John Higgins tribunal thread

Witz78 wrote:

wildJONESEYE wrote:

Sonny wrote:Names into a hat and one extra match with the full backing of fellow professionals welcoming their number 1 player back. In an ideal world. If he's found not guilty then he has every right to play in the World Open.

with the format of the World Open that is a possibility where as the UK that would never happen.

ehhhh hows it a possibility cos its the World Open ???

the draws are made and the matches are already decided, how do you propose they just drop Higgins into the draw without mucking up the rest of the draw.

i said its more of a possibility than the UK Because theres hats and draws all over the bloody shop lol

thetubberlad wrote:Right, right, right...

John Higgins has always been a favourite of mine. I have always seen him as the best ambassador the game has had, I spoke to him when I was younger and he was nothing other than gent.

This was the most gutting thing that I've seen happen in the game. I was gutted when I heard it that morning.

That said: IF John Higgins is guilty, I'll echo Wild's sentiments. I think everyone here knows where I stand on this issue. People here know if I think Higgins is guilty or not. And people know I am in favour of heavy punishment for anyone found guilty of match fixing. Kick them out. No matter how good they might have been. My opinion.

A sad day? Hmmm... I don't know.

Just though I'd quote it again, what with the page changing

I don't believe it's as cut and dried as all that wild. Guilty or not guilty - it's so black and white. My feeling is if he's found "guilty" then he's been done for a bad case of misjudgement in discussing a hypothetical scenario in which no money exchanged hands and which was all speculation about how possible it would be if x y z.

Sonny wrote:I don't believe it's as cut and dried as all that wild. Guilty or not guilty - it's so black and white. My feeling is if he's found "guilty" then he's been done for a bad case of misjudgement in discussing a hypothetical scenario in which no money exchanged hands and which was all speculation about how possible it would be if x y z.

i dont think World Snooker can say "right john not guilty move on" we need clarification of exactly what they found in the investigation because otherwise the doubt will stil be there on forums like these,

from my perspective whatever the verdict is good enough for me though we cant start to question that or that will harm snooker.

Snooker let off John Higgins because hes John Higgins.

or on the flipside

Snooker was tough on John Higgins just because hes John Higgins

do we really want that stigma.

Yes it's all speculation from us until we know the full details. They will come out for sure but in the mean time we've got to wait and try and hold back until then.

wildJONESEYE wrote:

Sonny wrote:I don't believe it's as cut and dried as all that wild. Guilty or not guilty - it's so black and white. My feeling is if he's found "guilty" then he's been done for a bad case of misjudgement in discussing a hypothetical scenario in which no money exchanged hands and which was all speculation about how possible it would be if x y z.

i dont think World Snooker can say "right john not guilty move on" we need clarification of exactly what they found in the investigation because otherwise the doubt will stil be there on forums like these,

from my perspective whatever the verdict is good enough for me though we cant start to question that or that will harm snooker.

No questions. That's a must. Get it out in the open.

Sonny wrote:I don't believe it's as cut and dried as all that wild. Guilty or not guilty - it's so black and white. My feeling is if he's found "guilty" then he's been done for a bad case of misjudgement in discussing a hypothetical scenario in which no money exchanged hands and which was all speculation about how possible it would be if x y z.

you could argue then that Hann was also guilty of a similar misjudgement in discussing a hypothetical scenario and yet he got hut with an 8 year ban so its be double standards.

What were the details of the Hann incident? From memory it sounded like the sort of thing he regularly did and was caught red handed. Which court tried him? He didn't seem that bothered anyway when he was banned did he?

take tubber for instance

he thinks hes guilty hes made no secret of that fact on here if the verdict is not guilty World Snooker and the investigation has a duty to john to attempt to make Tubber and others that thinks that to change their mind.

HOPEFULLY JUSTICE IS DONE

GJtheaussiestud wrote:HOPEFULLY JUSTICE IS DONE

Sonny wrote:What were the details of the Hann incident? From memory it sounded like the sort of thing he regularly did and was caught red handed. Which court tried him? He didn't seem that bothered anyway when he was banned did he?

double standards on here from many i sense.

