Post a reply

Re: Since the "fake sheikh"

Postby Empire State Human

My guess is John's one of those guys who always says "yes yes yes, I'll get right on it" and then you never hear from him again. Cos that's just his defence mechanism that allows him to move away with the least hassle.

I think Higgins is pretty naive and this is true. Although it's perhaps worth noting that at a crucial (imo) point in the video he does say no when asked whether he would throw a frame.

But study the original source material – the NotW’s own video – and pay attention to Higgins’ words and actions and not the subtitles.

He does not actually say “Frame three, I am going to lose, yes, yes”.

He says (20sec to 22sec): “Frame three I’m going to lose, yeah. No.” [Nodding no].

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/201 ... se-030901/

It seems the original footage was too ambiguous to support NOTW's point that Higgins wanted to match fix, so they had to edit it.

Re: Since the "fake sheikh"

Postby shanew48

LDS wrote:
shanew48 wrote:The part of your post that I disagree with is saying it was entrapment, you can only end up being entrapped if you are doing something you shouldn't be doing, basically you need to be involved in a questionable situation in the first place for the entrapment defence to be attempted as a defence.


No, entrapment can get anyone at anytime for any reason completely devoid of any previous thoughts on a subject and is why entrapment is not permissible as a means of prosecution.

The laws on entrapment are very specific for a very good reason, and what you state here is quite literally the opposite of academic knowledge and teaching. For someone who's so obsessed with legality, perhaps you should understand the topic more thoroughly before making stuff up as you go along.


What I meant was I don't see how he was entrapped in that particular situation that he found himself in?

Re: Since the "fake sheikh"

Postby shanew48

Empire State Human wrote:
My guess is John's one of those guys who always says "yes yes yes, I'll get right on it" and then you never hear from him again. Cos that's just his defence mechanism that allows him to move away with the least hassle.

I think Higgins is pretty naive and this is true. Although it's perhaps worth noting that at a crucial (imo) point in the video he does say no when asked whether he would throw a frame.

But study the original source material – the NotW’s own video – and pay attention to Higgins’ words and actions and not the subtitles.

He does not actually say “Frame three, I am going to lose, yes, yes”.

He says (20sec to 22sec): “Frame three I’m going to lose, yeah. No.” [Nodding no].

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/201 ... se-030901/

It seems the original footage was too ambiguous to support NOTW's point that Higgins wanted to match fix, so they had to edit it.


At one point he jokes about checking for hidden cameras, why would you mention being recorded unless you thought what you were doing was wrong?

Re: Since the "fake sheikh"

Postby SnookerFan

shanew48 wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
shanew48 wrote:
LDS wrote:
shanew48 wrote:Just asking salient questions in relation to the whole affair, things that have never been satisfactorily answered in my mind.

Does the whole affair become less egregious after a certain amount of years? some things you can't really just forgive and forget I don't think, all other max fixers have been dealt with very harshly I would say in comparison.

Why didn't him or his manager report such a blatant approach? didn't Jones get a 2 year ban for not reporting being aware of match fixing as opposed to a 6 month out of season ban? which was a worse transgression out of the two?


Well you're not going to find any answers here, and this topic has been covered a few million times in excruciating detail ever since it happened. It's not that no-one cares, it's that everything that can be said has already been said... again and again and again.

So you're not really saying anything other than constantly repeating yourself. You're not going to listen to anyone, you're just going to take the opportunity of any response to just repeat yourself like a broken record.

You write as if fascinated, completely unaware that for most people the topic is one of the most boring and tedious plagues of modern snooker, the constant repetition of it being far worse a social unpleasantness than the original misdemeanour.

It's the snooker equivalent of having a Flat Earth Cult lurking around every corner, forever desperate and relentless to make you give a crap about something that was 'resolved' eons ago...


So what was the general consensus after it being covered a few million times in excruciating detail on here? guilty as sin? he would have more than likely proceeded to follow through on what was agreed in that meeting? or was he just in drink (obviously) and wasn't taking what was being offered seriously?


My personal opinion is the last one. But that's all it was. Opinion. None of us were privvy to all the evidence.

