Chamberlain Raises Serious New Questions on Ebdon-Liang

Monique wrote:

JohnFromLondonTown wrote:I'm not a fan of Alan Chamberlain, never have been. What irks me with this is that if he wants to come across as whiter than white, he should have spoken up at the time & phoned the WPBSA with his concerns.

Unfortunately, Peter Ebdon's gambling problems have been well documented & its quite easy in this case to put 2 & 2 together & come up with 4.

He has John, right after the match.

Only just read Snooker Scene Mon so I see that.

It really is hard to imagine Ebdon cheating or throwing a match. He always seemed to me to be ultra competitive and hated loosing.

You guys should view the match that just finished between Ebdon and Hang....Ebdon could have won 4-0 and ended up losing 4-0.....very weird match from his stand point.....

As mentioned by another poster who watched it all, it wasn't at all weird, he simply lost 4-0 through good play from his opponent.

Sonny wrote:As mentioned by another poster who watched it all, it wasn't at all weird, he simply lost 4-0 through good play from his opponent.

I get that, and I already acknowledged it. But if you watch the match, his opponent was far from good. He was gifted every opportunity, actually, and couldn't build a break unless Ebdon let him in with the table well spread.....It's all good, I emailed world snooker. I'm sure it was nothing, but apparently they have people watching every match.

That 2008 match about Ebdon, though, is rather interesting.....If I had to guess, I would certainly side with him fixing that match.

If he fixed it why would he get a big lead in each frame and then let it slip?

Sonny wrote:If he fixed it why would he get a big lead in each frame and then let it slip?

my comment was about his match in 08....not yesterday. Yesterday was sketchy but I'm probably wrong about it. But the way he lost that match in 08....I don know, that seems like it was fixed to me.

I think we all want to believe the sport is clean and this just doesn't happen. But when you got numerous players, including Ronnie, who say that players have inclinations about match fixing and who's involved.....well, that certainly doesn't look good.

rocketronnie147 wrote:

Sonny wrote:If he fixed it why would he get a big lead in each frame and then let it slip?

my comment was about his match in 08....not yesterday. Yesterday was sketchy but I'm probably wrong about it. But the way he lost that match in 08....I don know, that seems like it was fixed to me.

I think we all want to believe the sport is clean and this just doesn't happen. But when you got numerous players, including Ronnie, who say that players have inclinations about match fixing and who's involved.....well, that certainly doesn't look good.

Ronnie has to learn to keep his mouth shut at times because he was refering to previous cases that happened donkey doo years ago and unless he has evidence to prove who's been involved in match fixing, which clearly he hasn't got any, then he should not make stupid comments like he did on Twitter and let his magic snooker do the talking.

Andre147 PGC wrote:

rocketronnie147 wrote:

Sonny wrote:If he fixed it why would he get a big lead in each frame and then let it slip?

my comment was about his match in 08....not yesterday. Yesterday was sketchy but I'm probably wrong about it. But the way he lost that match in 08....I don know, that seems like it was fixed to me.

I think we all want to believe the sport is clean and this just doesn't happen. But when you got numerous players, including Ronnie, who say that players have inclinations about match fixing and who's involved.....well, that certainly doesn't look good.

Ronnie has to learn to keep his mouth shut at times because he was refering to previous cases that happened donkey doo years ago and unless he has evidence to prove who's been involved in match fixing, which clearly he hasn't got any, then he should not make stupid comments like he did on Twitter and let his magic snooker do the talking.

True, but he was not the only one to make such comments....But you're right, you shouldn't say stuff like that unless you can definitively back it up.

Wildey wrote:Barry hearn challanged ronnie to name names or shut up.

Ronnie failed to name names so he withdrew what he said

He probably had ideas of who, but didn't want to name people for a few reasons. No evidence, just a gut feeling. Also, probably didn't want to be a snitch. I think you'd have to be foolish to think that there might not be some pro's doing this. If you do it smartly, it would be pretty hard to get caught. Not something I like to acknowledge, since I love watching snooker....but it's possible.

Ronnie wasn't lying. But without evidence and all the messing that goes on, is it any wonder he chooses to say nothing? His only mistake was in mentioning it, instead of doing what the rest do... sweep it under the rug,.

He must have felt strongly about it , He has no doubt
Since realised that he should have said nowt.

Wether you think it was wrong or not , What is wrong
Is that a lot of perpetrator s of this money making
Tactic have obviously existed under the old regime
And a few in the new regime.

I have come to the conclusion there are suspicious
Circumstances attatched to a lot of matches due to
Paranoia beimg instilled by previous perpetrators.

This is the legacy they leave , Stigma takes years
to die down.

Also the inconsistencies in punishment handed out
Have not helped to keep the underlying levels of bitterness that must be felt amongst the players
Depending upon allegiances and circumstances.

I know ronnie wouldnt say anythi g if there was not truth in it.

Lack of granite evidence was his downfall in his comment.

The Cueist wrote:He must have felt strongly about it , He has no doubt
Since realised that he should have said nowt.

Wether you think it was wrong or not , What is wrong
Is that a lot of perpetrator s of this money making
Tactic have obviously existed under the old regime
And a few in the new regime.

