Stephen Lee Suspended From World Snooker Tour !!

thanks must have missed it as i scan read some of the posts but will watch it later

Witz78 wrote:doesnt look like the talk of a guilty man to me

He'd hardly admit to it, would he?

im not a fan of suspending before a judgement

Witz, if Lee knew your other heroes were Glitter and Savile, he might not be thankful for your devoted support.

Muppet147 wrote:Witz, if Lee knew your other heroes were Glitter and Savile, he might not be thankful for your devoted support.

dont forget gadafi.

Wild WC wrote:

Muppet147 wrote:Witz, if Lee knew your other heroes were Glitter and Savile, he might not be thankful for your devoted support.

dont forget gadafi.

its nearly his 1st year anniversary

Witz78 wrote:

Wild WC wrote:

Muppet147 wrote:Witz, if Lee knew your other heroes were Glitter and Savile, he might not be thankful for your devoted support.

dont forget gadafi.

its nearly his 1st year anniversary

Gadafi and Saville at around same time in 2011. that year was your Annus horribilis.

Please keep topic on track.

Skullman wrote:

GJ wrote:He should have all titles won last season removed


100 % record is back

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Pathetic.

it was a joke lighten up FFS

If Lee is banned, then how about this effort on the final black of this frame? Surely a banning offence? If this wasn't a deliberate miss then I don't know what is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WHiSTPswz

vodkadiet wrote:If Lee is banned, then how about this effort on the final black of this frame? Surely a banning offence? If this wasn't a deliberate miss then I don't know what is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WHiSTPswz

You refering to that last black where Lee played a shocker of a safety attempt? yeah you're right.... plus many other instances that make me doubt very much about his innocence...

In that last frame, the shots from final blue to pink, where he could have just screwed back the white.... the others that glaring miss on the final pink and of course that black... And when Higgins leveled at 2-1 or 2 all, Lee conceded when only requering 2 snookers.... the commentators were very surprised at the time, and so was I...

Don't get me wrong, I would love if Lee was proven innocent cause I always liked him as a player and as a person, but really things aren't looking pretty for him at the moment....

Andre147 wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:If Lee is banned, then how about this effort on the final black of this frame? Surely a banning offence? If this wasn't a deliberate miss then I don't know what is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WHiSTPswz

You refering to that last black where Lee played a shocker of a safety attempt? yeah you're right.... plus many other instances that make me doubt very much about his innocence...

In that last frame, the shots from final blue to pink, where he could have just screwed back the white.... the others that glaring miss on the final pink and of course that black... And when Higgins leveled at 2-1 or 2 all, Lee conceded when only requering 2 snookers.... the commentators were very surprised at the time, and so was I...

Don't get me wrong, I would love if Lee was proven innocent cause I always liked him as a player and as a person, but really things aren't looking pretty for him at the moment....

Not to mention that it's not about this particular match only. It's not about his choice of shots although it will be examined. It's about TWO investigations into suspicious bettings patterns now. The WSA statement makes it clear. Lee was cleared of "match fixing" by the UK court, meaning that he was declared innocent in respect to UK law. Only now that the case is closed in law, can WSA examine it. So with regards to the 2010 affair, WSA only just started their investigation. It's not because they were lazy … it's because they only now have access to the evidence pertaining to that one. Also it's not because Lee didn't do anything unlawful that he didn't breach the WSA regulations or his players contract: surely, for instance, betting on snooker isn't a crime in law, even for a snooker player, but it is definitely in breach of the sports rules. And now we have this coming as well. It's the combination of the two cases, plus the first examination of the first case evidence that motivated the suspension decision.
As snooky147 highlighted, we have to hope that WSA has indeed strong evidence to motivate such a harsh decision otherwise it would be massively unfair. But if they have, then it's definitely the right decision. Something that tells me WSA must have a strong case is that they didn't suspend Lee on October 5, right away after getting the first affair evidence, but another case of suspicious betting involving Lee is something they couldn't ignore.

All this naïveté about him being a nice bloke does my head in.