His mafia line was a flat out lie.


Surely if the evidence showed that it wasn't a serious approach and it was such a laughable approach that he wasn't even taking it seriously then he shouldn't have been banned or fined, he seemed pretty serious when he turned to his manager discussing how he could "swallow" the hundred's of thousands of pounds of ill gotten gains, surely if you thought it wasn't a serious business proposition then you wouldn't even bother getting into an in depth conversation with your manager I wouldn't have thought.

Plus he thought he was talking to a Saudi Prince, I wasn't aware that the Saudi's worked on behalf of the Mafia? quite frankly they don't need to work with any mafia as they already have plenty of resources and money of their own. None of it adds up does it. Jones must be wondering why he couldn't get away with a six month out of season ban!


He was banned and fined for not reporting the advance, which I suspect you already know.

Re: Since the "fake sheikh"

Postby shanew48

Didn't quiten Hann commit to same offence, as in agreeing in principal to fix frames/matches and not reporting the approach but not actually, as far as we are aware at least, actually go through with it yet he received a 8 year ban?

Can anyone explain why there was such a disparity between the length of the respective bans for Higgins and Hann for seemingly the same transgressions?

Re: Since the "fake sheikh"

Postby SnookerFan

shanew48 wrote:Didn't quiten Hann commit to same offence, as in agreeing in principal to fix frames/matches and not reporting the approach but not actually, as far as we are aware at least, actually go through with it yet he received a 8 year ban?

Can anyone explain why there was such a disparity between the length of the respective bans for Higgins and Hann for seemingly the same transgressions?


Hann walked into the hearing, said; 'Yeah, I did it. buck off'

Higgins was only found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. Not for actually intending to match fix.

Re: Since the "fake sheikh"

Postby Iranu

SnookerFan wrote:
shanew48 wrote:Didn't quiten Hann commit to same offence, as in agreeing in principal to fix frames/matches and not reporting the approach but not actually, as far as we are aware at least, actually go through with it yet he received a 8 year ban?

Can anyone explain why there was such a disparity between the length of the respective bans for Higgins and Hann for seemingly the same transgressions?


Hann walked into the hearing, said; 'Yeah, I did it. buck off'

Higgins was only found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. Not for actually intending to match fix.

Also Hann was found guilty of agreeing to fix a World Snooker match at the China Open, not an independent tour match like Higgins.

Higgins got off easy but the justifications for the disparity are there if you look for them.

Re: Since the "fake sheikh"

Postby SnookerFan

Iranu wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
shanew48 wrote:Didn't quiten Hann commit to same offence, as in agreeing in principal to fix frames/matches and not reporting the approach but not actually, as far as we are aware at least, actually go through with it yet he received a 8 year ban?

Can anyone explain why there was such a disparity between the length of the respective bans for Higgins and Hann for seemingly the same transgressions?


Hann walked into the hearing, said; 'Yeah, I did it. buck off'

Higgins was only found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. Not for actually intending to match fix.

Also Hann was found guilty of agreeing to fix a World Snooker match at the China Open, not an independent tour match like Higgins.

Higgins got off easy but the justifications for the disparity are there if you look for them.


I suspect OP doesn't care.

Re: Since the "fake sheikh"

Postby shanew48

Iranu wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
shanew48 wrote:Didn't quiten Hann commit to same offence, as in agreeing in principal to fix frames/matches and not reporting the approach but not actually, as far as we are aware at least, actually go through with it yet he received a 8 year ban?

Can anyone explain why there was such a disparity between the length of the respective bans for Higgins and Hann for seemingly the same transgressions?


Hann walked into the hearing, said; 'Yeah, I did it. buck off'

Higgins was only found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. Not for actually intending to match fix.

Also Hann was found guilty of agreeing to fix a World Snooker match at the China Open, not an independent tour match like Higgins.

Higgins got off easy but the justifications for the disparity are there if you look for them.


I see, that would explain the disparity then, they were charged with different offences, sometimes there is nuance with these things clearly. Thanks for the clarification.


   

cron