snooky147 wrote:He was given the opportunity to provide Bank Statements and other proof that would cover the money in question. He failed to do this. If by some miracle he does indeed produce these statements and they are all in order (just saw a flying pig) then he should still be banned for wasting everyones time.
But I think we all know none of that will happen.
What Stephen Lee does not seem to realize is that it won't make any difference even of he
does provide proof that all the money paid into his wife's bank account was legitimately earned "tour money".
There is still all the suspicious betting pattern evidence against him. And the probability of these suspicious betting patterns occurring in concordance with Stephen Lee's related frame/match scores
by pure chance is literally
millions-to-one against.
In his defence, Stephen Lee argued that he was not the cause of these suspicious betting patterns. So, in effect, what he was saying was that this
millions-to-one against occurrence must have happened by
pure chance alone.
And, in a civil hearing, where your guilt or innocence is decided
on the balance of probability, this argument is going to be seen as
absolutely ridiculous.
So, basically, he's going to be found guilty once again.