Post a reply

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Dan-cat

He knew what he was doing - proxy accounts in three different names.

'This means that Stuart Bingham will serve an immediate suspension from 28 October 2017 until 26 January 2018'

No UK or Masters for Bingo! That means Robbo moves up a slot.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby SnookerFan

Dan-cat wrote:He knew what he was doing - proxy accounts in three different names.

'This means that Stuart Bingham will serve an immediate suspension from 28 October 2017 until 26 January 2018'

No UK or Masters for Bingo! That means Robbo moves up a slot.


Maybe he did it on purpose, to help Robertson get into The Masters.

#scandal

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Dan-cat

Peeps on Twitter in a frenzy saying he got off lightly. The fact is he bet on himself winning, and on him having the highest break. Which is light-years away from losing matches on purpose. #muppets

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby SnookerFan

Dan-cat wrote:Peeps on Twitter in a frenzy saying he got off lightly. The fact is he bet on himself winning, and on him having the highest break. Which is light-years away from losing matches on purpose. #muppets


Yeah.

Still a very stupid thing to do. But think that's all he was. Stupid. Not dishonest.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Dan-cat

'There is no suggestion whatsoever that Stuart Bingham was doing anything to influence match outcomes or engaged in any corrupt activity, he was solely betting on snooker.​'

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Cheshire Cat

The report highlights that Bingham made numerous concessions before the committee having failed to state the truth in his written testimonies, which is a great shame, because it does show some intent to pervert the hearing. The decision highlights that Bingham's failure to cooperate from the outset incurred substantial costs to the WPBSA who had to investigate themselves, and he has ultimately brought the sport into disrepute.

Arguably one of the most damning findings is that between October and December 2016 Bingham's betting frequency increased significantly, making 40 bets in that period compared to the infrequent usage beforehand. This implies that he was very aware of what he was doing in recent times.

With regards betting under another name, and against the claims of the accused, the hearing concludes '..that the betting was substantial and that Mr Bingham was responsible for 50% of it.' No exact figure can be placed, though the report implies that it is a hefty amount of betting.

The sentence is officially 6 months, but Bingham will only serve 3 months so long as he complies with the board's decision and the remaining 3 months will be a suspended sentence. This is because of the accused's argument that 6 - 9 months of inactivity would financially harm Bingham, who has no other means of income or making a living, and the board has accepted this argument as a mitigating factor in lowering his sentence.

This is my first time really going through all the facts of this case. I'd thought it was only a few bets here and there, I didn't realise Bingham's betting had been so frequent and substantial.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby SnookerFan

Cheshire Cat wrote:The report highlights that Bingham made numerous concessions before the committee having failed to state the truth in his written testimonies, which is a great shame, because it does show some intent to pervert the hearing. The decision highlights that Bingham's failure to cooperate from the outset incurred substantial costs to the WPBSA who had to investigate themselves, and he has ultimately brought the sport into disrepute.

Arguably one of the most damning findings is that between October and December 2016 Bingham's betting frequency increased significantly, making 40 bets in that period compared to the infrequent usage beforehand. This implies that he was very aware of what he was doing in recent times.

With regards betting under another name, and against the claims of the accused, the hearing concludes '..that the betting was substantial and that Mr Bingham was responsible for 50% of it.' No exact figure can be placed, though the report implies that it is a hefty amount of betting.

The sentence is officially 6 months, but Bingham will only serve 3 months so long as he complies with the board's decision and the remaining 3 months will be a suspended sentence. This is because of the accused's argument that 6 - 9 months of inactivity would financially harm Bingham, who has no other means of income or making a living, and the board has accepted this argument as a mitigating factor in lowering his sentence.

This is my first time really going through all the facts of this case. I'd thought it was only a few bets here and there, I didn't realise Bingham's betting had been so frequent and substantial.


What a idiot.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Cloud Strife

I've just heard about this on the news.

