New concerns over editing of Higgins video

yes sonny is slightly blinded of the facts and going on sentiment here i can guarantee you the inquiry and david Douglass wont take that in to consideration and couldn't give a rubbish his past all that matters is now and as we stand John is a suspended snooker player with his rep in tatters.

we need to get him out of that hole and clutching at straws wont get him playing where he belongs.

Nobody is saying that Wild. However people are entitled to believe what they want, if someone says John is innocent….well they are justified because he is at this very moment. If somebody says he is guilty, they may well be proved right.

However John should not bow down to people, let him pick the holes in the NOTW’s ‘evidence’. Its not up to him to bring evidence to the table that’s the WPBSA’s job if they want to ban him.

this is what i think happened .

im thinking mooney put the seed of the russia maffia in johns head to cover up what he will be saying in the meeting.

as has been said mooney not higgins was the sting John happened to be there because Davis knocked him out at sheffield so he was at a lose end and went along.

had he beaten Davis it wouldnt have been a issue regarding john just mooney .

Well from what I hear it will be mid – June before we get word from the disciplinary panel

Sonny wrote:They have to prove he is guilty, he shouldn't have to prove he is innocent. You should give Higgins the benefit of the doubt instead of making out he's guilty in every post. What's he ever done to you? And why have you conveniently forgotten what he's done for snooker and how much of an ambassador he's been? Snooker people should stick together. The NOTW accusations against Higgins are flimsy at best. His version is entirely believable.

Well TBH I don't find his version entirely believable. Not even half believable. I'm not forgetting he's a great player and I'm not forgetting he's done a lot for snooker but I find his story very, very hard to swallow. Why not deny any wrongdoing from the start? Why go for excuses first? Why not report the approach as soon as he was on his way home? Don't tell me he hasn't a mobile or he didn't know how to contact WPBSA or Barry Hearn. He knew it was his duty, there wasn't anything to ponder about. He's been a pro for 18 years, I'm sure he knows the rules.

And if he is found innocent, I will be very happy, but I will irrevocably consider him as utterly stupid and gullible, I'm afraid!

As for his manager, do you also consider his story is entirely believable?

Most tabloids are scum, agreed and this was entrapment, agreed. But IF John Higgins, for all his glorious past, agreed to lose deliberately in order to allow for a betting fraud and accepted to be paid some 300000 euros for that, entrapment or not, there is no choice but punish him harshly because the WPBSA can't afford to lose the trust of their sponsors, the fans and the betting companies.

And, IF it comes to that it will be a very, very sad end of a brilliant carreer and an extremely high price to pay for John.

case

i think john is innocent as Ive said thats totally my belief because of the man ive known 20 years like you and sonny the guy Ive seen turning from a 15 year old kid winning the junior mita masters to the 35 year old snooker ambassador for the future. i don't think without a very good reason beyond snooker he would jeopardize that...i totally believed him when he said he was scared for his life and wanted to get out of there thats why i think mooney told him they could be the maffia to cover up the meeting mooney knew was coming.

Monique wrote:

Sonny wrote:They have to prove he is guilty, he shouldn't have to prove he is innocent. You should give Higgins the benefit of the doubt instead of making out he's guilty in every post. What's he ever done to you? And why have you conveniently forgotten what he's done for snooker and how much of an ambassador he's been? Snooker people should stick together. The NOTW accusations against Higgins are flimsy at best. His version is entirely believable.

Well TBH I don't find his version entirely believable. Not even half believable. I'm not forgetting he's a great player and I'm not forgetting he's done a lot for snooker but I find his story very, very hard to swallow. Why not deny any wrongdoing from the start? Why go for excuses first? Why not report the approach as soon as he was on his way home? Don't tell me he hasn't a mobile or he didn't know how to contact WPBSA or Barry Hearn. He knew it was his duty, there wasn't anything to ponder about. He's been a pro for 18 years, I'm sure he knows the rules.

And if he is found innocent, I will be very happy, but I will irrevocably consider him as utterly stupid and gullible, I'm afraid!

As for his manager, do you also consider his story is entirely believable?

Most tabloids are scum, agreed and this was entrapment, agreed. But IF John Higgins, for all his glorious past, agreed to lose deliberately in order to allow for a betting fraud and accepted to be paid some 300000 euros for that, entrapment or not, there is no choice but punish him harshly because the WPBSA can't afford to lose the trust of their sponsors, the fans and the betting companies.

And, IF it comes to that it will be a very, very sad end of a brilliant carreer and an extremely high price to pay for John.

