WPBSA Statement

Sonny wrote:I saw you being well and truely pwned by Hendon on Twitter last night Witz

bullocks

he was towing the party line

a PR exercise if ever i saw one

140 words or whatever it was wasnt enough for me to get my point over

couldnt be hassled arguing with him in the end

hes clearly a know it all with no respect for fans views and opinions

just cos im not on the inside like him doesnt mean to say that i cant see things in black and white

I don't much like Neil's statement regarding "benchmark for bringing the game into disrepute", it shows a clear lack of understanding of what the charges were against John vs what they were against Hann.

Hann never showed to face his charges but they were not solely "bringing the game into disrepute". He was actually going to be charged with match fixing which is not the same as what John was charged with so the 8 year ban should never have been seen as the benchmark ban for "bringing the game into disrepute". It would be the benchmark for match fixing but not for what John was charged with.

Sickpotter wrote:I don't much like Neil's statement regarding "benchmark for bringing the game into disrepute", it shows a clear lack of understanding of what the charges were against John vs what they were against Hann.

Hann never showed to face his charges but they were not solely "bringing the game into disrepute". He was actually going to be charged with match fixing which is not the same as what John was charged with so the 8 year ban should never have been seen as the benchmark ban for "bringing the game into disrepute". It would be the benchmark for match fixing but not for what John was charged with.

For the record Higgins was originally charged with match fixing

It just sickens me this whole episode

the only difference between Hann and Higgins is Higgins had a scrapegoat with him during the tabloid sting. If only Hann had had Joe Bloggs with him then he could have wormed his way out of it too

Witz78 wrote:

Sickpotter wrote:I don't much like Neil's statement regarding "benchmark for bringing the game into disrepute", it shows a clear lack of understanding of what the charges were against John vs what they were against Hann.

Hann never showed to face his charges but they were not solely "bringing the game into disrepute". He was actually going to be charged with bright green which is not the same as what John was charged with so the 8 year ban should never have been seen as the benchmark ban for "bringing the game into disrepute". It would be the benchmark for bright green but not for what John was charged with.

For the record Higgins was originally charged with bright green

It just sickens me this whole episode

the only difference between Hann and Higgins is Higgins had a scrapegoat with him during the tabloid sting. If only Hann had had Joe Bloggs with him then he could have wormed his way out of it too

Spot on Witz, if only Hann hadn't made all the arrangements to fix matches himself he might have had an excuse for his actions. If only the whole match fixing idea was never Hann's idea to begin with and all been arranged by JB

Sickpotter wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Sickpotter wrote:I don't much like Neil's statement regarding "benchmark for bringing the game into disrepute", it shows a clear lack of understanding of what the charges were against John vs what they were against Hann.

Hann never showed to face his charges but they were not solely "bringing the game into disrepute". He was actually going to be charged with bright green which is not the same as what John was charged with so the 8 year ban should never have been seen as the benchmark ban for "bringing the game into disrepute". It would be the benchmark for bright green but not for what John was charged with.

For the record Higgins was originally charged with bright green

It just sickens me this whole episode

the only difference between Hann and Higgins is Higgins had a scrapegoat with him during the tabloid sting. If only Hann had had Joe Bloggs with him then he could have wormed his way out of it too

Spot on Witz, if only Hann hadn't made all the arrangements to fix matches himself he might have had an excuse for his actions. If only the whole match fixing idea was never Hann's idea to begin with and all been arranged by JB

If Higgins had been so innocent he wouldnt have enthusiastically went along with it at the meeting, brought up his Spanish villa then refused to inform the authorities when he got back to the UK.

That tells me everything i need to know.

It seems only once the horse had bolted and he was rumbled did he show any remorse and suddenly have to concoct the Russian Mafia story etc and distance himself from Mooney who was the sacrificial lamb.

If that tells you all you need to know Witz I'd hazard a guess that you don't want to know all there is to know and that no amount of information will change your mind.

1- He was warned by Mooney just prior to going in he was dealing with dangerous people and to agree with any match fixing discussion. Nerves affect people differently and given how much of the footage we're not privy to there could easily be a number of shots where he looked anything but comfortable. Based on the investigation and what video/audio they saw/heard they felt he looked sufficiently uncomfortable that he was believable. It's possible if not very likely that NOTW used all the footage they had where JH looked comfortable.

2- He did not refuse to notify the authorities when he got back, he was confronted about it within 24 hrs of getting back and charged with not notifying the board of the approach in a timely manner. That was the charge, not refusing to notify. Yes he should've gotten on the phone ASAP but being put into that kind of situation is bound to affect your short term decision making.


