How John Higgins tried to bet on snooker Championship

case_master wrote:In that case would they distance themselves from Higgins……..

wildJONESEYE wrote:lets not forget another angle could it be that it wasn't Higgins that called ladbrooks but someone else close to higgins with a scottish accent that just happened to get his account details ??

case_master wrote:

wildJONESEYE wrote:lets not forget another angle could it be that it wasn't Higgins that called ladbrooks but someone else close to higgins with a scottish accent that just happened to get his account details ??

No I doubt it. If Higgins did call them there will be records so I would say the WPBSA will know the truth of this very soon

Fresh doubt over Higgins parakeet claims as mystery lingers over entrapment ‘firm’

As John Higgins faces new allegations today of betting-related misconduct, sportingintelligence can reveal that a phone call at the centre of the fresh claims was assessed at the time by the relevant gambling authorities and deemed “clean” and not worthy of further investigation or action.

The front page of today’s News of the World claimed a ‘Shocking New Snooker Sensation’ and carried the headline ‘Higgins bet on himself to LOSE’.

The accompanying story, rather confusingly, explains in some detail how Higgins, in fact, had actually NOT placed a bet on the match in question, the 2009 World Championship final against Shaun Murphy.

The newspaper alleges that Higgins tried to place a bet on Murphy during a break in the match at a point when Higgins was ahead. The NotW does not specify how much the attempted bet was for, or when Higgins allegedly attempted to place it, or whether Higgins wanted to bet on Murphy winning a frame, a session or the match.

The paper does not allege a specific amount or specific bet because its source cannot remember.

The Ladbrokes call centre worker who allegedly had the conversation in question with Higgins has, the paper says, “sworn a legal affidavit” saying that Higgins called and asked to place a bet. It is not known if the NotW paid the source for her story.

“I can’t remember exactly how much he wanted to bet but the figure £1,000 sticks in my mind,” this source told the NotW, adding that she asked Higgins why he would want to bet on Murphy. “I just want to cover myself,” the source alleges that Higgins told her.

The source says Higgins was doing so well in the match at the time of the call that “a bomb would have had to come through the roof for him to lose.”

If this quote reflects Higgins’ domination at the time, it would be logical to assume the call took place on Monday 4 May after the third session (of four) of the two-day final. The score after the first session was 4-4, after the second session 11-5 (both those on Sunday), and after third session, 16-8.

The first player to 18 frames wins the final. Higgins won the match 18-9, and picked up £250,000 for winning. He would have banked £125,000 runners-up prize money if he had lost.

It should be stressed: Higgins placed no bet. But for readers who don’t understand betting, if Higgins had indeed placed a £1,000 bet, while 16-8 up, on Murphy to win the match (at 25-1 or thereabouts at that time), Higgins would be guaranteed £250,000 from winning the match, and still only £150,000 from losing. In other words, even if he had placed that bet, there was still a clear incentive for himself to win.

SnookerFan wrote:I would be AMAZED if this is true. AMAZED. I saw NOTW carry this headline, and deliberately didn't buy it. If they are going to make allegations, they should at least make it sound true.

wildJONESEYE wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:I would be AMAZED if this is true. AMAZED. I saw NOTW carry this headline, and deliberately didn't buy it. If they are going to make allegations, they should at least make it sound true.

i think this story is in to try and cast doubts over john higgins honesty as a person in relation to the match fixing claim.

it really can not be a made up story but johns involvement in it could have been manipulated from mooney point of view seing as he has been quoted in the NOTW as saying "There has been a whole range of emotions, despair, frustration, anger, rage. The biggest sense is betrayal. Where do you start? Where do you start?" betrayed by who ? no need to think hard.

Templeton Peck wrote:I suppose the timescale depends on how co-operative everyone is. If Higgins doesn't like the outcome though and mounts a legal challenge you will definitely be looking at months.

GrumpyMrDavros wrote:

Templeton Peck wrote:I suppose the timescale depends on how co-operative everyone is. If Higgins doesn't like the outcome though and mounts a legal challenge you will definitely be looking at months.

Not sure if it's that complicated . During the Hann allegation he was invited to attend and didn't turn up so was banned for 8 years . I doubt if it's a case the hearing will centre around when it's most convient for Higgins and Mooney

Alex0paul WC wrote:What about Joe Swail betting on someone to beat his highest break in 2000 then? The same sort of insurance?

Sonny wrote:I'm totally in agreement with witz on this topic.

Witz78 wrote:im not a Higgins fan, nor do i condone his actions from last week - infact ban him for life i say!!! - but as far as the latest allegations go, then sensibly who can blame Higgins for covering himself, especially when well ahead.

Monique wrote:

Witz78 wrote:im not a Higgins fan, nor do i condone his actions from last week - infact ban him for life i say!!! - but as far as the latest allegations go, then sensibly who can blame Higgins for covering himself, especially when well ahead.

Well I disagree. The rules, and the players contract are very clear: they are not allowed to bet on matches they are involved in. I think it's only a common sense rule. So if Higgins did that, whatever the reasons, he tried to breach the rules and I' m sure he knew it. They all know it.

Monique wrote:

Witz78 wrote:im not a Higgins fan, nor do i condone his actions from last week - infact ban him for life i say!!! - but as far as the latest allegations go, then sensibly who can blame Higgins for covering himself, especially when well ahead.

Well I disagree. The rules, and the players contract are very clear: they are not allowed to bet on matches they are involved in. I think it's only a common sense rule. So if Higgins did that, whatever the reasons, he tried to breach the rules and I' m sure he knew it. They all know it.

She revealed: "I was watching the game on the big screen when the players got up and walked off for an interval. Higgins was well ahead at the time, he was on fire.


"Then about five minutes later the phone rang so I answered and asked for the account ID. He gave me his name and password but I knew it was him straight away from the soft Scottish accent.