Monique are you not asking questions that John might well have an answer for? Why did he not contact Hearn on the way home? Only John can answer but here would be a couple of possibilities –

Consideration of what had just happened. No doubt a surreal situation, it is hard to know how you would react under the circumstances

Influence from Mooney – what did Pat say with regards to disclosing it to the board

Timescale – Did he want to discus the matter with his family first.

Consequences – If he did indeed believe it was the mafia was he afraid of what might happen to him or his family if he informed the authorities.

Match fixing – he did actually knowingly agree with the intention of seeing it through

I have no doubt that the question will be answered through the course of the investigation, so to speculate now is pointless really.

John’s story has remained consistent coupled with what has been proved to be a dodgy edit in parts by the NOTW. He could well be found guilty, however I think a lot of what will come out of this will depend on his account of the matter.

I see the same questions being laid on on various forums – why did he do this and why didn’t he do that?

These questions are put as proof of guilt without people even knowing what the answers are.

I fully understand the necessity for punishment if John is found guilty. People talk about length of bans but in reality it would be irrelevant as if would be a career ending moment.

If it did come to that I would hope giving John’s service to the game he would be giving the opportunity to retire rather than face further humiliation with a set ban.

I kind of agree with Monique about Higgins' story at the moment. It might be true, but there are too many questions at the moment to say it is 'entirely believable'. That doesn't mean it's false, there may be answers to the questions we have, which is why we all are saying we want him to be innocent. It just means, until we get answers to the queries in his story, we can't commit to it being 100% believable.

Either way, good luck Higgins. Your career shouldn't end this way.

all i say roll on the verdict lets see whats being sorted then.

its all speculation and press talk from papers that got their own agenda to discredit the NOTW.

I'm not putting those questions as a proof of guilt. But those are the questions he will be asked to answer and he better comes with a good answers because he's in real trouble.

If it comes to a ban, I hope John will be given the opportunity to resign, and above all, I hope his family and his friends inside and outside snooker will continue to support him and be there for him, because he will need their support badly. Not materially but morally. People make mistakes, sometimes terrible mistakes, even excellent people.

If it comes to a ban, I hope John will be given the opportunity to resign, and above all, I hope his family and his friends inside and outside snooker will continue to support him and be there for him, because he will need their support badly. Not materially but morally. People make mistakes, sometimes terrible mistakes, even excellent people

Yes I fully agree, this undoubtedly has had an impact upon his family (reporters at his sons holy communion for a start).

One way or the other I am confident that a truthful and correct decision will be made. This also should happen in quick time, unlike the now farce that is the Maguire case.

I do not think it will ever come to that .

SnookerFan wrote:

Sonny wrote:They have to prove he is guilty, he shouldn't have to prove he is innocent. You should give Higgins the benefit of the doubt instead of making out he's guilty in every post. What's he ever done to you? And why have you conveniently forgotten what he's done for snooker and how much of an ambassador he's been? Snooker people should stick together. The NOTW accusations against Higgins are flimsy at best. His version is entirely believable.

I personally have forgotten nothing of the sort. I have said constantly, throughout all of this that Higgins was one of my favourite players. And I want him, truly want him, to be found innocent. He is one of the greatest players of all time, in my eyes. And his skills on the table, and conduct off it pryor to this happening are in my opinion, above reproach.

However,,questions haven't be answered here. And I want him to be innocent. I am desperately hoping when these questions are answered, they are done in a manner which proves beyond doubt he is innocent. The top question is why he didn't contact any authorities... But maybe, as has been suggested, the story broke before he had the time to do so. If he was rushed, and flustered as to what to do, and wanted to discuss it with somebody beforehand, then I can see. And the story broke too soon after he arrived back. Problem is, people more important then me rose this question, and it was never explained in his statement.

I hope to god that is correct, and that gets proven.

By the way, I was referring to wild so I know my last post finished below yours but I wasn't accusing you of those things.



Anyway, I've made my feelings clear on the matter. Higgins needs to be proven guilty of something before he's banned and trial by tabloid with some grainly footage which was dubbed over to sell newspapers is not proof of guilt.

the fact you replied at all to me proves my point you was blinded ive always thought john inocent but the evidence out there does not back up my thoughts and people are trying to latch on to anything that makes john look inocent and ignore everything that makes him look guilty......I DONT.

I also very much hope Higgins is found not guilty. There are two possible reasons for him not contacting Hearn. 1 is as someone already said he really believed there were dodgy people behind it all and second that as he didn't know it was the NOTW he might have believed it would all blow over without coming to anything and no-one would be the wiser.

