Topic locked

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Eirebilly

What really irritates me is that there are several people all making judgments without knowing the full story or the facts. Obviously i hope that John is innocent but if he is found guilty then he deserves to be banned. Its certain posters (mainly on the 606) that are causing irrepairable damage to his name by jumping on the guilty bandwagon without knowing the full story and really dragging him name in the mud.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby SnookerFan

eirebilly wrote:What really irritates me is that there are several people all making judgments without knowing the full story or the facts. Obviously i hope that John is innocent but if he is found guilty then he deserves to be banned. Its certain posters (mainly on the 606) that are causing irrepairable damage to his name by jumping on the guilty bandwagon without knowing the full story and really dragging him name in the mud.


Regardless of guilt, at least there is 'video evidence' on ths one... I still can't get over the Ronnie O'Sullivan lost on purpose rumour. <laugh>

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby N_Castle07

From msn.co.uk below is the ten biggest Newspaper stings;

Lord Triesman

Just two days after England's much-hyped 2018 World Cup bid was delivered to FIFA, the bid's chances were dealt a severe blow when the Mail on Sunday published on May 16 the transcripts of a conversation between the bid's Chairman, Lord Triesman, and his former assistant, Melissa Jacobs.Her claim that she and the married Triesman (pictured above right, alongside England manager Fabio Capello) had engaged in a two-year affair was bad enough, but when the secret recording also revealed his accusation that bid rivals Russia and Spain were planning on bribing referees, his position became untenable. He resigned from both the bid team and the FA immediately.

Sophie Countess of Wessex

One of the Fake Sheikh's most famous coups saw the News of the World man approach the PR company run by Prince Edward's wife. Lured there with the prospect of managing a £20,000-a-month public relations account for aside Saudi prince, Sophie Wessex proceeded to share her derogatory views on 'President Blair', the Government, the leader of the opposition and other issues of the day. Buckingham Palace did manage to cut a deal with the newspaper, guaranteeing an exclusive interview with the Countess of Wessex in exchange for the News of the World surpassing the tape, but it only delayed the inevitable with a leaked version of the original sting transcript appearing in the Mail on Sunday.
The Countess was forced to resign from her PR firm and wrote personal letters to all those named in the tape.

John Higgins

This most recent News of the World sting was one of their most elaborate and has resulted in a scandal that has rocked the world of snooker to its core. Having set up a dummy company, two journalists approached World Champion John Higgins and his manager Pat Mooney with a proposal for a series of exhibition matches. The men then flew the snooker star and his manger to Kiev where they filmed the pair agreeing to take payments of €300,000 to throw frames. When the News of the World printed the transcripts, Higgins and Mooney claimed that they had only agreed to the proposal as they thought they were dealing with the Russian mafia and feared for their safety.
Mooney immediately resigned from his position on the sport's governing body and Higgins has been suspended while the World Snooker Federation investigates the claims.

Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon

"I'm like a sort of cab for hire", thus did ex-Transport Minister Stephen Byers declare his willingness to accept £5,000-a-day to help a lobbying company. His words were the embodiment of the cash-for-access scandal which rocked the Labour Government in 2009.
Using a fake US lobbying company, Channel 4's Dispatches programme filmed former Cabinet Minsters Patricia Hewitt, Geoff Hoon (right) and Stephen Byers (left) all offering to use their influence in high places to boost the company's interests. All three were immediately suspended from the parliamentary Labour Party and stood down as MPs at the 2010 election.

Buckingham Palace

In 2003, an undercover reporter for the Daily Mirror, Ryan Parry, used false references to get a job as a footman in Buckingham Palace. His aim was to uncover security lapses at the Palace in the run-up to a visit by US President George W Bush's. Over a period of two months, Parry took photos of the inside of the Palace and revealed details of the bedroom in which the President would be staying, as well the Queen's breakfast table and the Duke of York's room. The paper pulled their reporter out prior to the President's arrival but not before he had caused considerable embarrassment to the Home Office which had invested some £5 million into the security operation for the visit. Eventually the Queen won a court order preventing the Mirror from revealing any more.