Here is one interesting reading http://www.snookerbacker.com/2012/10/15 ... -innocent/

Do you know him personally Sonny or are you just basing your opinion on the 'Pink Army' grapevine?

I know plenty of people who know him mate

Monique wrote:Here is one interesting reading http://www.snookerbacker.com/2012/10/15 ... -innocent/

Well done SB

Sonny wrote:I know plenty of people who know him mate

Including Ben....

I'm not convinced that this particular match was fixed, but when you couple two investigations at once it does make you wonder what's going on with Lee?

I hope the investigation doesn't take too long to sort out but you would guess at 3-6 months?

I don't care if Lee is guilty of match fixing or not. O'Sullivan deliberately missed that black and that is just as bad as Lee deliberately losing his match. So what if a few bookmakers get stung? They are all crooks themselves.

I knew you would be talking about that black against Pengfei, that's why I didn't click the link. O'Sullivan doesn't throw matches for financial gain, that's obvious.

As for people not seeing anything wrong with the match on Thursday, when fellow professionals take to social media to comment then you know something isn't right. The pink to middle was inexplicable. What on earth was he playing? Surely it would've been easier simply to jaw it though if he wanted to miss it and at least appear to be playing the right shot.

Anyway, bottom line is this:

If you bet on Premier League snooker then you deserve to lose your money.

If as a player you want to throw a match because you're greedy and want some easy cash then do it in an event broadcast worldwide which won't affect your ranking position.

I agree that O'Sullivan doesn't throw matches for financial gain, but that doesn't make it any better than throwing matches for financial gain. Who gets hurt if a player throws a match for financial gain? Bookmakers. Big deal. My heart bleeds for them.

Before you say innocent punters get hurt if a player throws a match for financial gain, then the same applies to punters who lose money on a match where a player throws a match just so he can get a plane home sooner.

If bookmakers don't want to lay odds on a certain player's matches then that is their prerogative. If they become alarmed at unusual betting patterns then they can suspend betting when they so wish. Let them work for their money, because at the moment they have a license to print money.

Lee comes acrossas a decent lad to me always friendly when he wins or loses at the end of a match.

On twitter he is friendly and replies to questions.

Overall i think hes a top man and seems an easy target for this BS

vodkadiet wrote:I agree that O'Sullivan doesn't throw matches for financial gain, but that doesn't make it any better than throwing matches for financial gain. Who gets hurt if a player throws a match for financial gain? Bookmakers. Big deal. My heart bleeds for them.

Before you say innocent punters get hurt if a player throws a match for financial gain, then the same applies to punters who lose money on a match where a player throws a match just so he can get a plane home sooner.

That is in fact a good point

sport stars should put their Heart and Soul in to every match they play they not only conning bookmakers but they conning people who paid good money believing in them.

vodkadiet wrote:I agree that O'Sullivan doesn't throw matches for financial gain, but that doesn't make it any better than throwing matches for financial gain. Who gets hurt if a player throws a match for financial gain? Bookmakers. Big deal. My heart bleeds for them.

Before you say innocent punters get hurt if a player throws a match for financial gain, then the same applies to punters who lose money on a match where a player throws a match just so he can get a plane home sooner.

The problem with this is that snooker currently relies heavily on bookies to sponsor the game. If they stop it because they don't trust WSA to take the proper actions against those who deliberately distort the betting market by fixing matches for financial gain, then the whole sport has a massive problem. At least in the UK, because in China, it seems that sponsors can be found outside the betting market.

lee = INNOCENT

How comes Jamie Burnett is still on the tour?

vodkadiet wrote:How comes Jamie Burnett is still on the tour?

good point

GJ wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:How comes Jamie Burnett is still on the tour?

good point

hes a Jock, THEY always seem to get away with it

GJ wrote:Lee comes acrossas a decent lad to me always friendly when he wins or loses at the end of a match.

On twitter he is friendly and replies to questions.

Overall i think hes a top man and seems an easy target for this BS

anytime ive met him hes always been decent crack and not like a lot of them who you can tell arent listening to what you say and are desperate to get away.