The Cueist wrote:Rocketron
Thing is,It all smacks of reluctant bookies apart from Burnett.
why then "apart from Burnett"? care to explain?
unusual betting patterns are not "evidence" that there is wrongdoing. they are indications that there
might be wrongdoing and as such they need to be investigated.
I'm certain there is a lot of investigations done BEFORE any player is arrested and that this is an indication that there is serious suspicions. Suspicions however are no evidence that they are guilty and as long as they are no proved guilty, we must consider them innocent.
If we were the person under suspicion we wouldn't want the investigations to be rushed or conducted without the most carefull caution. We also wouldn't be exposed to the media and the public opinion. Those things take time and to be fair must be done with discretion.
What I don't understand is why so many "target" on Burnett, unless you have knowledge I don't.
From the 3 cases at hand this is the one that is in my eyes the most unlikely to be actual cheating. If you want to lose on purpose you can ALWAYS make sure you will be beaten 0-something. Winning 3 frames against Maguire was never a certainty unless they were both in it. Given Maguire's profile that match was also a certainty to be on telly, hence a much higher risk for the cheating to be "visible". Also the bettings had been frozen days before the match and the whole affair (if there is an affair) had been exposed ... so why carry on with it?