Stephen Lee Statement

PLtheRef wrote:

Monique wrote:Learn what wild? If they have done nothing and are dragged into some "scandal" by mere rumours, what is there they could do about it? Again I'm not speaking specifically about the Lee case, I'm speaking in general.
That's why your reasoning will not work. If people are innocent, there is nothing for them to have "learned" because they did nothing wrong.
What players must know is that if there is suspicion, it will be investigated to the bottom, that they will be treated fairly but that there will be no tolerance whatsoever or under the carpet sweeping if they are guilty. They must know that the consequences - if found guilty - will be career ending.
But they should also be assured that they will not been thrown out of their job on mere malevolent rumours.

Spot on Monique


Wild, your suggestion would not even stand up in the street, never mind in court.

i know your right but ive had a gut-full.

and another Matter in Law if someone is Suspected of Doing something they have not done they are suspended.

if a child accuses a teacher of molesting them do you think they are aloud to continue teaching pending a inquiry?

or a Family Member suspects a care worker is helping themselves to money of someone they care for they continue in their jobs pending a inquiry?

of course not.

but in the same way as Lee's Reputation is tarnished for no reason if Innocent those people have even More to lose by wrongfully accused when people snigger "no smoke without fire" even when found inocent

Wild, the case of molesting children is far more serious than the betting one. There is a need to protect the children who are not in a position to defend themselves. And even so, I remember a case in France, around the time of the Dutroux case, where kids accused two of their teachers of abusing them. They were jailed, and one of them took his own life, having lost his job and his family. Only for one of the kids, then a teenager, to backtrack a few years later. The inquiry was done again in a more serene atmosphere and it appeared that the teachers had done nothing. The kids were crossed at them because some petty incident, and, in the whole fever of the Dutroux affair that was all over the news, had made it up to "annoy" them. Then when it all had turned big and all over the press and people exited about it, they had been too scared to admit that they had made it up.

Anyway, in the case of a betting scam, I'll say this:
1. nobody is forced to bet. If people feel they can't trust a player, they should abstain. It's that simple.
2. the betting industry could just stop offering any bets on Lee - or anyone under suspicion - until the enquiry is finished and the case judged. With dozens of thousands of betting offers around, in all sports on earth, nobody will convince me that such action would really hurt them.

A teacher would be suspended with full pay. If Lee is innocent he has lost out on prize money and ranking points which are hard to recover. He is also in the final quarter of his career, certainly at the top of the game anyway.

Casey wrote:A teacher would be suspended with full pay. If Lee is innocent he has lost out on prize money and ranking points which are hard to recover. He is also in the final quarter of his career, certainly at the top of the game anyway.

agree if hes found innocent he will be looking big compo

Casey wrote:A teacher would be suspended with full pay. If Lee is innocent he has lost out on prize money and ranking points which are hard to recover. He is also in the final quarter of his career, certainly at the top of the game anyway.

This.

I'm all for Suspending players where there is a case to answer but it should never be a potentiality that the game puts someone's livelihood at stake.

My suggestion would be iif we suspend a player, then they need to be given money and points consistent with their ranking. So therefore, someone ranked number nine in the world would be given points and prize money at the level of an elimination in the last 16 for the tournament. The money / points can be held in trust to be awarded in the event of someone essentially being cleared. If a guilty verdict is reached, then the money of course is not awarded.

it will interesting to see how this turns out. i always wondered why hann didnt fight his case, even though the odds were not in his favour, would he have got less or more years to the ban he received

daraghj82 wrote:it will interesting to see how this turns out. i always wondered why hann didnt fight his case, even though the odds were not in his favour, would he have got less or more years to the ban he received

Hann couldn't care less the level of Ambition he had was to be a hammer and he was successful at it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/snooker/21684160

Suspended snooker player Stephen Lee has applied to play in the World Championship, despite being at the centre of a match-fixing investigation.

He has not played competitively since being suspended in October 2012 as part of an inquiry into betting patterns around a game against John Higgins.

Lee, 38, faces a formal independent hearing arranged by Sport Resolutions UK over separate allegations.

But he could appear at the Crucible if he is cleared before the draw is made.

that looks highly unlikely to say the least

so far no date has been set for the hearing and The Qualifying draw for the World Championship will be made in 25 days.

lee

Some guy on twitter stating that the hearing is scheduled on march 26. No idea if he's reliable though.

Monique wrote:Some guy on twitter stating that the hearing is scheduled on march 26. No idea if he's reliable though.

that gives Lee a chance then.


by then he would have been suspended 6 months and after all that found not guilty, world snooker must have had a rock solid case for suspension followed by a appeal that was dismissed by Robert Englehart QC and Sport Resolutions UK.

taking all that in to consideration id be amazed if Lee was found not guilty.