The NOTW reporter who setup the sting said Higgins was totally unaware and had nothing to do with setting up the meeting or iniating match fixing discussions.

He didn't concoct the Russian mob story, that was the NOTW undercover reporter's fake identity for the sting.

Mooney setup the meeting and only informed John at the door that it wasn't about sponsorship and that he should agree to any discussion of match fixing as these were russian mobsters.

It boggles the mind that you can still suggest Mooney was just a scapegoat.

sorry mate ive heard all this baloney 100 times before and it doesnt cut the mustard with me.

anyway im saying no more on the matter cos ive got a plane to catch

bonjour

No problem Witz, have a good trip.

I would like to leave you with one question......why do you consider those points baloney but are willing to accept edited video footage at face value?

Sickpotter

if anyone knows what Baloney looks like its witz he talks it often enough

http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsAr ... 16,00.html?

WPBSA Statement
30th June 2011
WPBSA Statement on Maguire/Burnett Case
World Snooker's governing body has now reviewed evidence provided by the Strathclyde Police over allegations of suspicious betting on a match between Stephen Maguire and Jamie Burnett in 2008.

The WPBSA's findings agree that there was suspicious betting activity on this match by people outside of the sport and this required a detailed investigation by Strathclyde Police. However, there is no evidence to suggest that either player was involved in fixing the scoreline and therefore no regulatory action will be taken by the governing body against the players.

WPBSA Chairman, Jason Ferguson, said: "This investigation has been ongoing since 15 December 2008 and I am pleased to see this matter closed."

YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

who can accuse strathclyde police of not being thorough with theire never ending 2 and a half year investigation so what the hell could WPBSA Do after that.

Thought I'd never say this but am disappointed with Hearn on this. Burnett should have been nailed. Anyone who has ever played a frame and a half of snooker would know that he was 200% AT it that day. I am sick and I hope he never wins another frame or penny.

gallantrabbit wrote:Thought I'd never say this but am disappointed with Hearn on this. Burnett should have been nailed. Anyone who has ever played a frame and a half of snooker would know that he was 200% AT it that day. I am sick and I hope he never wins another frame or penny.

firstly it was in the hands of the police then in the WPBSA the case was never in the hands of Barry Hearn.

And tell me that Hearn has no influence over those who make these ridiculous decisions. What'd the bucking point in setting up a probably expensive anti-fraud committee if it's going to just whitewash. All of us are snooker fans/players on here. Can one of you put your hands on your hearts and say that Burnett wasn't at it. He was pure and simple nailed bucking on.
Bad decision for snooker.

gallantrabbit wrote:And tell me that Hearn has no influence over those who make these ridiculous decisions. What'd the bucking point in setting up a probably expensive anti-fraud committee if it's going to just whitewash. All of us are snooker fans/players on here. Can one of you put your hands on your hearts and say that Burnett wasn't at it. He was pure and simple nailed bucking on.
Bad decision for snooker.

but if police after 2+ years found nothing main difference between this and higgins is there's nothing to place burnett in a meeting to discuss match fixing.

I've been a teaching in Uni and seen enough panicked students to know to what level of stupidity and unarticulated behaviour they can be pushed by panic. So I'll give Burnett the benefits of doubts. Let's not forget both players knew about the abnormal betting patterns, the suspicions and the match being under scrutiny. So why go along with it? Anyway, I've always been of the opinion that either they were both in it, or none of them was. You can't guarantee a score like 9-3 if the other guy isn't going along with it. And frankly Maguire had so much to lose ...

Yet another Scottish parakeet escapes justice

Monique wrote:I've been a teaching in Uni and seen enough panicked students to know to what level of stupidity and unarticulated behaviour they can be pushed by panic. So I'll give Burnett the benefits of doubts. Let's not forget both players knew about the abnormal betting patterns, the suspicions and the match being under scrutiny. So why go along with it? Anyway, I've always been of the opinion that either they were both in it, or none of them was. You can't guarantee a score like 9-3 if the other guy isn't going along with it. And frankly Maguire had so much to lose ...

Monique - you'll give Burnett the benefit of the doubt for agreeing to throw 9-3? Cos that's what he did. Maguire had nothing to do with it just like Jimmy had nothing to do with it in the Fransisco case years back.
Jimmy, like Maguire, was making lot's of money and had no reason to get involved.
Fransisco and Burnett were doing ok if they'd been mice and could live of sawdust, and therefore had warped but good reason to set up such a throw.
Burnett was as guilty as Fransisco. The shot patterns were screamingly obviously bent and I only saw the last few balls of the last frame. It's not easy to throw a match to an exact score but it's much easier if you aim for a big gap.
Maguire 9 Burnett 3
Jimmy 10 Fransisco 2.
Shd have been banged to rights, but someone has gone soft when the correct action was to make an example. Hearn has failed to do that and now the corruption committee should be disbanded on charges of completely wasting money.