Lord Lambton

In a scandal that rocked the Conservative Government of 1973, the popular defence minister, Lord Lambton (above), was photographed, filmed and recorded in bed with prostitute Norma Levy. The sting had been set up by her husband, Colin, who used a camera hidden behind a peephole in a mirror as well as a microphone in a teddy bear's nose on the bed.
Mr Levy approached several newspapers in an effort to sell the images of his wife (above) and eventually they were published in a Sunday newspaper in May. When the story broke Lord Lambton was unapologetic, telling Robin Day "people like variety, it's as simple as that". Such bluster didn't save him however and he resigned from his ministerial post and parliamentary seat - as did Earl Jellicoe who was caught up in the scandal having inadvertently admitted to also using prostitutes when the police paid him a visit by accident.

Lawrence Dallaglio

Alerted by anonymous tip-off in 1999 that England rugby captain Lawrence Dallaglio had been known to take drugs, the News of the World moved quickly to set up a sting operation. Two reporters acting as agents looking to sign the England captain to a sponsorship deal with a shaving company approached the rugby star and arranged a meeting in a London hotel. There they chatted and drank champagne with the young female reporter subtlety encouraging the England captain to show off about his youthful drug taking, while in the next door room the recording equipment rolled.
Dallaglio (above) resigned as captain and was subsequently fined £15,000 by the RFU but denied the drug allegations, saying he told the reporters lies to impress them. He went on to have an enormously successful career, winning the World Cup in 2003.

David Mellor

In the early 90s, John Major's Tory party was beset by a number of high-profile sleaze scandals, none more eye-catching than that of the then Heritage Secretary, David Mellor. In July 1992 The People newspaper revealed his affair with actress Antonia de Sancha. He had been photographed by the People arriving at Ms de Sancha's London flat in the evening, and leaving the next morning. His telephone conversations with Ms de Sancha had also been bugged.
Cringe-inducing details of their affair were subsequently printed, including Mellor's alleged penchant for having his toes sucked and, most memorably, having sex wearing his beloved Chelsea football kit. In 2002, in an interview with The Independent, de Sancha (above) said these details were made up and that she had "just gone along with everything at the time".

Doug Hall and Freddie Shepherd

Another celebrated sting by Mazher Mahmood was the taping of Newcastle United's bosses, Freddie Shepherd and Doug Hall in March 1998. Posing as a Middle-Eastern businessman looking to fund a foreign team, the News of the World reporter met the two men in Marbella and secretly recorded them visiting brothels and describing Geordie girls as "dogs". The damning tape proved to be a popular attraction on the newspaper's website with thousands logging on to listen the chairmen mocking star striker Alan Shearer (who was memorably described as football's version of Mary Poppins), manager Kevin Keegan and the "drunken" fans for spending so much on club merchandise.
Within two weeks of the scandal breaking, both men resigned from the board of the club. Ten months later however they used their majority shareholding to vote themselves back onto the board.

Piers Merchant

To be stung once may be counted as a misfortune, but twice begins to look like carelessness - so the world judged hapless Tory MP, Piers Merchant, who was victim of a double sting.
The first was organised by The Sun, who recruited a girl from a Soho Bar called Anna Cox to approach Piers Merchant at a local Conservative Party meeting and ask if she could help him canvass in his Beckenham constituency. After taking a detour to a local park, the pair were snapped locked in a passionate embrace. The Sun published the photograph on its front page and accused Merchant of indulging in "an open-air sex romp".
When the story broke, Merchant forgave Cox (above) and even hired her to assist him in writing a book about Parliamentary sex scandals. A friendship blossomed and, by the time of the Tory Party conference in Blackpool, Merchant had organised for them both to stay in the flat of a former researcher, Anthony Gilberthorpe. Unfortunately for Merchant, Gilberthorpe had already been offered £25,000 by the Sunday Mirror, whose journalists set up hidden cameras in the flat to record what took place.
Despite this second sting, Merchant initially still denied the couple were having an affair, but eventually resigned his seat in October 1997. Merchant died of cancer in 2009, aged 58.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

I Have no problem with stings if it exposes cheats or people being underhanded out them and then throw them out as a snooker fan id prefer to know whats going on in the minds of snooker players and managers when they talk cash.

however i don't like the methods they use in outing these things and that needs addressing quick smart if they were over aggressive in the higgins thing then that was leading a witness on instead of letting the sting take it natural path.

id prefer if its put out there to the Authorities,the player even the police way before its put in print so that they can start to deal with issues first.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby moondan