Wild WC wrote:

Monique wrote:Some guy on twitter stating that the hearing is scheduled on march 26. No idea if he's reliable though.

that gives Lee a chance then.


by then he would have been suspended 6 months and after all that found not guilty, world snooker must have had a rock solid case for suspension followed by a appeal that was dismissed by Robert Englehart QC and Sport Resolutions UK.

taking all that in to consideration id be amazed if Lee was found not guilty.

Although I'm not a fan of suspending players like that I would agree that there would have had to have been some pretty compelling stuff in order that the appeal was dismissed by a QC no less. I too would be gobsmacked if Lee was found not guilty now.

it also says in the article that the WPBSA are still investigating his PL match with Higgins.

I've just read in Snooker Scene that he's in more trouble now because he and Drago played a tournament in Austria which was streamed on the internet which is of course in breach of their contracts with World Snooker and possibly World Snookers' with Perform.

Sonny wrote:I've just read in Snooker Scene that he's in more trouble now because he and Drago played a tournament in Austria which was streamed on the internet which is of course in breach of their contracts with World Snooker and possibly World Snookers' with Perform.

for god sakes.

that could delay the hearing to deal with breach of contracts

what i cant understand is why has Lee decided to try and enter the World Champs ??

if hes suspended (which i dont agree with) then why can he try and enter ??

if so, why didnt he try and enter the last few events too

As it is, the whole drawn out process is a farce, and its a total kanagaroo court this whole episode, a witch hunt and politically motivated with Lee being the fall guy.

how is he a fall guy?

isnt it what you wanted to happen to higgins?

and before you talk bullocks regarding video evidence Lee is accused of fixing matches with real money in the Higgins case it was hypothetical.... if people gets done for hypothetically wanting someone dead everyone on this forum would get done.

Ha!

Wild WC wrote:how is he a fall guy?

isnt it what you wanted to happen to higgins?

and before you talk bullocks regarding video evidence Lee is accused of fixing matches with real money in the Higgins case it was hypothetical.... if people gets done for hypothetically wanting someone dead everyone on this forum would get done.

The key word there is 'accused' no one actually accused Higgins of anything......just released a video

Lucky wrote:

Wild WC wrote:how is he a fall guy?

isnt it what you wanted to happen to higgins?

and before you talk bullocks regarding video evidence Lee is accused of fixing matches with real money in the Higgins case it was hypothetical.... if people gets done for hypothetically wanting someone dead everyone on this forum would get done.

The key word there is 'accused' no one actually accused Higgins of anything......just released a video

spot on

im not saying it was right but my god some are so Self-righteous when that's concerned then this moral detective regarding Lee (naming no names Rhymes with Tits )

if there was a camera in pubs up and down the country how many men or women would get in trouble with their other half for chatting someone up doesn't mean they would take it any further.

Wild WC wrote:how is he a fall guy?

isnt it what you wanted to happen to higgins?

and before you talk bullocks regarding video evidence Lee is accused of fixing matches with real money in the Higgins case it was hypothetical.... if people gets done for hypothetically wanting someone dead everyone on this forum would get done.

Lees gonna be the fall guy cos the game was corrupt and bent for years

I wanted Higgins to ghet the same punishment as the guy before him who got caught on video in a tabloid sting

I love the way WS and everyone has refused to entertain the possibility that Higgins might be in on the PL match. When Burnett was in the dock, Maguire got dragged into that

Rhymes with tits

And the reason the snooker world has refused to entertain the possibility that Higgins was in on the PL match is because the snooker world doesn't believe for one second that John Higgins would be stupid enough to get involved in a fixed match with Stephen Lee in 2012 given the historical context.

Witz78 wrote:

Wild WC wrote:how is he a fall guy?

isnt it what you wanted to happen to higgins?

and before you talk bullocks regarding video evidence Lee is accused of fixing matches with real money in the Higgins case it was hypothetical.... if people gets done for hypothetically wanting someone dead everyone on this forum would get done.

Lees gonna be the fall guy cos the game was corrupt and bent for years

I wanted Higgins to ghet the same punishment as the guy before him who got caught on video in a tabloid sting

I love the way WS and everyone has refused to entertain the possibility that Higgins might be in on the PL match. When Burnett was in the dock, Maguire got dragged into that

There are two main differences:
1. in the Burnett-Maguire match the suspicious bets were on a specific score, which is not that easy to get when only one player is involved. In the Lee case, it was simply on Higgins to win - or Lee to lose which could always be achieved by the one supposed to lose independently of how the other plays.
2. in the Burnett-Maguire match BOTH took some strange shots at times. They knew the match was monitored and they knew about the suspicious bets. They were both nervous and there might have been nothing more to it (even Burnett - I've seen enough students lose the plot completely at exams when teaching in uni to know what daft things panic can you get to do, including the ones that you absolutely don't want to do). In Lee's case there was no common knowledge of anything before the match, it wasn't particularly monitored and he did take some very strange shots, especially towards the end when he looked a cert to win. At no point did Higgins play anything bizarre, he was just poor from the start as he had been most of the PL. I was there and I remember being baffled at Lee shot selection and that was before anything transpired.

