Not so black and white - Higgins has a case

this http://www.top-snooker.com/news/articles/show/758
is John in a club in Kiev on April 29... it does not look like a suitable venue for a World Series event.
anyone reading Russian?

Also I don't think John's ability to win anything will come into account when decision time comes.

Monique wrote:this http://www.top-snooker.com/news/articles/show/758
is John in a club in Kiev on April 29... it does not look like a suitable venue for a World Series event.
anyone reading Russian?

Also I don't think John's ability to win anything will come into account when decision time comes.

Nope I don’t speak Russian.

This seems to be consistent with what Pat says with regards to being taken around venues and introduced to players etc. It just shows the length the paper have went to.

case_master wrote:

Monique wrote:this http://www.top-snooker.com/news/articles/show/758
is John in a club in Kiev on April 29... it does not look like a suitable venue for a World Series event.
anyone reading Russian?

Also I don't think John's ability to win anything will come into account when decision time comes.

Nope I don’t speak Russian.

This seems to be consistent with what Pat says with regards to being taken around venues and introduced to players etc. It just shows the length the paper have went to.

Where do you read they were taken around venues? I read they were taken to the venue and I very much doubt a World Series event would be organised in a club. You need some crowd capacity. Also there is nowhere mention that they met players. So no, this to me does not seems consistent with Mooney's account.

Monique wrote:

case_master wrote:

Monique wrote:this http://www.top-snooker.com/news/articles/show/758
is John in a club in Kiev on April 29... it does not look like a suitable venue for a World Series event.
anyone reading Russian?

Also I don't think John's ability to win anything will come into account when decision time comes.

Nope I don’t speak Russian.

This seems to be consistent with what Pat says with regards to being taken around venues and introduced to players etc. It just shows the length the paper have went to.

Where do you read they were taken around venues? I read they were taken to the venue and I very much doubt a World Series event would be organised in a club. You need some crowd capacity. Also there is nowhere mention that they met players. So no, this to me does not seems consistent with Mooney's account.

He said on sky sports news on Sunday that they were taken around venues (plural) and also met up with local players. I am positive of this because at the time I remember being shocked at the lengths the NOTW went to. Anybody else remember that news item?

OK that I wouldn't know. I didn't watch Sky Sports news.

with respect mate when this story broke my head was in a jam jar and had a world final to concentrate on so i dont remember much of what was said and it was only last sunday

Monique wrote:OK that I wouldn't know. I didn't watch Sky Sports news.

I would imagine you have your hand full with the final

Monique wrote:

Sonny wrote:I think it would be easy enough to play along in such a scenario.

Honestly I don't. I don't think anyone can look that relaxed if they are fightened to the core. I know with 100% certainty that calling WPBSA to report the incident would have been my first reaction, that and/or contacting my lawyers (especially in Pat Mooney's case). Also, I know for certain I would not even envisage to go back there to carry on with the event.

I agree Monique . The flaw in Higgins and Mooney's defence is that they didn't speak to the WPBSA until after the story broke . There's also the aspect that if you pretend to go along with this supposed Russian mafia then you have to have to keep your word to throw frames otherwise they will kill you . I'm led to believe that the Russian mafia like to kill people by tying them to the bed and putting an iron on their chest . Deaths can't be more agonising than that . Think up the worse death possible and the Russian mafia will still come up with something more cruel and imaginitive

Higgins and Mooney might use that defence but the problem still remains they certainly don't look like men in fear with their lives unless the edited video included clips of Higgins and Mooney on their knees begging for their lives and the gangsters/journalists saying " Cut . Now listen we'll start filming again and make sure you're totally relaxed or else " but this seems unlikely . Even more pessimistic for Higgins and Mooney is that the inquiry won't take long because there's much less evidence needed as in a criminal case - the reason why there's a ridiculous timeline involving McGuire and Burnett - therefore it's much easier to ban a player from the game . When Barry Hearn says " The inquiry will take place in in days and weeks not months and years " and " It's not looking good John " then you really do have to worry for tose accused

GrumpyMrDavros wrote: There's also the aspect that if you pretend to go along with this supposed Russian mafia then you have to have to keep your word to throw frames otherwise they will kill you . I'm led to believe that the Russian mafia like to kill people by tying them to the bed and putting an iron on their chest . Deaths can't be more agonising than that . Think up the worse death possible and the Russian mafia will still come up with something more cruel and imaginitive

boy you know a lot about this ?

wildJONESEYE wrote:

GrumpyMrDavros wrote: There's also the aspect that if you pretend to go along with this supposed Russian mafia then you have to have to keep your word to throw frames otherwise they will kill you . I'm led to believe that the Russian mafia like to kill people by tying them to the bed and putting an iron on their chest . Deaths can't be more agonising than that . Think up the worse death possible and the Russian mafia will still come up with something more cruel and imaginitive

boy you know a lot about this ?