I have come to the conclusion there are suspicious
Circumstances attatched to a lot of matches due to
Paranoia beimg instilled by previous perpetrators.

This is the legacy they leave , Stigma takes years
to die down.

Also the inconsistencies in punishment handed out
Have not helped to keep the underlying levels of bitterness that must be felt amongst the players
Depending upon allegiances and circumstances.

I know ronnie wouldnt say anythi g if there was not truth in it.

Lack of granite evidence was his downfall in his comment.

That's really well said!

The thing that bothers me more than anything is the punishment handed out to Higgins. Here, you have direct evidence linking someone to it....and not for pennies, were talking $300,000. And yet, he gets 6 months? This is a perfect example of the inconsistencies you're talking about. If Lee cheated (which I now believe he did, though I'm not sure), then he deserves a long, long ban (12 years is just about right). So how does Higgins get 6 months? Sure, he hadn't cheated yet (not that they know of), but, it was clear that he was absolutely going to......If they wanted to make a real statement, they would follow through on punishments (justified punishments) on ALL players, regardless of stature....

The Higgins case is past, but I must say at the time I was a bit surprised he only got a 6 month ban, thought he would get a lot more to be honest. But remember the only thing he was found guilty was in failing to report to World Snooker that incident with his then manager Pat Mooney, he wasn't found guilty of match fixing. We can say he was about to, but we'll never be 100% sure, but nevertheless he served his 6 month ban, paied the price for it and then returned like the Champ and great of the game he is and won the UK, Welsh Open and World Titles, plus a PTC, and that too came at a time when his father sadly passed away. I don't think any other player would have managed to achieve such brilliant feats with all that happened to him during that period.

The irony of it is since then he hasn't played to that sort of level, only in the Shanghai Masters which he won and in Wuxi this season where he reached the final, think then he maybe sort of had a point to prove to all of those who doubted him and that spurred him on to win those tournaments he did.

Andre147 PGC wrote:The Higgins case is past, but I must say at the time I was a bit surprised he only got a 6 month ban, thought he would get a lot more to be honest. But remember the only thing he was found guilty was in failing to report to World Snooker that incident with his then manager Pat Mooney, he wasn't found guilty of match fixing. We can say he was about to, but we'll never be 100% sure, but nevertheless he served his 6 month ban, paied the price for it and then returned like the Champ and great of the game he is and won the UK, Welsh Open and World Titles, plus a PTC, and that too came at a time when his father sadly passed away. I don't think any other player would have managed to achieve such brilliant feats with all that happened to him during that period.

The irony of it is since then he hasn't played to that sort of level, only in the Shanghai Masters which he won and in Wuxi this season where he reached the final, think then he maybe sort of had a point to prove to all of those who doubted him and that spurred him on to win those tournaments he did.

I don't doubt Higgin's talent and his accomplishments. But the snooker body needs to be consistent with the punishments. You said the only thing he failed to report was the incident.....that certainly implies that he was willing to follow through with it, doesn't it? The proper thing to do was wait and see how he would play these "fixed" frames, and then go forward.....why would they set him up, then confront him BEFORE the matches? Seems very stupid to me. They should have let him play the season and see if he followed through (we all know he was going to follow through with it).

rocketronnie147 wrote:

The Cueist wrote:He must have felt strongly about it , He has no doubt
Since realised that he should have said nowt.

Wether you think it was wrong or not , What is wrong
Is that a lot of perpetrator s of this money making
Tactic have obviously existed under the old regime
And a few in the new regime.

I have come to the conclusion there are suspicious
Circumstances attatched to a lot of matches due to
Paranoia beimg instilled by previous perpetrators.

This is the legacy they leave , Stigma takes years
to die down.

Also the inconsistencies in punishment handed out
Have not helped to keep the underlying levels of bitterness that must be felt amongst the players
Depending upon allegiances and circumstances.

I know ronnie wouldnt say anythi g if there was not truth in it.

Lack of granite evidence was his downfall in his comment.

That's really well said!

The thing that bothers me more than anything is the punishment handed out to Higgins. Here, you have direct evidence linking someone to it....and not for pennies, were talking $300,000. And yet, he gets 6 months? This is a perfect example of the inconsistencies you're talking about. If Lee cheated (which I now believe he did, though I'm not sure), then he deserves a long, long ban (12 years is just about right). So how does Higgins get 6 months? Sure, he hadn't cheated yet (not that they know of), but, it was clear that he was absolutely going to......If they wanted to make a real statement, they would follow through on punishments (justified punishments) on ALL players, regardless of stature....

Higgins got 6 months for not reporting being approached.

Where is Ronnie's punishment for not reporting it??

Your right about inconsistencies.

rocketronnie147 wrote:we all know he was going to follow through with it

First of all, speak for yourself.

rocketronnie147 wrote:You said the only thing he failed to report was the incident.....that certainly implies that he was willing to follow through with it, doesn't it? The proper thing to do was wait and see how he would play these "fixed" frames, and then go forward.....why would they set him up, then confront him BEFORE the matches? Seems very stupid to me. They should have let him play the season and see if he followed through.