Bingham certainly doesn't come across from this in a good light, does he? Pure idiocy from him.

He's also very lucky he's been given a 3 month ban only. Say what you will about his betting activities, but he's brought the sport into disrepute and when Higgins did that he got a 6 month ban. World Snooker have clearly shown some mercy on him.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Dan-cat

Snookerbacker weighs in:

'Just a month ago I wrote a blog about the relationship between snooker and the bookies, aware that a ruling was due to be passed on former World Champion, Stuart Bingham and fairly sure that it was likely to be a firmer penalty than the recent ones I highlighted. Today the judgement has been passed.

To read how his ban of six months, with three effective immediately and three suspended was arrived at, click here and here for the finer detail (PDF File).

Before I go on, I’ll declare that I know Stuart and I like him, he has been very generous in supporting my tournament financially in the past for all the right reasons and in my experience is a thoroughly decent chap, it’s not like he’s murdered your granny here so just thought I’d add a bit of perspective given some of the quite nasty comments already appearing online.

The difference between this case and a few of the more recent ones is basically that Stuart failed to cough up when he was rumbled, at least straight away. But as ever in cases like this where the evidence is stacking up, sooner or later you are going to get tripped up, which he has.

There are a couple of points I would like to make. Firstly, the headline figure of £35,771 that was gambled by him and/or his manager goes back to 2003, a period some of which fell under a previous administration (up to 2009), so I’m not sure why this is mentioned in the judgement given the failure/refusal to investigate a notorious fixed UK Championship match from this period for that very reason.

Anyway, that aside. The commonality in this case to the others is that Stuart did not bet on himself to lose, there is no inference, as there should not be, that he ever wilfully fixed matches for his own benefit, he merely backed himself on several occasions.

The main difference for me is in ruling 6(a), which states that Stuart/his manager:

Between 1st December 2014 and 8th November 2016 placed bets with a third party to a value of £4,000 that his highest break in a competition would be beaten. All of which were winning bets, where made a profit of £7,000.

This is something that was out in the open, perfectly within the rules and commonplace in snooker in the 80’s and possibly the 90’s too. A player who holds the highest break bets on it being beaten as insurance, there are still professionals around today that don’t think that this is a problem, after all, why should they lose out if someone happens to beat their break? For the record, all the bets placed of this type won, in other words Stuart’s breaks were eventually beaten.

Here is where I fundamentally disagree with this view, why should a snooker player benefit directly just by virtue of being a snooker player in this position? Nobody else in the betting or wider world would be in a position to exploit this market, so that immediately is a huge advantage to the player in question. That is why the rules are there, it’s to stop any betting on snooker by those involved, not just ‘harmless’ or ‘victimless’ bets. In my opinion, these bets are the most serious flouting of the rules and the reason why Stuart has received a ban, a proper one this time, not fully suspended like most of the others.

He misses a number of big money events, the International Championship, the UK Championship, The Masters, The Champion of Champions, the German Masters, Scottish and Northern Irish Opens, he’s also got £20,000 in costs to fork out so that’s quite a hit in the old back pocket. Unfortunately for him he’s back for the Shootout, which arguably makes the punishment twice as bad.

Just an idea, but perhaps instead of dishing out these suspended parts of the ban, would the WPBSA/World Snooker not be better sending players to a compulsory Gambling Awareness programme? It’s clearly a big issue in snooker and I’d argue that we are merely scraping the surface at the moment. You only have to see the casinos around the venues to know that a lot of these players need help, simply ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

For the record, Stuart has decided to seek independent help for his gambling of his own accord. Something which was welcomed by the WPBSA, though they stressed that they did not think he had an addiction problem.'

http://www.snookerbacker.com/

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby eraserhead

With the tournaments he's missing it's going to be quite a costly ban. Certainly helps McGill he'll move up a place on masters list and might have a CoC place now.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Dan-cat

eraserhead wrote:With the tournaments he's missing it's going to be quite a costly ban. Certainly helps McGill he'll move up a place on masters list and might have a CoC place now.