Hann wasnt a big name so lets be shot of him and its no big deal, but cos this is 3 times WC Higgins we cant just throw him to the lions

No court tried him, he just got pulled up before the WSA (or if i remember correctly he didnt even turn up which was seen by many as an admission of guilt) and they came down hard with the 8 year ban. Would love it if he makes a comeback, how longs he got left now of his ban, 3 years?

From memory it was NotW sting on Hann too and it was a similar set up to Higgins one. Hanns ego probably made him put on the front that he wasnt really fussed but of course he would have been. He was in and around the top 16 at that point. He chose to slate the sport saying prize money was a pittance etc after he got the boot which was true to an extent, even if it was sour grapes from him.

So he didn't turn up to a kangaroo court and basically stuck two fingers up at them.

This surely invalidates the so called 8 year precident don't you agree?

wildJONESEYE wrote:take tubber for instance

he thinks hes guilty hes made no secret of that fact on here if the verdict is not guilty World Snooker and the investigation has a duty to john to attempt to make Tubber and others that thinks that to change their mind.

whats that riddle mean exactly? I had a few attempts but couldnt really make heads or tails of it. A full stop and new sentence wouldnt go a miss every now and again

Sonny wrote:So he didn't turn up to a kangaroo court and basically stuck two fingers up at them.

This surely invalidates the so called 8 year precident don't you agree?

yes thats different hann did not care john does.

Quinten in so many ways was similar to Alex Higgins a true rebel but the difference was Alex cared about the sport just not the planks that run it i don't think Quinten cared about the sport.

A lot of speculation around this. Point is, none of us know what has happened, what the circumstances were or why this happened. I just prefer to wait until after the tribunel and its findings before speculating on what sort of punishment (if any) will be delivered.

John Higgins admits match fixing. Breaking news on sky sports news

Alex0paul WC wrote:John Higgins admits match fixing. Breaking news on sky sports news

yes saw it in sky news website

throw the book at him i dont want to see the bucking runt anywhere near a bastard table ever ever again.

I am devastated. Go to hell John...You were my fav player...

A spokesman for John Higgins has described the Sky report as "100% wrong" and he maintains his innocence.

Jim Cassidy told PA Sport: "The tribunal has just started. John Higgins is 100% innocent of match fixing."

Sky Sports News have now taken down their original story.


Don't forget guys, Skysports is owned by the same scumbag who owns NOTW

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/se ... unal-agent

Just posted. - sky link removed

Hendon on twitter:

"If Sky got that wrong then they are seriously out of order"

"No admission on SSN they got the story wrong, it's as if it never happened"

Owen Gibson, on Twitter, who works for the Guardian as a match fixing correspondent of all things, just posted this...

"Appears that Higgins' defence remains the same - that he did say what he is caught on camera saying, but only because he was intimidated."

Note the word 'Appears'...

Sonny wrote:Hendon on twitter:

"If Sky got that wrong then they are seriously out of order"

"No admission on SSN they got the story wrong, it's as if it never happened"

to right they out of order .......

but who bucking told them who put it ourt there was it a person thats in someway involved ?

So what do we know so far? cant be bothered to read through three pages..it looks he innocent?

It just said on sky sports that Higgins has admitted agreeing to throw frames, however they claim only under intimidation to get away from what they thought were Russian Mafia.

Right just watched sky sports news and this second the update so far is that John higgins and pat mooney agree they accepted the deal to fix matches for 300 000 euro only because they felt intimidated as they thought they were the russian mafia and said they were never going to follow through with the deal and just wanted to get out..so nothing changed since it happened yet. I hope they believe him and hes proved innocent.

That's what the said immediately after it happened. People laughed and ripped the snake hiss claiming it was ridiculous. I don't see what's so ridiculous about it myself. When you're in a room full of people speaking a foreign language you don't know what is going on, and weren't they on a boat or something? How the buck do you get out of that scenario when someone is intimidating you into agreeing to something? I would play along. It's obvious from the dialogue that the reporter asking the questions hadn't got the blindest clue what he was talking about. And presumably they won't have on camera Mooney and Higgins agreeing to play along in private.

Speculation. I'm falling into the trap

And I'm also forgetting about the other footage of Mooney on his own.