As I see it there is no evidence that John was ever going to throw a tour match against a fellow pro and Im certain that he would never do that.
The thing is, can snooker afford to have a player who is willing to throw frames for a financial gain even if it is only done on his private tour. It does appear from the video, cut or otherwise this was an intention.
Dishonesty is still dishonesty. Fraud is still fraud.
It would have been explicit in his terms of contract with the board to report any approach s.a.p by anyone that were trying to make him act in a way that was detrimental to snooker.
Its claimed that Mooney had met up with this crew on several occasions and explored the possibility of Johns participation so I find it impossible to believe that John was not aware of what might be discussed when he was finally present.
The complete absence of visable fear and the ideas floated to launder the proceeds suggests there was something afoot.
The damage is done, the previous recent history of betting scams will ensure a unhappy ending, especially for John, his family and all who know him.
I dont know John, I just know he was a great great player, but its worth mentioning that angels only exist in heaven.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

we have sorted out the issue of who runs snooker now come on its now time this is put to sleep one way or the other and make a solid decision what is John's Fate and what actually happened in KIEV or maybe what is thought to have happened in KIEV.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Monique

Because the legal rules are that John Higgins and his lawyers have a minimun of 3 weeks to prepare their defence and because the disciplinary committee a 2 weeks reflexion time to cross examine the case. So we can't expect anything before mid June, earliest date. That if no further investigation is required, f. I. because new elements have appeared during the investigations

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:Because the legal rules are that John Higgins and his lawyers have a minimun of 3 weeks to prepare their defence and because the disciplinary committee a 2 weeks reflexion time to cross examine the case. So we can't expect anything before mid June, earliest date. That if no further investigation is required, f. I. because new elements have appeared during the investigations


so basically if new evidence is brought up every 3 to 4 weeks we could stil be here discussing this with John Higgins having to play the Q School to get back on tour (if inocent) in 2 years time <doh>

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Tubberlad

rocket_ron wrote:yes barry said days and weeks not weeks and months. so why after a month are we still waiting?

The last thing you want to do is come to the wrong judgement. That's plain embarassing for all involved.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Monique

wildJONESEYE wrote:
Monique wrote:Because the legal rules are that John Higgins and his lawyers have a minimun of 3 weeks to prepare their defence and because the disciplinary committee a 2 weeks reflexion time to cross examine the case. So we can't expect anything before mid June, earliest date. That if no further investigation is required, f. I. because new elements have appeared during the investigations


so basically if new evidence is brought up every 3 to 4 weeks we could stil be here discussing this with John Higgins having to play the Q School to get back on tour (if inocent) in 2 years time <doh>


I don't think so Wild. It will of course depend on the evidence produced or not but IMO Barry wants this sorted out before the first ranker. latest.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

yes but there is 5 PTC Events before the first Ranker and the first is starting in 19 days time.

with Ranking points to be won in thoes events it does seem like things are dragging on a bit now. i understand it needs sorting and the right desition reached but when all said and done there can never really be evidence to sugest John never actually said what he said so if they going to try and prove john inocent of all charges they could be here for ever.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

Dave Hendon's Blog

Dave H said...

David Douglas was going to resign if Hearn lost the June 2 vote, so he may have waited for that to be sorted.

Also, have the NOTW given him access to the full tapes (not the edited ones). If not, I'd imagine it would be rather difficult to investigate properly.


jesus John's been in Limbo while who Running the game gets sorted

and suerly by now WS has full unedited tapes from NOTW if not then throw out the case say "NOTW could not back up their Edited Story so they got something to hide" and Let John carry on with his career.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Roland

Let's play a game called "spot the comment by wildJONESEYE"

http://snookerscene.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... ng-on.html

OK I'll go first:

"i know you didn't say lol...

im not shooting the messenger.

i also hope every case is outed every player thats even been under the carpet suspicion sorted out and we get snooker so clean the pope would feel dirty lol "

:redneck:


I think Dave could do with some help from the Island's Hallenberg with his new blog design.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:Let's play a game called "spot the comment by wildJONESEYE"

http://snookerscene.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... ng-on.html

OK I'll go first:

"i know you didn't say lol...

im not shooting the messenger.

i also hope every case is outed every player thats even been under the carpet suspicion sorted out and we get snooker so clean the pope would feel dirty lol "

:redneck:


I think Dave could do with some help from the Island's Hallenberg with his new blog design.

buck off rofl

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

JohnFromLondonTown wrote:Eye, Eye, cherry pie....Has someone been at it? :chin:

http://bit.ly/9GgVnd


thanx for that john no not seen it although we did know that the question is is there a unedited version if not let him off lets move on ok the doubt will be there and possibly he will find it hard but you cant convict him of that....

and to be honest by missing the PTC he has been punished

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby JohnFromLondonTown

wildJONESEYE wrote:
JohnFromLondonTown wrote:Eye, Eye, cherry pie....Has someone been at it? :chin:

http://bit.ly/9GgVnd


thanx for that john no not seen it although we did know that the question is is there a unedited version if not let him off lets move on ok the doubt will be there and possibly he will find it hard but you cant convict him of that....

and to be honest by missing the PTC he has been punished


Sound wild, hope your well these (quiet Snooker) days....

