Post a reply

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby randam05

Good post noel.

I havent yet really commented on this topic yet, and I will tell you why..because I dont really care. I hate the modern world for reasons like this..I hate commercialism, advertising, celebrities and all stuff like that. I am glad John higgins has got away with this to an extent as hes such a great addition to the snooker world and it has felt empty without him. I hope the fans dont judge higgins when he plays his matches about this problem. For me, I am just glad its over and Higgins is back playing in november only suffering 75000 fine and missing some tournaments cause it could have been a lot worst. I wont be commenting on this issue again as I would like it to be forgotten about as its definantley not a light hearted matter for the sport and isnt infact to do with snooker but some NOTW nonsense. We cant say for sure if higgins is guilty or not but I just hope to see him play half decent this season and see it all forgotten about going into the 2011/12 season for higgins sake, snooker sake and his fans sake.

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby gallantrabbit

I think they got it about right. A slap on the wrist for being so naive, in not letting at least Hearn know what was going on.
Now they should go to the real fixer, the man who got the bye the other day..

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Monique

Noel wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:where is the evidence to say the decision was a fiasco ?


wild... I've made a lot of posts expressing my views on this disturbing episode because I think it's really important.
I've tried to explain why I think this whole issue is important to snooker in a larger sense and not just to John personally.
Check through them if you want as they cover a lot of questions from members and comments on their concerns.
My issues from Day 1 about this tragic situation have remained unchanged over all these months because all the evidence that this has been a fiasco is there for us to see if we're willing to open our eyes and try to grasp the larger picture, the picture that like a big puzzle has a lot of still missing pieces to complete our recognition of what actually has happened and our understanding of why. The NoTW sting didn't just pop into Mazher Mahmood's mind one day watching a snooker match.
He works off tips like "Sarah Ferguson is so desperate for cash she'll sell exual favours" and his team springs into action. Maybe he thought he had a vulnerable pair in Mooney and Higgins because their WSS venture was failing. So, who told him that? Why did this happen almost immediately after Hearn is acclaimed by the player/members? Who was the puppet-master and what was their ulterior motive? Did they achieve their ends or is there more in the plan? You know, those kind of unanswered questions. I've suggested lots of reasons just even today why this is a fiasco... I've called the process by which today's verdicts and punishments were arrived at, a "Kangaroo Court" I've slammed the motives of the principals involved as being a "whitewash". I don't want to go over that again... but my reasons for saying so are offered in those posts.
I've suggested that it isn't about "truth" at all.... as Monique suggested, only Higgins and Mooney know what's "true" for sure.
I've maintained for 4 months that this whole thing is about "appearances" and still believe that. If WPBSA wanted it to look like they did the "right thing" with "impartiality" with "fairness" and minimize the damage, they failed big time. I know that the players pretty much voted Hearn in on a one-promise platform... more tournaments. None if any bargained on this poo. And it's probably got many on edge for various reasons. How the fans react is another worry... my guess ... not very well, but we'll have to see. Will the betting people be reassured it's clean business now? I wouldn't bet on that. So the "fiasco" part wild is not just what happened, but unanswered questions as to why, and wtf will happen next?
It's definitely not a closed book, turn the light out and sleep soundly thing at all mate.


=o|

Noel


I can only second this. I'm not challenging the judgement or the decisions made but I'm not satisfied with the non-answers given to some essential questions.
NOTW has set up a very sophisticated sting to entrap John Higgins and Pat Mooney and it can't have been cheap to set up. I very much doubt they would have gone to those extends without having a firm confidence it would work. So why did they have such confidence? A various stages during last months there was mention of "insiders" information. What information? Which insiders? Why didn't those insiders go to the authorities in charge of the sport rather than a tabloid? What was their motivation? How credible were there? What did they offer to NOTW that was enough to convince them the "coup" was worth it? Was Pat Mooney, who has been found guilty of the more serious charges, the main target? Was John Higgins only dragged into this "as a bonus", so to say?

By not investigating all the charges and hence by not making public any findings on some aspects of the affair, they have created an unsatisfactory situation and one that will leave doubts in the minds of many.

Now we will have to live with the consequences. John Higgins will return to the table in November but he will never be the same again, his reputation is irretievably scarred, doubts will subsist.

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Monique

and here you have it in the press
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/se ... ns-betting
Image

John Higgins may have been cleared but there have been loud questions around the probity of snooker over recent years. Photograph: Lewis Whyld/AP

All the main protagonists – World Snooker, John Higgins, the News of the World – had reason to claim some form of victory following yesterday's verdict on the case that rocked the World Championship in May and has cast a shadow over it ever since. Even Higgins' former manager Pat Mooney, damned as the villain of the piece and in effect banned from the sport for life by Ian Mill QC, saw the two worst charges against him dropped on a technicality.