It is also possible that naively he didn’t contact Hearn because it was a WS matter and not WSA and he may of felt it wasn’t necessary to contact the WSA.

gallantrabbit wrote:I also very much hope Higgins is found not guilty. There are two possible reasons for him not contacting Hearn. 1 is as someone already said he really believed there were dodgy people behind it all and second that as he didn't know it was the NOTW he might have believed it would all blow over without coming to anything and no-one would be the wiser.

If Higgins won a frame he'd told the mafia he'd deliberately lose, there's no way it'd blow over. What, you think the mafia would see the funny side of losing thousands of pounds, and would let Higgins get away with it?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... sman_Story

He has accused the Mail on Sunday of being involved in "entrapment" and said it had made an error of judgment in running the story.

In the article, Lord Triesman was said to have made bribery claims about Spain and Russia, who are rivals to stage the tournament.

The revelations secretly recorded by Melissa Jacobs, allegedly a close friend of Lord Triesman, were "against the national interest", Lineker wrote in The Independent.

"As an ambassador of the 2018 bid I would desperately love the World Cup to come to this country", he wrote.

"But this story has damaged our chances and I'd be hypocritical to continue to earn money from writing a column in that paper."


His article appealed to the media to stop running negative stories that could hamper England's chances of hosting the tournament.

"There seems to be some sort of thirst in the press for negative stories about our squad and our management going into a major competition.

"Whatever you think, it will not help. I think it might be a time that we can perhaps reflect on this as a nation and perhaps think of the responsibility our newspapers have.

"They all seem to champion the national side and show patriotism but when push comes to shove and they have the opportunity of selling an extra few newspapers, at times I think they will make errors of judgement in stories that are basically just private issues."


See any similarities? The News of the World ruined our World Final by being a set of runts if you pardon my French. You see it going on everywhere. How long before the next Ashley Cole/John Terry type story breaks before the World Cup? And then they expect these people to perform at their best and will crucify them if they don't.

British press

yes its almost a sport for them now in competition with each other to see who's the biggest chameleons in fleet-street.

Sonny wrote:http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/England-World-Cup-2018-Bid-Gary-Lineker-Quits-As-Columnist-For-Mail-On-Sunday-After-Triesman-Story/Article/201005315634791?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_4&lid=ARTICLE_15634791_England_World_Cup_2018_Bid%3A_Gary_Lineker_Quits_As_Columnist_For_Mail_On_Sunday_After_Triesman_Story

He has accused the Mail on Sunday of being involved in "entrapment" and said it had made an error of judgment in running the story.

In the article, Lord Triesman was said to have made bribery claims about Spain and Russia, who are rivals to stage the tournament.

The revelations secretly recorded by Melissa Jacobs, allegedly a close friend of Lord Triesman, were "against the national interest", Lineker wrote in The Independent.

"As an ambassador of the 2018 bid I would desperately love the World Cup to come to this country", he wrote.

"But this story has damaged our chances and I'd be hypocritical to continue to earn money from writing a column in that paper."


His article appealed to the media to stop running negative stories that could hamper England's chances of hosting the tournament.

"There seems to be some sort of thirst in the press for negative stories about our squad and our management going into a major competition.

"Whatever you think, it will not help. I think it might be a time that we can perhaps reflect on this as a nation and perhaps think of the responsibility our newspapers have.

"They all seem to champion the national side and show patriotism but when push comes to shove and they have the opportunity of selling an extra few newspapers, at times I think they will make errors of judgement in stories that are basically just private issues."


See any similarities? The News of the World ruined our World Final by being a set of runts if you pardon my French. You see it going on everywhere. How long before the next Ashley Cole/John Terry type story breaks before the World Cup? And then they expect these people to perform at their best and will crucify them if they don't.

British press

What must be said is. The NOTW wasn't entirely innocent in the John Higgins affair. They are guilty of entrapment. And also they are guilty of trying to create a story, when they didn't have any other ones. They are also guilty of not caring about Higgins or anybody elses family/career by trying to trap him in this way. And also, had they given the story a week, we would've had more conclusive proof as to whether Higgin's would've spoken to anybody about this. The NOTW didn't care what he would've done if they'd given him a week, they cared about getting a story.

The problem is, Higgins allowed himself to be caught. He did agree to match fixing. (He admitted this himself.) Okay, so he has offered an explanation as to why he did it. But an explanation that he did nothing to prove. Surely, if he intended to tell somebody, he would've done before the story broke.