Read the whole lot. NOTW are pulling the stunt whereby refusing to handover the whole article because it might reveal their sources. Get a court injunction on them me says. <ok>

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

if they refuse the full video throw it out tell the world that they have something to hide.

sorry but id have put out a statement already rubbishing the NOTW as lying scumbags and John and pat mooney for that matter is innocent.

they can not let this hang around because of the NOTW incompetence of showing proof it could go on for years.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Monique

not as simple as that
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/201 ... eo-180608/

EXCLUSIVE: Forensic analysis points to ‘cut and paste’ in Higgins ‘match-fix’ sting video
By Nick Harris
18 June 2010

A second analysis of the News of the World video purporting to show the world No1 snooker player, John Higgins, agreeing to lose frames for cash has concluded that sections of the film have been ‘pasted together’, leading to a misrepresentation of events.

A forensic musicologist, using specialist equipment to examine for sportingintelligence the way the soundtrack of the tape was put together, has found “at least some of the audio has been manipulated and rearranged.”

The accompanying graphic represents one snippet of the film’s audio where a sentence has been “pasted” unnaturally into a sequence in the film. The red circle highlights a “giveaway” gap, estimated to be 100 milliseconds (a tenth of a second), which would not exist if the exchange had been left in its natural state.

Image
( http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp- ... Edits1.png )

There are multiple examples in the video where words attributed to the speakers in the subtitles were wrongly transcribed, or not actually said at all. In at least one part of the video, words appear to have been dubbed onto the video later.

Other anomalies in the film include the end section where the figures involved – Higgins, his business partner Pat Mooney, and two undercover News of the World reporters, one of them Mazher Mahmood – toast each other with vodka. They do so next to a table laid out differently to a table featured only seconds before in scenes supposedly from the same meeting.

As sportingintelligence has previously reported, Higgins and Mooney were subject to an elaborate NotW ‘sting’, believed to have cost around £200,000. A fake website used in the sting was then taken down, and it then emerged for the first time that the NotW video evidence was not what it seemed at face value.

An investigation for snooker’s governing body by the former Metropolitan Police chief superintendent, David Douglas, should ascertain what really happened.

On the face of it, his task should be easy: given access to original, unedited footage, he should be able to judge whether the allegations against Higgins stand up, and then bring charges and prosecute.

Snooker does have a problem with match-fixing. Nobody inside the sport disagrees with that. Police action is ongoing, and more imminent, against a number of players.

Match-fixing is a scourge that needs to be eradicated from all sports.

But some disquiet remains about the methods used by the News of the World in the Higgins case, and questions remain unanswered about the evidence as presented, so far.

After extensive inquiries by sportingintelligence using sources including players, officials, agents, WPBSA board members past and present, current and former promoters, and journalists including those with first-hand knowledge of the News of the World’s work, including contemporary work, this website can reveal:

* the NotW has not handed over unedited raw footage, for reasons including legal reasons surrounding protection of identities.
* the NotW is, however, continuing to assisting Douglas with his inquiry, and is believed to have more information than it has published or screened, withheld so far for reasons unknown.
* a media source says the paper was looking “for some months” at one or more other snooker players, and into allegations of match-fixing (nothing to do with Higgins), but failed to gather sufficient evidence for a story, and then switched attention to Mooney.
* the NotW has nonetheless, separately, been in possession of another story relating to allegations of match-fixing against another player, also for several months, and has yet to run it for reasons unknown.
* the NotW has used sources within the world of snooker for its work on Higgins and Mooney, raising questions whether snooker insiders involved in the sting or in provoking it – if identified – should also face charges relating to enticement into match-fixing.

Higgins and Mooney were covertly taped by the News of the World at a meeting in Kiev, Ukraine, on Friday 30 April, at the end of a lengthy “sting” operation.

The News of the World alleged in its edition on 2 May that Higgins agreed to “a disgraceful deal to fix a string of high-profile matches after demanding a £300,000 kickback.”

