life.
Iranu wrote:The fact that Cao declined and reported the approach kind of shows why Murphy’s “automatic life bans for match fixing” is not necessarily the best approach.
Cao coming back having learnt his lesson and presumably helping this case has had more benefit than him not being on the tour for life.
Wildey wrote:Iranu wrote:The fact that Cao declined and reported the approach kind of shows why Murphy’s “automatic life bans for match fixing” is not necessarily the best approach.
Cao coming back having learnt his lesson and presumably helping this case has had more benefit than him not being on the tour for life.
Wildey wrote:I Used to be in the same camp as Murphy But there are different scenarios that needs to be looked at a blanket policy just wouldn't work in the real world