I didn't even think about implications for Bingham's CoC placement

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Andy Spark

SnookerFan wrote:Though, I believe it a case of stupidity, rather than match fixing. But even so. You'd think pros would know better, you really would.

I’ve always believed there are aspects to being a pro snooker player that don’t really generate a well rounded individual.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Dan-cat

Andy Spark wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Though, I believe it a case of stupidity, rather than match fixing. But even so. You'd think pros would know better, you really would.

I’ve always believed there are aspects to being a pro snooker player that don’t really generate a well rounded individual.


Indeed. This is evident in their post-match interviews

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby SnookerFan

Andy Spark wrote:I’ve always believed there are aspects to being a pro snooker player that don’t really generate a well rounded individual.


Or fans.

It's definitely true of fans.

What sort of diseased maniac travels to Barnsley from London, watches snooker, complains that he's too old for it, the chairs are uncomfortable, his back hurts and says he should go and do something better with his time? Then books tickets whilst in the hotel room on a Saturday night for Snooker Legends, just because he hasn't managed to perv Michaela Tabb up in far too long?

Maybe don't answer that. <laugh>

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby SnookerFan

TWITTER ATTACK!

Ronnie O'Sullivan‏Verified @ronnieo147
Bit harsh that mate I think what they done to steve lee was a liberty.. mans gotta feed his family.. I say give steve lee his tour card back

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Dan-cat

SnookerFan wrote:TWITTER ATTACK!

Ronnie O'Sullivan‏Verified @ronnieo147
Bit harsh that mate I think what they done to steve lee was a liberty.. mans gotta feed his family.. I say give steve lee his tour card back


It would make for a glorious story. Bazza 'headline' Hearn must be toying with it...

He'd make the top 16 in a couple of years I reckon. Stephen Lee finds redemption? Irresistible.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby snooky147

There's a fundamental difference between LEE and Bingham so no, LEE'S BAN SHOULD STAY but I also believe that Bingham should have served a ban fully with NONE OF IT SUSPENDED. He had a result there, which I believe he will be ultimately happy with. He made a Profit of £7000 that we know of. The burden of proof on these cases are less than in a criminal case so the authorities could have rightly assumed as he was using proxies for the majority of it he was making a profit. 6 months is an insult.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

SnookerFan wrote:TWITTER ATTACK!

Ronnie O'Sullivan‏Verified @ronnieo147
Bit harsh that mate I think what they done to steve lee was a liberty.. mans gotta feed his family.. I say give steve lee his tour card back


Referencing food and Stephen Lee in the same tweet. :D

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Wildey

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Did he have a bet on Robertson reaching the masters?

I don't understand why he got a proper ban and Perry didn't.

Will read report in full later

The Fact he had a chance to come clean during the initial enquiery in March and didnt means he deserves a ban.

Snooker players know the score buck me i always knew they were stupid but thee depth of stupidatu goes deeper than i thought.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Wildey

SnookerFan wrote:TWITTER ATTACK!

Ronnie O'Sullivan‏Verified @ronnieo147
Bit harsh that mate I think what they done to steve lee was a liberty.. mans gotta feed his family.. I say give steve lee his tour card back


Could someone tell ronnie to buck off please hes blocked me obviously he doesent like people to give him too much honesty just likes to give it out

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby SnookerFan

Wildey wrote:The Fact he had a chance to come clean during the initial enquiery in March and didnt means he deserves a ban.

Snooker players know the score buck me i always knew they were stupid but thee depth of stupidatu goes deeper than i thought.


Yeah. That's possibly what is most disappointing. He's hardly been transparent with it.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby SnookerFan

Wildey wrote:Could someone tell ronnie to buck off please hes blocked me obviously he doesent like people to give him too much honesty just likes to give it out


I noticed a couple of weeks ago I was blocked by Willie Thorne. <laugh>