But no one felt much like popping champagne. The newspaper's investigatory methods again came under scrutiny, Higgins was exposed as naive if not downright foolish and snooker's governing body still faces a huge challenge to persuade the public the sport is clean. The man in charge of its new anti-corruption unit last night warned that the worst possible outcome from the decision to clear Higgins of the most serious match-fixing charges would be to believe that it was in the clear.

David Douglas, the former Metropolitan Police detective chief superintendent, has vowed to clean up snooker but conceded it would be no easy task. Many within the sport believe the News of the World's sting was largely a case of right investigation, wrong man. "What has happened is that it has allowed us to focus on compliance. We've got to reform, review the rules, our processes, help the players and educate them. It's all about taking this forward and not burying our heads in the sand," said Douglas.

Barry Hearn, teh World Snooker chairman who more than anyone is aware of the collateral damage to the sport, said yesterday of the unit: "It will have far-reaching powers to investigate and act as a deterrent to possible corruption. It will be very high-profile because I want snooker to be seen as clean."

For Hearn, determined to give snooker its lustre back following a period when sponsors and the public have deserted it, the timing could not have been worse. Now, he will attempt to turn a crisis into an opportunity. As the trickle of match-fixing allegations in all sports have become a flood in recent months – from the spate of arrests in Turkey and Germany over match-fixing in football to the cricket allegations that have dominated the news – snooker has never been far away.

There have been increasingly loud questions around the probity of snooker over recent years and at least three players – Stephen Maguire, Jamie Burnett and Stephen Lee – remain the subject of police investigations. As in cricket, a number of factors have coalesced to make it a prime target for those seeking to manipulate results and to increase temptation for players.

Some are common to all sports such as the rampant growth and increased sophistication of the illegal betting market in Asia and the Far East, and the increase in the variety of bets on offer and the ease with which they can be placed over the internet and mobile phones.

Others are peculiar to snooker including the decline in the sport's commercial value since its 80s heyday, the increase in the amount of snooker played around the world and the dangers inherent in round-robin formats, where not every frame is vital. Then there is the difficult of proving wrongdoing. It is notoriously difficult, even for expert eyes, to tell whether a player has missed a shot on purpose.

One of the major challenges – and the reason why so much of the rhetoric is around educating young players – is challenging the betting culture that exists within snooker, as within many other sports in the UK including football. Up until recently, it was common practice for players to bet on themselves to lose as "insurance" against going out in a major tournament.

As with the current cricket spot-fixing scandal, some players may even have convinced themselves it was a relatively harmless activity. Some point to a reluctance among those who oversaw the sport before Hearn's takeover to tackle the problem.

While the outraged reaction to the News of the World's initial revelations and apparently damning video evidence indicated that this was a recent problem – Steve Davis referred to a "dark day for snooker" – the sport is rife with bar-room talk of fixed frames and betting stings.

Hearn's vow to clean it up chimes with what is going on elsewhere. The newspaper pages and airwaves have been jammed of late with sports governing bodies vowing to clean up their act. One recommendation of the recent government review of sporting integrity issues, chaired by the former Liverpool FC chief executive Rick Parry, was to set up a new Sports Betting.

The new body, to be chaired by CCPR chairman Tim Lamb, is designed to agree a set of standards that will be applied across sport, on issues such as standardising punishments and disciplinary codes, and educating sports stars about the dangers.

The Gambling Commission, which has come under fire from some in sport for not getting to grips with the problem, has been tasked with setting up a new integrity unit. Nick Tofiluk, who is director of regulation and oversees the unit, said he was pleased with the level of co-operation from sports governing bodies.

But there must be serious questions about whether these moves will be enough to stamp out corruption given the international threat and huge power of the criminals who control the illegal betting markets. Douglas accepts the strategy must partly be one of containment. "It's not about one sport or another. It's about illegal betting – they'll go for anybody. You need constant vigilance and to make sure players are well educated and know the risks when the bad guys come calling," he said.

Last week, the head of the ICC's anti-corruption unit Sir Ronnie Flanagan - another of the former police chiefs doing so well out of battling corruption in sport - vowed to co-operate with other sports to lobby governments around the world to regulate betting markets more effectively. Douglas said he is "100%" behind the move and there is a growing realisation that this is largely a problem that must be dealt with by sport itself, given the length of time and practical difficulties involved in pursuing investigations.

Like the battle against doping, those at the sharp end warn that it will be a long slog and will require serious investment. They retain doubts about the determination and ability of some sports to see it through. Through a combination of harsh penalties, education and intelligence based information gathering, they hope to make headway. But unless they can also convince governments of the seriousness of their mission, the odds on success will lengthen.