The paper hasn’t detailed – yet – which matches Higgins allegedly agreed to fix, nor has it yet printed or screened evidence of him “demanding a £300,000 kickback.”

A week after the first allegations, the paper alleged in a headline that Higgins had bet on himself to lose the 2009 World Championship final and then detailed in a story how he had not actually had the bet in question.

There has been no suggestion by the paper at any time that Higgins or Mooney have committed any criminal offence, nor have the police or Gambling Commission been involved at any stage in this case.

Both men are certain to face “sporting charges” to be tabled by snooker’s world governing body. At the very least, they will face charges of failing to report an approach about match-fixing within 24 hours of receiving that approach.

No player is ever known to have been charged and punished for failing to report an approach, even though a number of players have made public statements saying they’ve had such approaches after the fact. Indeed the NotW carried such a claim on 2 May, by Mark King, in the same pages that it made claims about Higgins. It is understood King neither reported that alleged approach, nor faced action for not reporting it.

The head of the WPBSA, Barry Hearn, promised the enquiry would take “days and weeks” rather than “months and months”, but the immense complexities mean that it is taking longer than first envisaged. No time frame has been put on its completion.

The findings of all of sportingintelligence’s own inquiries have been made available to all interested parties.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

there is absolutely NO Excuse in not showing the unedited video.

if they aren't prepared to put their head above the water they should not dabble in these tactics.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Monique

Wild, I don't think the unedited video would prove John Higgins and Pat Mooney didn't agree to parakeet. Why am I convinced it woudn't? It's simple. Neither Mooney, nor Higgins denied they did agree. Their defence was they agreed to get out of there because they thought they were dealing with the Russian mafia. So, clearly, they agreed. They might have agreed because they were afraid, but they agreed.
So why would NOTW be reluctant to disclose it? I don't know but I can see several possible reasons. This is speculations of course. One of those possible reasons is that the unedited video would give away their sources. Another is that it could "involve" other players (one or more) and they could be sued for libel. Clearly neither Selby nor Dott were happy to be named by Mooney as possibly be involved in "arranging" matches, so you could expect that if the NOTW "investigators" did put forward names to "trap" their preys they wouldn't want it known. Note also that both Selby and Dott were apalled but neither expressed disbelief... And finally NOTW could be reluctant to disclose the vid because it would made it obvious Higgins and Mooney were indeed intimidated and threatened.
Last edited by Monique on 19 Jun 2010, edited 1 time in total.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

all i want is the truth ...

by not supplying evidence they are covering up the truth i don't give a monkeys if the NOTW is sued if they don't want to get burnt they should keep their hand out of the fire but if they print something in the paper and people gonna believe it they should be prepared to get naked with transparency otherwise its a cover up.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Monique

All I want is the truth also and certainly NOTW are trying to hide something or some things, but what and why?
Just use your brain and put yourself in Higgins/Mooney shoes. Imagine that a tabloid would publish a video making it appear as if you said things you never said. What would be your reaction? Mine, and I think everyone's would be to claim they never said those things and that the video must be faked. But Higgins/Mooney didn't deny ... instead they put forward excuses to explain WHY they did it. So I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever that the unedited video would show they indeed agreed to fix matches. Not a hint of a doubt.
So why was the video edited? I can think of a few possibilities and of course this is speculations.
The simplest one is that the unedited video would indeed prove Higgins/Mooney had reasons to believe they were in danger and that they were not relaxed as the intro suggests. That would give their defense substance and certainly cast serious doubts regarding their alledged consent to fix matches.
But there are other possibilities. An interesting one is that the unedited video could uncover the NOTW source. Well I'd love that! Nick Harris suggests that the source came from inside WPBSA. Now think about this for a minute. Imagine you are a member of WPBSA, not just a player paying membership, but an active person inside WPBSA and you come to know, or to strongly suspect, that the World n°1 is involved in cheating. What would you do? Personally I think I would share my concerns with the authorities and try to have an enquiry conducted internally while also confronting the player with the suspicions. This way before the truth is established no one's reputation would be blemished - don't forget people are deemed innocent until proven guilty - and the game would not be thrown in the spotlight in the worst possible way. You would expect someone from WPBSA would care for snooker and this would be important to them. But, no. This, or these, person(s) go and find one of the worst tabloids to get them setting up a very elaborated and expensive sting. You have to wonder about the person(s) motives. And I suppose that if Higgins could be blamed for not reporting the approach, this, or these, person(s) could a fortiori be blamed for not reporting their suspicions. Blamed at the very minimum. They also should be facing actions for "selling" them to the press instead, bringing the game in disrepute and endangering its sponsorship. I put "selling" with quotes because I don't know if there was money involved or just some personal/political motives.
Also Nick Harris states two things: 1. NOTW had suspicions about other player(s) but could not "concretise" them. However when coming to John Higgins/Pat Mooney they went to a very expensive sting setup to trap him and they did succeed. I'm afraid that whatever the NOTW is, they would only go to those extends if they had very solid elements to back their actions, irrespective of the way they came to acquire those elements. 2. NOTW allegedly has a story about another player but has not run it. Why? Again this is speculations but one possible reason I can think of is that there is already a legal action in progress against that player in which case NOTW can't publish anything without being deemed as "interfering" with the course of justice.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