The lack of morals the papers have in ruining people's lives for a story isn't the issue. The issue of whether Higgins is guilty the issue.

yes that is the issue snookerfan.

people are concentrating to hard on the morals of the newspaper they are forgetting what the real issue is here.

if it was a genuine meeting and nobody knows nothing about it Would John throw frames for cash next season in the WSS.

thats the question john got to answer not the rights or wrongs of the NOTW. we all know they are scum.

It looked a lot worse than it actually was. Everyone's initial reaction was one of shock and presumed guilt but the more time passes the more I believe Higgins will be back as World Number 1 very soon. There's no way he'll get banned for this.

Sonny wrote:It looked a lot worse than it actually was. Everyone's initial reaction was one of shock and presumed guilt but the more time passes the more I believe Higgins will be back as World Number 1 very soon. There's no way he'll get banned for this.

Nobody is pressuming guilt. If anything, I pressumed innocence when I first heard this. Yes, we were all in shock, and still are to be fair. But when the story broke I couldn't believe Higgins would do anything of the sort. And even now can't believe somebody of Higgin's stature would be that greedy. I assumed it must be an overreaction. Bear in mind, some plebs had just got on their high horse suggesting Ronnie threw a match, because he missed a black in the China Open. But it was Higgins' version of what happened that made me wonder. His excuse smelled somewhat fishy. That's when I found out of the video and watched it online. Previously to this, I hadn't even believed the video would be anywhere near as convincing as it was. I assumed it'd be Higgins saying; "Yes match fixing exists", with Rory Bremner appearing afterwards going; "Och aye, and I would do it."

I didn't even give the NOTW the following week a second look when this story of Higgins betting on himself came to light, because to quote myself at the time; "There is no way that is true."

The problem is Higgins story had holes in it. We all hope however that these holes get filled. This isn't some lynch mob that wants Higgins to be guilty. It's fans of the sport, and fans of his, that want him to be innocent, that are going over everything that is said and done in minute detail. Problem is, we still can't find answers.

Higgins still has a lot of talking to do.
What I said prevously about it blowing over could have been true as well. How? If it had been genuine and Higgins innocent he could have avoided contact to finalize details of such a sting. He can't seriously have believed the Russian mafia were involved in asking for individual frames to be thrown in the world series. He might have believed it was a minor betting faction.
Hearn is under a lot of pressure to clean up. There are other cases going on. Burnett for me is banged to rights, there is no doubt in my mind that he was involved. Higgins might just get away with it.

yes its frightening but Higgins could be caught up in the cleaning up operation Hearn is determined to do thats why David Douglass is on board so soon he wants this crap sorted.

Its worth putting this link up again as Paul, the Sports Editor is replying to everyone's comments & making some good points too. (Might be worth your while Sonny asking him to put a link for here up on his site?)

Anyway, scroll down & have a read, its worth another look just for his comments. Paul's answers are under Admin says

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/201 ... mment-2379

gallantrabbit wrote:Higgins still has a lot of talking to do.
What I said prevously about it blowing over could have been true as well. How? If it had been genuine and Higgins innocent he could have avoided contact to finalize details of such a sting. He can't seriously have believed the Russian mafia were involved in asking for individual frames to be thrown in the world series. He might have believed it was a minor betting faction.
Hearn is under a lot of pressure to clean up. There are other cases going on. Burnett for me is banged to rights, there is no doubt in my mind that he was involved. Higgins might just get away with it.

Burnett banged to rights? How? I'd say the evidence is more compelling that Higgins did it, then Burnett.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/snoo ... -22230082/

ive not seen this article until today and this extract from the article interests me

"In the morning I told John to tell them whatever they wanted to hear to ensure we got out in one piece. The News of the World set out deliberately to tarnish an unblemished snooker career and character and spared no expense to entrap both John and myself in what is a disgraceful piece of reporting.

now that could mean 1 of 2 things Pat was seriously frightened of his life and johns OR it was a convenient story to give john to justify the meeting talking of throwing frames.

But Mooney said: "That referred to exhibition matches and how it is nice to let a talented local player win a frame or two as it always pleases the crowd. Anyone who has been at an exhibition knows this is part of the fun."

from mooneys point of view that does not answer the fact he was caught discussing matches involving selby and Dott.

so on the evident of this article (god knows if its true or not) but if it is true that can totally explain Johns Words in the video but not mooneys talking about Selby and Dott.

Mooney's talk about Selby and Dott was snake hissed up bravado but all the same, it displayed a personality trait/flaw.

Sonny wrote:Mooney's talk about Selby and Dott was snake hissed up bravado but all the same, it displayed a personality trait/flaw.

yes he did come over as a sort of Del Boy character.