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Roland

It's a very negative piece. Aside from Clive they never write good things about snooker and will do it down at every given opportunity.

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby JohnFromLondonTown

The Guardian has appointed their own match corruption correspondent, in Owen Gibson.

I find this piece the only piece that is informative in there....

"Many within the sport believe the News of the World's sting was largely a case of right investigation, wrong man."

Apart from the typo's also in there, nothing else is interesting. This time tomorrow they will have moved onto something else, something the be grudgers should do too.

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Wildey

Right What Answeres to questions do we want List them Here then ill take it up with them <ok>

otherwise is it possible to move on and watch the sport please and forget this rubbish

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Roland

Private Eye always refer to the Guardian as the Grauniad due to the number of typos.

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Wildey

BTW im serious all questions will be sent to the WPBSA in Bristol.

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Casey

GrumpyMrDavros wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:where is the evidence to say the decision was a fiasco ?

they judged it on evidence. your judgement comes on the back of what exactly ? a edited tape the NOTW Wanted you to see.



I think those of us who think the investigation has been a fiasco - And I'm certainly in that camp - are concerned because the investigation team are refusing to answer any questions as to how they have come to their decision

Why did they drop the serious charge of match fixing ?

If Mooney and Higgins were facing the exact same charge then why does Mooney get a life ban whilst Higgins gets a slap on the wrist ?

If Sports Resolutions nothing to hide why aren't they asking the above questions ?


MrDavros, I thought the QC summed it up well in his final summary. As for the charge of match fixing, it was dropped on day 1 after 9 hours hearing & the investigation that went beforehand with David Douglas.

The QC has said he believes John's account who only knew about the match fixing minutes before the meeting compared to Mooney who had several meetings with the journalists.

They have all the facts, we have an edited video, how are we in a position to tell them they are wrong.

Noel says john should have been made an example of...well Ifind that disturbing because John has a life and a family at sake in all of this. You have to be 100% sure he would have done it...clearly they believed his accounts

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Wildey

yes What do we want John to be sacrifieced even if the evidence back him up :?

sorry but im with case i do find the atetute of some extreamly disturbing like flies round rubbish trying to make out the investigation was corrupt.

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby gallantrabbit

I think it's quite clear that Higgins was a pawn in this game. I think most would agree that Mooney's eyes were lit up by the easy cash and John was dragged in.

What really p$sses me off is that meanwhile through the back door the guy who is the guiltiest since Fransisco has sneaked through the back door into the quarter finals this week.
One or two of you might think I'm banging on the same theme, but so much fuss about Higgins when the clearest case I've ever seen of match fixing seems to have been left to one side.
Yes Burnett.....

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Casey

Many within the sport believe the News of the World's sting was largely a case of right investigation, wrong man.


That for me says it all <ok>

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Wildey

no the Right investigation on the right man unfortunally John was there as well.

John was Never actually the investigation.

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby GrumpyMrDavros

case_master wrote:
MrDavros, I thought the QC summed it up well in his final summary.


As seen here ?

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/201 ... qc-080902/

" The Association has explained that this withdrawal resulted from an acceptance, following an investigation which all concerned have correctly characterised as very thorough and fair, that Mr Higgins had truthfully accounted for his words and actions at the meeting in Kiev on 30 April, selected extracts from which subsequently were widely publicised. In short, his account (which has remained consistent throughout) was as follows.

Mr Higgins found himself in that meeting having only just beforehand been warned by Mr Mooney that there was a possibility (nothing more) that the subject of throwing frames might arise as part of the overall business discussions that were about to commence. Without any opportunity for mature reflection Mr Higgins, who is by nature someone who seeks to avoid confrontation or unpleasantness, decided to play along with the discussion when the topic did indeed arise. He also found the atmosphere in the meeting somewhat intimidating. His focus was entirely on bringing the meeting to an end as soon as possible and getting on a plane home. He would never throw, and had no intention at that meeting of throwing any frame, of snooker for reward. "

So Higgins defence is still " Oh I was in fear of my life and decided to go along with it " I take it the clips that weren't released by NOTW involved Higgins on his hands and knees squeeling " Oh please don't kill me Mr Russian mafia gangster . " :bowdown:
I must say however that Higgins is totally convincing in the bits broadcast by the paper where he is seen to go along with the plan to fix frames . So convincing in fact that we might be seeing a Scottish version of Daniel Day Lewis . Higgins is so good he should be an acting coach

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Noel

wildJONESEYE wrote:yes What do we want John to be sacrifieced even if the evidence back him up :?
sorry but im with case i do find the atetute of some extreamly disturbing like flies round rubbish trying to make out the investigation was corrupt.