I think had everyone including the players not known about it beforehand then yes, it looked dodgy but you have to ask why if bets were cancelled and both players were aware the spotlight was on them would they still play out to that scoreline? Doesn't make sense.

Also at the time there was a prediction contest and 9-3 was easily the overwhelming favourite scoreline for that match. In a way I feel a bit sorry for Burnett because he's a fine player and has produced his best results since but this is all he'll be remembered for.

eh they would play out that scoreline because it would have looked more suspicious in he wake of things, if they had played out a completely different scoreline to the exact 9-3.

A bit like a murderer walking down the street he committed a crime on to make it look like he wasnt the criminal. think that Huntley guy who turned up at the school to help in the search to find them twins Holly and Jessica.......

Interesting analogy Witz

gallantrabbit wrote:

Monique wrote:I've been a teaching in Uni and seen enough panicked students to know to what level of stupidity and unarticulated behaviour they can be pushed by panic. So I'll give Burnett the benefits of doubts. Let's not forget both players knew about the abnormal betting patterns, the suspicions and the match being under scrutiny. So why go along with it? Anyway, I've always been of the opinion that either they were both in it, or none of them was. You can't guarantee a score like 9-3 if the other guy isn't going along with it. And frankly Maguire had so much to lose ...

Monique - you'll give Burnett the benefit of the doubt for agreeing to throw 9-3? Cos that's what he did. Maguire had nothing to do with it just like Jimmy had nothing to do with it in the Fransisco case years back.
Jimmy, like Maguire, was making lot's of money and had no reason to get involved.
Fransisco and Burnett were doing ok if they'd been mice and could live of sawdust, and therefore had warped but good reason to set up such a throw.
Burnett was as guilty as Fransisco. The shot patterns were screamingly obviously bent and I only saw the last few balls of the last frame. It's not easy to throw a match to an exact score but it's much easier if you aim for a big gap.
Maguire 9 Burnett 3
Jimmy 10 Fransisco 2.
Shd have been banged to rights, but someone has gone soft when the correct action was to make an example. Hearn has failed to do that and now the corruption committee should be disbanded on charges of completely wasting money.

You only watched the last few balls? I watched the whole match. And there were quite a few strange shot selections from both. But that's not the point. As Sonny and me already pointed out, the whole match was under scrutiny, the bettings had been blocked and the players knew it. So why carry on with it? To me Burnett acted more like a panicky rabbit than anything else.

The panicky rabbit is plausible. What should be questioned is how much they knew about it before they were busted but then the police found no evidence. I'm sure lessons have been learned from all involved and a message has been sent out to others in the process.

Sonny wrote:The panicky rabbit is plausible. What should be questioned is how much they knew about it before they were busted but then the police found no evidence. I'm sure lessons have been learned from all involved and a message has been sent out to others in the process.

lets not forget that match was from a era where insurance betting was encouraged and the lines got blurred barry hearn has come in and issued warning.....

anyone that does this from now on will be dealt in a different way from the WSA warnings been issued now "do you feel lucky PUNK!!!! well do youuuu"

Yeah as far as I'm concerned it's time to draw a line under everything that happened pre-Hearn and start afresh. Any player who gets themselves tangled up in this sort of thing SINCE the new era deserves to be hung out to dry. My understanding is that while not exactly commonplace, there was a time when things were overlooked. Look back to snookers inception onto television and the way they used to string the frames out to fit the schedule. It's a new era, each era moves on from the last. No tolerance these days. Backtracking to previous eras is a waste of time and can do damage.

Well I'll never be convinced that he wasn't at it. Even if bets were suspended he had to prove that he'd done his part.
Remember Monique from Maguire's point of view when his opponent is clearly at it his concentration and shot selection will go out of the window completely. Again I remember Jimmy played awful against Fransisco co he knew something was up.
Burnett must feel like a hammer now because he was clearly trying to scrape money together as snooker wasn't doing it. Now he has a million opportunities to play and has even reached a ranking final much to my disgust, and no Burnett you really didn't need to do this.
I will always be number one anti fan of his, for me he is Fransisco mark 2 and I'm so relieved Higginson held on today..

And Hearn's big man act about cleaning up the game won't wash till he does something about incidents like this or truly fines those like O'sullivan who take the snake hiss out of the game. To be fair to O'sullivan he seems to be conforming a little more now, but I doubt it'll last.