It's amazing what you learn via the internet

If this Sunday's headlines in NOTW is " SNOOKER STAR AND HIS AGENT POO THEIR PANTS SHOCKER " it might be a lot easier to believe John and Pat's honestly thought they were Russian mafia excuse

the only thing I can (sincerely ) laugh about in this whole story is really John's and Moony's references to the Russian mafia just ask russian snooker fans

Personally I think the Russian mafia story is bullocks. I think Mooney and Higgins were planning to exploit a grey area in the game to make a few quid and have panicked and conceived a bull story; the world series isn't a straight competitive event - they let the locals win a couple of frames, have to fill air time so play tactically to slow a match down or take on risky pots if the match needs to speed up, and probably play a few exhibition shots too for entertainment value which they would never dream of in a ranking match. Since they share the money then prize money isn't at stake (surely the defining characteristic of a competitive match!) and what they get is an appearance fee. It's probably a small step from throwing frames to let local players win or to fill schedules to sharing the information for cash - it's a sort of "we're already doing it anyway so no harm in making a few quid off it" sort of mentality. It's mercenary, and borderline dishonest but you can't seriously equate it with fixing a ranking match.

The match-fixing rule in the WSA rule book was conceived for straight competitive tournaments played in a serious sporting context, so I don't want to see a rule deployed in a situation it wasn't really designed for. Higgins' response to the scandal shows that he acknowledges his actions weren't strictly kosher, so he should get a bit of a penalty for bringing the game into disrepute but I don't think he's a parakeet and I don't think he ever would in a tournament that requires a proper sporting outcome.

Exactly Templeton. I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to make a big deal out of the top players giving the local players chances in the 10 reds to get them some tv time to show what they can do. World Series = exhibition = not proper match play snooker. They could be thinking they throw the odd frames anyway in the name of television schedules so if someone is stupid enough to pay them to do it then why not take the money?

It's a whole new grey area that's for sure. And it probably spells the end of the World Series which isn't exactly the right step for snooker. Shame on the snitch. I hope we get to find out who tipped off the NOTW.

What i think has happened is that a player in the World Series probably got the hump about having to chuck frames against local players so tipped of the NOTW. The NOTW baited them with cash to do something that they were already doing and they bit. Hardly crime of the century, but they made it look as bad as possible. Mooney made it clear that rankers were off the agenda but it's not a distinction the media and the general public will ever understand, and I worry that Hearn is more concerned with perception rather than actual justice. The snitch better "pray to God" no-one discovers his identity.

"Mooney made it clear that rankers were off the agenda but it's not a distinction the media and the general public will ever understand"

I think that pretty much sums it up right there. The media and part time snooker fans will just see it as a thrown match, even though that not exactly the case.

I feel so sorry for Johns wife and kids, must be so hard for them also

Rankers off limits for now but once people get the taste for sack fulls of cash. Hate to say it but treating the WS as a glorified exhibition doesn`t wash, especially as there have been a number of rigging cases in the last couple of years.

case_master wrote:"Mooney made it clear that rankers were off the agenda but it's not a distinction the media and the general public will ever understand"

I think that pretty much sums it up right there. The media and part time snooker fans will just see it as a thrown match, even though that not exactly the case.

I feel so sorry for Johns wife and kids, must be so hard for them also

im not a casual fan and if they thrown a point in this series then ban them pure and simple i personally couldn't give a rubbish what the competition is just throw the book at them there is no room for this rubbish in sport and if there is IT STOPS RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW with higgins banned.

Templeton Peck wrote:What i think has happened is that a player in the World Series probably got the hump about having to chuck frames against local players so tipped of the NOTW. The NOTW baited them with cash to do something that they were already doing and they bit. Hardly crime of the century, but they made it look as bad as possible. Mooney made it clear that rankers were off the agenda but it's not a distinction the media and the general public will ever understand, and I worry that Hearn is more concerned with perception rather than actual justice. The snitch better "pray to God" no-one discovers his identity.

That's part of the problem, as we are trying to turn casual fans into more hardcore fans who'd buy tickets for events. If the casual fans, rightly or wrongly, are associating one of the top players as doing this, in ranking events, then it's a problem for World Snooker. Especially at a time when snooker is trying hard to attract new fans. If you were a casual viewer, you aren't going to start attending ranking events if you've seen this. This isn't the same as just being found smoking cannabis, or being drunk and disorderley.