Indeed... as they say wild...
If it looks like rubbish... if it smells like rubbish... if it tastes like rubbish... if it talks like rubbish... it must be

Image Mr. Hanky Hearns
_________________________________________________


In the simplest way possible.
WPBSA got all the information they requested to consider the charges alleged by the NOTW.
Coincidentally, just before the rubbish hit the fan Barry Hearn hired an ex-cop, David Douglas, to be the WPBSA Discipline Sheriff.
Immediately therafter a shocking, important Discipline Issue arises and that is slapped down on his desk. He duly considers
all the evidence he can muster, confers with his bosses and they decide the only way to proceed would be to have a totally
independant and impartial agency adjudicate. They hired Sport Resolutions to have an impartial hearing on the charges.
Looks to me like SR did a standup impartial job of considering the charges and evidence presented to them by the WPBSA.
[ are we together on these points so far? ]

Q: What charges against Higgins/Mooney from the "Partial People" were handed over to the "Impartial People" to rule on?
A: The most minor offenses that would get John off as lightly as possible off and render an outcome the public might "buy".

1. Intentionally giving the impression to others that he was agreeing to act in breach of the betting rules, though it was accepted that he had no intention of throwing any frame of snooker for reward. [ in other words fibbing about match-fixing ]

2. Failing to disclose promptly to the Association full details of an approach or invitation to act in breach of the betting rules. [ "My mobile phone was stolen by the Russian mafia!" ]

Q: What penalties were imposed on the two guilty [ as charged ] men?

A1: Higgins - Fine/Costs £85,000 . Ban - none - back to work on Monday [ November ]
A2: Mr Mill QC said: "Mr Mooney’s conduct is, in my judgment, of a completely different order of seriousness...."
Mooney - Fine/Costs waived due to skinkness Ban - lifetime - [ the "Fallguy" ]

So for the same minor charges, Mooney is treated like a Vampire while Higgins a Mosquito.
Pat gets a stake through the heart while John gets captured in a jar to be passed around as an example in future Snooker Ethics Classes.
If the range of punishment is 6mos - Life for these minor charges... what's actual match-fixing... DEATH?

Meanwhile the WPBSA by not bringing forward to the independant tribunal the serious allegations of match-fixing and bringing snooker into disrepute and sweeping them under the carpet has perpetrated what I call a corrupt...

WHITEWASH


=o(

Noel

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby gallantrabbit

I think you're being too harsh Noel. I think the best idea is to put yourself in Higgins's position. If what he says was true he was told minutes before the meeting. Would you go into the meeting with people you don't know, and who you still believe might possibly get behind the World Series, and start shouting the odds and refuse to speak? I know I wouldn't. I'd probably have 'gone along with the idea' and never dreamed that someone was trying to frame me up.
Charge: Naivety, which is what Higgins has been punished for. I don't think even Mooneyt was in deeper although he shouldn't have exposed Higgins to such trash.

World board, go after the really corrupt...Burnett.

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Wildey

i think mooney was in it up to his eye balls and John said that much in his statement.

he feels he was stitched up thanks to mooney's business dealings that was not legit.

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Noel

gallantrabbit wrote:I think you're being too harsh Noel. I think the best idea is to put yourself in Higgins's position. If what he says was true he was told minutes before the meeting. Would you go into the meeting with people you don't know, and who you still believe might possibly get behind the World Series, and start shouting the odds and refuse to speak? I know I wouldn't. I'd probably have 'gone along with the idea' and never dreamed that someone was trying to frame me up.
Charge: Naivety, which is what Higgins has been punished for. I don't think even Mooneyt was in deeper although he shouldn't have exposed Higgins to such trash.

World board, go after the really corrupt...Burnett.


If was was honest and truly only naive, fine...
but from the vid clips I saw he best get another agent, an acting agent.
Here's John in Russia with Pat... and friends


Image



As for Burnett... go... find the rumoured Betting Blackbook...
the names you are after have been written there well before The Whitewash
[ apparantly 5 of the top sixteen are on it ]


=o|

Noel

Re: John Higgins to Return to Circuit

Postby Smart

wildJONESEYE wrote:no the Right investigation on the right man unfortunally John was there as well.

John was Never actually the investigation.


I think people are happily using Mooney as a scapegoat. DJ is MrCash....... he likes it so much he set up a World Series......why you ask...?

For the benefit of the snooker loving public in Jersey or Berlin or Warsaw...... :chin:

No - to make money. <ok>

"How can I swallow that mcuh cash"

"Can you perhaps pay off a mortgage on a Spanish property"

Does Mooney says these things.......................... or was it DJ <laugh> rofl

COVER UP <ok>