Stephen Lee Suspended From World Snooker Tour !!

Lee was not suspended immediately. It's the repetition of the suspicious betting patterns (and to a lesser extend, bizarre shot selection) while a first inquiry was already under way that triggered it.
And no he can't enter anything as an amateur. That would be preposterous BTW.

Monique wrote:Lee was not suspended immediately. It's the repetition of the suspicious betting patterns (and to a lesser extend, bizarre shot selection) while a first inquiry was already under way that triggered it.
And no he can't enter anything as an amateur. That would be preposterous BTW.

That's good, because indeed it would be farcical if he could enter as an armature....

Casey wrote:

Wild WC wrote:Stephen Lee's Suspension Continues as the Appeal was Dismissed by Robert Englehart QC (Sport Resolutions UK)

http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsAr ... 63,00.html

Interesting. This of course does not prove his guilt, but it would suggest that there will be a full hearing on the matter. I would be surprised if it was resolved prior to around February time.

Can he still enter PTC's as an armature?

apparently all amateurs has to sign a World Snooker contract to be able to play in PTC so id say no.

I am not a great lover of suspension before a hearing either. I would like to think that they had some really good evidence to warrant suspension otherwise Lee could possibly sue their ass off if he was found innocent.

snooky147 wrote:I am not a great lover of suspension before a hearing either. I would like to think that they had some really good evidence to warrant suspension otherwise Lee could possibly sue their ass off if he was found innocent.

yeh considering hes ranked in the top 8 he could legitmately claim at least quarter final prize money loss of earnings as a minimum for each event hes forced to miss

also should his ranking drop out of the top 8 forcing him into harder draws for events then thats another issue too

I agree with the idea of suspending a player while an investigation is on going as whilst that player plays whilst there is suspicion, every nook and cranny of their game would be examined, the slightest error would be exaggerated.

However, if you are going to suspend someone then you need to freeze their ranking for that point, i.e. Lee would be awarded quarter-final points for the tournaments he'd be seeded in the top eight for. If someone's found guilty and banned then that's another matter.

If theres enough grounds for a suspension in which case Sport Resolutions UK thinks there is therefore Rankings should not be freeze.

people seem to think this decision was taken lightly i think the fact a appeal failed shows there was grounds in the Action taken by Jason Ferguson and i applaud the guy for having the balls to do it.

to much sitting on the fence does nothing.

Wild WC wrote:If theres enough grounds for a suspension in which case Sport Resolutions UK thinks there is therefore Rankings should not be freeze.

people seem to think this decision was taken lightly i think the fact a appeal failed shows there was grounds in the Action taken by Jason Ferguson and i applaud the guy for having the balls to do it.

to much sitting on the fence does nothing.

Nope it's not sitting on the fence , it's trying to keep a fair and open mind on a case which is still active.

I agree that there must be considerable grounds of suspicion surrounding Lee for any such suspension to be taking place in the first instance, but that doesn't automatically make him guilty.

When a fellow professional is suspended in this game, there is room for other players to benefit from the ruling, namely those players Lee will be likely to face in the last 32 of the International, and quite possibly the UK Championship as well. That's why I take a dim view personally of Judd going on twitter within minutes of the conclusion of the match with Higgins.

If you freeze someone's ranking whilst they are suspended then you are giving them the chance to return to the game if they are cleared 'unharmed' If a player is found guilty and then banned from the game, then quite properly take away the points they have received whilst they were provisionally suspended.

We've had a situation in the past which if it replicated itself under the new system as it were, a suspension whilst an investigation took place would have been the probably outcome. Given no action is to be taken against Burnett, would a suspension, with no recompense been appropriate?

I agree with suspending players whilst they are being investigated, as that is the right thing to do, but you've got to freeze the ranking I feel to accord that player the respect that they are not going to be punished unless they are found guilty of an offence.

Firstly Judd's comments on twitter will get him into trouble I've no doubt, but he's just a kid and Lee hasn't exactly earned his respect with some of the things he's said in the past. So I'm sure he will learn his lesson.

Secondly I agree that players shouldn't be suspended unless there is good evidence against them. I'm certain that Lee wouldn't be suspended on tittle tattle and that World Snooker have strong evidence which will be revealed in due course. So yes it may appear to be harsh on Lee, but there is bound to be more to it than anyone posting on Snooker Island knows about.

Sonny wrote:Firstly Judd's comments on twitter will get him into trouble I've no doubt, but he's just a kid and Lee hasn't exactly earned his respect with some of the things he's said in the past. So I'm sure he will learn his lesson.

Secondly I agree that players shouldn't be suspended unless there is good evidence against them. I'm certain that Lee wouldn't be suspended on tittle tattle and that World Snooker have strong evidence which will be revealed in due course. So yes it may appear to be harsh on Lee, but there is bound to be more to it than anyone posting on Snooker Island knows about.

Absolutely

as i said its one thing a governing body acting in haste its another having a appeal dismissed.

it should be one rule for all regardless of evidence

either suspend anyone under suspicion or dont

not pick and choose.

And going back to Burnett (I know that was the previous regime) but had he been suspended whilst the investigation went on, then he would have dropped off tour before a verdict was reached haha

Witz78 wrote:it should be one rule for all regardless of evidence

either suspend anyone under suspicion or dont

not pick and choose.

And going back to Burnett (I know that was the previous regime) but had he been suspended whilst the investigation went on, then he would have dropped off tour before a verdict was reached haha

you pick and choose based on evidence on the matter.

im all for what you suggest suspend the whole bally lot of them if under suspicion but i doubt World Snooker will do that.

surely the evidence should only come into play in determining a verdict, not whether a suspension is imposed.

Its almost boredering on a decision being made immediately and the hearing and investigation period being pointless as the outcome is already determined.

Just say hypothetically World Snooker had a copy of a recorded conversation which went like this:

"You lose tonight, guaranteed 200k coming your way"

"No problem"

and the player in question duly lost, even if it looked like they were trying their hardest. Then they would suspend that player without publishing the evidence before an official hearing.

That's what you would expect isn't it? Doubtless you would get people on internet forums saying "It's unfair, what if he's innocent?" but there are times in life when you have be professional and do things the right way and take whatever flack comes your way. You should know this Witz with the whole Armstrong thing.

So no one is in a position to say whether it is fair or unfair until the evidence World Snooker have on Stephen Lee is made public. And they are not going to make anything public until the result of the inquiry. If they did, then it would be unprofessional and it would prejudice the case and risk getting thrown out of court. Or whatever the term is for an internal inquiry.

kangaroo court ?

That's the one

Witz78 wrote:surely the evidence should only come into play in determining a verdict, not whether a suspension is imposed.

Its almost boredering on a decision being made immediately and the hearing and investigation period being pointless as the outcome is already determined.

No it isn't. Look at the Higgins case.