I take your point about exhibition events. I once watched Jimmy White play Alex Higgins in an exhibition. Alex Higgins clearly wasn't playing his best, and in a couple of frames Jimmy made a horrendously bad break off shot. He left the cue ball in amongst the reds, after opening them up leaving several reds on. Higgins got in and made a break (albeit neither of them were frame winning breaks.) Nobody on the main tour would've played a shot that bad by accident, let alone twice in a match. Yes, it was an exhibition and not a ranker, and yes he was trying to make the match more interesting for the people watching. The difference is though, Jimmy or Higgins or anybody in the event wasn't making illegal money through the bookies on this match. What Higgins has done is illegal, and in doing so he has tarnished the name of the sport.

Personally I think Hearn should come down hard on any kind of match-fixing. And not accept; "Well, the time I was caught was in the World Series" as a reasonable excuse.

Front page tomorrow news of the world

HIGGINS BET ON HIMSELF TO LOSE http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sunday ... th%2C_2010

WTF

you know whats shocking about this John can afford to take the NOTW on in court so if they are doing this they must be sure of their facts suerly or they are screwed

Oh recycling hell

i know newspapers has been sued and sued successfully for stories that wasn't true but im thinking have they ever been sued successfully for front page coverage of the same story back to back on their rag ?

wildJONESEYE wrote:i know newspapers has been sued and sued successfully for stories that wasn't true but im thinking have they ever been sued successfully for front page coverage of the same story back to back on their rag ?

the only instance i can remember is when Jason Donovan sued The Sun for alleging he was a woofter and he won a few hundred grand

Interesting to note that in the first video Pat Mooney was wearing a pin striped shirt in the first meeting with John Higgins & in the second video he's wearing a grey shirt when he mentions Graeme Dott & Mark Selby. Does this suggest that Pat Mooney changed shirts half way through video one or that there were 2 meetings? Looks to me like the latter.

Pat Mooney is in trouble anyway. BIG style

JohnFromLondonTown wrote:Interesting to note that in the first video Pat Mooney was wearing a pin striped shirt in the first meeting with John Higgins & in the second video he's wearing a grey shirt when he mentions Graeme Dott & Mark Selby. Does this suggest that Pat Mooney changed shirts half way through video one or that there were 2 meetings? Looks to me like the latter.

Pat Mooney is in trouble anyway. BIG style

yes as i said in yesterdays post Pat Mooney is up to his eyeball in this the only question is whats John involvement in all of this is.

i did not notice the change of shirt thing but having looked again yes it does look like more than 1 meeting on this issue.

wildJONESEYE wrote:yes as i said in yesterdays post Pat Mooney is up to his eyeball in this the only question is whats John involvement in all of this is.

It doesn't matter, John displayed his lack of integrity and respect for the sport the second he said he would throw some frames away, nothing else matters, the damage is done, and he's done the damage, no-one else is to blame.

It's hardly possible for Higgins to come 100% clean out of this but the level of his involvement does matter. Assuming for a moment that it was just extreme naivety and that he will manage to prove it somehow- it still wouldn't make him innocent but at least his opinion wouldn't be completely destroyed, his fans totally let down and perhaps he would have some distant perspectives for the future. (It's not my point of view, right now I'm a bit confused and I certainly wouldn't... bet on his partial innocence. But it's an option nevertheless.)

personally im trying any angle i can to make john look innocent and been lead astray etc but no matter how hard i try and i do concede they was underhandedly trapped by the NOTW i just cant find anything that tells me John wont be banned the only question is how long will the ban be.

if he gets out of this without a ban he would be nicknamed Houdini Higgins.

Even if he was led astray, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise what you're doing is wrong, there is no excuse for this behaviour, everyone knows their morals, the rules and the difference between right and wrong.

This is why him and mooney are in the rubbish.

I think that it is difficult to look at this with any angles as none of us actually knows what has happened. Sure there is an edited film running around the net but does anyone actually know what happened??

I hear a lot of speculation by people as to what has happened and how John will be punished but i just refuse too see it like that and would rather let those with all the information make the decisions that need to be made.

eirebilly wrote:I think that it is difficult to look at this with any angles as none of us actually knows what has happened. Sure there is an edited film running around the net but does anyone actually know what happened??

I hear a lot of speculation by people as to what has happened and how John will be punished but i just refuse too see it like that and would rather let those with all the information make the decisions that need to be made.

mate i know what your saying however if thats the only evidence there is then john in the rubbish lets hope theres something else nobody knows about ....

he has to now prove his innocence beyond a single doubt or what else can World Snooker do other than ban him.