If Lee is found not guilty before the WC he should be giving a seeding as he surely wouldn't have had to qualify had he not been suspended.

When is the qualifier draw and when is the main draw?

Casey wrote:If Lee is found not guilty before the WC he should be giving a seeding as he surely wouldn't have had to qualify had he not been suspended.

When is the qualifier draw and when is the main draw?

he wont get a seeding

and the qualifiers draw is made in 24 days and counting

Monique I don't know very much about the Lee case. The only thing I'll say is that it seems strange that the WSA have saved up evidence from previous Lee matches to tag onto this one if that's the case.
No-one will ever convince me that Burnett wasn't at it. If Maguire played strange shots then I'm convinced it was because he was put off by what Burnett was doing. Maguire is earning great money and would have no reason to collaborate. Burnett's shot selection and laughable last black make it a cert for me that he was at it.
You could say well Lee is earning good money too and yes he is now, but perhaps wasn't when this all started.

When normal people don't earn good money they go out and find a better payed Jobs.


When crooks don't earn good money they Rob a Bank.

there's no excuse for anyone to do this sort of thing you would have hoped players would learn from Burnett, Higgins situations and not do it if Players don't learn then its inevitable the wall will be coming down even Harder on top of them.

Normal people do unlawful things too when they cant make ends meet

I used to work in a petrol station as a summer job when i was at Uni, my foolproof scam was that whenever someone bought a £3 or £4 token for the cash wash, as soon as they were finished, id go to the car wash machine and open it up and swap the expensive token for the basic £1 car wash token. Id then pocket the 2 or 3 quid difference into my back pokcet.

Everyone is at it !! Survival of the fittest as they say

Survival of the shiftiest maybe.....

Was that really because you couldn't make ends meet or was it because you wanted partying money?

I must say when I was younger I did some dubious moves like this as well, always managed to rationalize it and decide it wasn't wrong per say, it was getting back at the big bad corporations who had plenty of cash so they weren't being hurt.

Naive, young and dumb is my read on my actions now. It's theft and what may appear harmless at the outset ceases to be so when "everyone is at it".

I don't condone cheating/match fixing but IMO WSA working on guilty til proven innocent mandate is going to be problematic. Players are being put in a position where the mere accusation is enough to suspend them and if the suspension is long enough or comes at a critical time it can be a career ender.

I say screw the bookies. Want to bet on snooker then you take the risk. Right now the sport is catering to the suspicions of the bookies. Let them investigate and come to WSA with proof before suspending a player.

Not odd betting patterns and crap like that, real proof. Odd betting patterns offer nothing but a possibility of wrong doing and are evidence of nothing concrete. Suspending players without anything concrete seems a draconian measure.

I have to wonder why people would bother placing dubious bets with legal betting offices where their actions could create these "odd betting patterns". I would've thought match fixing to be more in line with backroom betting parlors, like underground boxing. With legal betting are there no longer any real "bookies" in the UK?

IMO the whole line taken by the WSA looks to be more of appeasement for their primary sponsors, the legal betting shops.

gallantrabbit wrote:Monique I don't know very much about the Lee case. The only thing I'll say is that it seems strange that the WSA have saved up evidence from previous Lee matches to tag onto this one if that's the case.
No-one will ever convince me that Burnett wasn't at it. If Maguire played strange shots then I'm convinced it was because he was put off by what Burnett was doing. Maguire is earning great money and would have no reason to collaborate. Burnett's shot selection and laughable last black make it a cert for me that he was at it.
You could say well Lee is earning good money too and yes he is now, but perhaps wasn't when this all started.

WSA has not "saved up evidence", they only were given access to the evidence after the justice system decided that they would not bring criminal charges. Their enquiry started in 2010 but only ended about a month before the Malvern incident. The fact that there is no breach of the law doesn't mean that there is no breach of the sports rules or contract. The obvious example being that as an individual a snooker player doesn't commit any criminal offense by betting on snooker in good faith but he does breach the rules established by WSA and to which he has to comply as a pro. That's why even if there was not enough ground or evidence for a criminal prosecution there might - note that I write "might" - be a serious breach of the rules or the players contract.