Second of all, I think you're missing the point of the Integrity Unit and the issues behind it. What would be the point in waiting until John Higgins actually went through with fixing (assuming he would have)? Isn't it better to catch potential fixers before they get to do it? Also, it would erode my confidence in the governing body if they had evidence that someone was going to fix (proper evidence, not just unusual betting patterns) and just sat on it and ignored it.

Unless you're talking about NotW, in which case they picked the first evening of the World final because it would get them more publicity and notice then, as that's the time most of the British public and media pay attention to snooker.

Skullman wrote:

rocketronnie147 wrote:we all know he was going to follow through with it

First of all, speak for yourself.

rocketronnie147 wrote:You said the only thing he failed to report was the incident.....that certainly implies that he was willing to follow through with it, doesn't it? The proper thing to do was wait and see how he would play these "fixed" frames, and then go forward.....why would they set him up, then confront him BEFORE the matches? Seems very stupid to me. They should have let him play the season and see if he followed through.

Second of all, I think you're missing the point of the Integrity Unit and the issues behind it. What would be the point in waiting until John Higgins actually went through with fixing (assuming he would have)? Isn't it better to catch potential fixers before they get to do it? Also, it would erode my confidence in the governing body if they had evidence that someone was going to fix (proper evidence, not just unusual betting patterns) and just sat on it and ignored it.

Unless you're talking about NotW, in which case they picked the first evening of the World final because it would get them more publicity and notice then, as that's the time most of the British public and media pay attention to snooker.

So you're saying that Higgins wasn't going to fix these frames, but just forgot to report the incident? I just want to be sure I understand your perspective.

Secondly, you're right about them catching him before he did it. I rescind my comment in that regard.

Higgins case was judged by reasoning that frame dropping was not in a WSA sanctioned event.

This is the technicality that bought the 6 month ban outcome.

Higgins served his six month ban , lost his good reputation and tarnished his career.

The others should be banned for life
Each and everyone of them.

Not just for their deceit , For not showing a responsible
Decision-making process that the snooker paying public were duped also.

Just pure greedy with pure disregard for everybody concerned .

No respect for themselves let alone anybody else.

Ban them for life.

Oh I see !!!!!!!!
Bit much , No wonder no one
Is posting much.

If you are such an authority in these matters
As you seem to think you are
Please tell me wat part of what part of what
We are discussing is in any way unacceptable
As a toplc and our own judged opinion.

An opinion most of us posters have formed
After WSA investigtions and the judgements
Made based on the evidence showing each and everyone of these people and their lack of integrity.

What I have posted in the above paragraph is totally
Undeniable facts .

So wildey ?
Point out your problem as I cant see what it is.
Do you like being decieved ?
I dont , And I have every right as a member of the paying snooker public to voice my distaste at what has
Been going on in snooker for the past I suspect 20 years.

Now I am allowed to suspect , You as you are such an authority , You tell me why I shouldnt be suspicious
When I have been duped as a fan of snooker who plays
The game and loves the game and pays hard earned
Money I have had to save to see professional snooker
Played to a high standard.

Please , I await your reply .

The Cueist... Unfortunately, Wild will never ever relent or see the other side. In fact, I am not sure he even reads posts. He decides he is right and that's the end of it. And if you don't agree you get banned.

As for Higgins, he got off on a technicality, and we all know it. WSA dropped the charges, when a proper investigation by the police wouldn't have (due to video evidence). His manager ended up being the fall guy, and WSA purposely made his ban 6 months over the (then) dead part of the season. Higgins was caught bang to rights.

And even if you do believe Higgins, the fact is, he was banned for 6 months for not reporting an approach. That alone makes me lose all respect for the man.

Heck of a "technicality"......never took money, never threw a match.

Odd to suggest the WSA didn't look at the video evidence as it was clearly stated they did. Don't delude yourself on why Higgins only got a 6 month ban, learn to accept that the video showed more than you were privy to

Dont need to learn owt,
Learned via the then news of the world that He was prepared to drop frames in a professional invitational
Tournament

Ermm? Learn ?
You mean we should change our minds then.
Is that what you are suggesting.

Suggestive behaviour that lacks integrity
Am I eant to respect and condone such behaviour?

I think not is myanswer if that is what you are asking by
Suggesting an excuse for irresponsible behaviour such as was displayed on this very day capturedbon a video tape.

I would have been willing to at least entertain the notion that Higgins and the official investigation had some credibility, but that went out the window when I saw that the official document stated they believed his story about being afraid for his life. When he clearly wasn't on the video tape. They were going to find him innocent no matter what, because they couldn't afford the damage to the sport. But by not banning him, they have caused more damage.

I have just read the above posts and agree with you Wildey the people on here and most other people I talk to don't seem to know the facts about the Higgins case.
1. It was a hypothetical question to match fix in a tournament that didn't exist
2. No money passed hands
3. The tape had been edited to make it look worse than it maybe was

If you are guilty for just saying you will do something then the world is stupid as he could of changed his mind the second he walked out of the room. That is why his case is different to Stephen Lees as it certainly looked like Lee did match fix and money did change hands.