Neither John or Mooney has ever denied saying anything that is why the full unedited video is essential to try and get to the bottom of in whitch context what they said was in.

and the fact the NOTW is withholding the unedited footage looks very much because the intimidating factor both Higgins and Mooney refereed to did happen and by releasing the unedited video like they should have the NOTW Straight away puts themselves in deep rubbish.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Casey

Monique wrote:All I want is the truth also and certainly NOTW are trying to hide something or some things, but what and why?
Just use your brain and put yourself in Higgins/Mooney shoes. Imagine that a tabloid would publish a video making it appear as if you said things you never said. What would be your reaction? Mine, and I think everyone's would be to claim they never said those things and that the video must be faked. But Higgins/Mooney didn't deny ... instead they put forward excuses to explain WHY they did it. So I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever that the unedited video would show they indeed agreed to fix matches. Not a hint of a doubt.
So why was the video edited? I can think of a few possibilities and of course this is speculations.
The simplest one is that the unedited video would indeed prove Higgins/Mooney had reasons to believe they were in danger and that they were not relaxed as the intro suggests. That would give their defense substance and certainly cast serious doubts regarding their alledged consent to fix matches.
But there are other possibilities. An interesting one is that the unedited video could uncover the NOTW source. Well I'd love that! Nick Harris suggests that the source came from inside WPBSA. Now think about this for a minute. Imagine you are a member of WPBSA, not just a player paying membership, but an active person inside WPBSA and you come to know, or to strongly suspect, that the World n°1 is involved in cheating. What would you do? Personally I think I would share my concerns with the authorities and try to have an enquiry conducted internally while also confronting the player with the suspicions. This way before the truth is established no one's reputation would be blemished - don't forget people are deemed innocent until proven guilty - and the game would not be thrown in the spotlight in the worst possible way. You would expect someone from WPBSA would care for snooker and this would be important to them. But, no. This, or these, person(s) go and find one of the worst tabloids to get them setting up a very elaborated and expensive sting. You have to wonder about the person(s) motives. And I suppose that if Higgins could be blamed for not reporting the approach, this, or these, person(s) could a fortiori be blamed for not reporting their suspicions. Blamed at the very minimum. They also should be facing actions for "selling" them to the press instead, bringing the game in disrepute and endangering its sponsorship. I put "selling" with quotes because I don't know if there was money involved or just some personal/political motives.
Also Nick Harris states two things: 1. NOTW had suspicions about other player(s) but could not "concretise" them. However when coming to John Higgins/Pat Mooney they went to a very expensive sting setup to trap him and they did succeed. I'm afraid that whatever the NOTW is, they would only go to those extends if they had very solid elements to back their actions, irrespective of the way they came to acquire those elements. 2. NOTW allegedly has a story about another player but has not run it. Why? Again this is speculations but one possible reason I can think of is that there is already a legal action in progress against that player in which case NOTW can't publish anything without being deemed as "interfering" with the course of justice.


It’s the level of which they agreed to it which is the problem.

Example when John was asked to throw frame 3 the subtitles from John said ‘frame 3, yea yea.’

However after analysis what he actually said was ‘frame 3 yea, no no’ whilst shaking his head.

Higgins and Money have not detailed exactly what they agreed to go along with, until this is published in the report there is no suggestion that they agreed to everything that the NOTW claim.

The table in the room changed during the video, so the NOTW recorded two meetings and put it into one…very suspicious.

Regarding the World snooker source, the NOTW have said the source put them onto another player but after trying to get them they failed and moved on.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Casey

I should also add that mooney said ‘they agreed to everything’ this was pretty quickly after the story broke, how many times did he get to see the video? Did he realize at that point how badly it had been edited.