Hann = Different

Given this keeps coming up it deserves its own thread.

Yes Hann was recorded like Higgins however unlike John hann put up no defense. hann retired the day before the hearing and issued no statement of defense, Hann NEVER DENIED the match fixing claims and by retiring he just simply confirmed his guilt.

its not a matter of 6 months vs 8 years because John was found not guilty of throwing or wanting to throw a match, Hann was found guilty.

The two cases couldn't be more different, even the thickest of society could see that.

pains me to say this as a proud aussie

but hann was guilty and deserved his punishment

My point yesterday was if higgins was found guilty of the same offence he should receive the same punishment .

Also King admitted an approach in the NOTW yet he did not report it to the WPBSA yet he does not get charged...so compare that with the 6 months and £85,000. Higgins was done harsh.

Yeah, the whole "informing the governing body" is basically telling people to act as a grass. Many people don't like a grass. I bet Murphy is the only player never to have been approached.

Sonny wrote:Yeah, the whole "informing the governing body" is basically telling people to act as a grass. Many people don't like a grass. I bet Murphy is the only player never to have been approached.

watto and haddin from the aussie cricket team reported some stuff to the relevant authorites recently about bookies approaching them

case_master wrote:Also King admitted an approach in the NOTW yet he did not report it to the WPBSA yet he does not get charged...so compare that with the 6 months and £85,000. Higgins was done harsh.

If you think Higgins is hard done by then imagine how Mooney must be feeling

case_master wrote:Given this keeps coming up it deserves its own thread.

Yes Hann was recorded like Higgins however unlike John hann put up no defense. hann retired the day before the hearing and issued no statement of defense, Hann NEVER DENIED the match fixing claims and by retiring he just simply confirmed his guilt.

its not a matter of 6 months vs 8 years because John was found not guilty of throwing or wanting to throw a match, Hann was found guilty.

The two cases couldn't be more different, even the thickest of society could see that.

Correct.

Hann =

GrumpyMrDavros wrote:

case_master wrote:Also King admitted an approach in the NOTW yet he did not report it to the WPBSA yet he does not get charged...so compare that with the 6 months and £85,000. Higgins was done harsh.

If you think Higgins is hard done by then imagine how Mooney must be feeling

Well Mooney has actually got away with orchestratedd the whole thing. His fine has been waved and he was never going to be aloud back to snooker regardless of what happened.

case_master wrote:Also King admitted an approach in the NOTW yet he did not report it to the WPBSA yet he does not get charged...so compare that with the 6 months and £85,000. Higgins was done harsh.

no king was done softly he should receive the same punishment by the fact in his words he admited it.

GrumpyMrDavros wrote:

case_master wrote:Also King admitted an approach in the NOTW yet he did not report it to the WPBSA yet he does not get charged...so compare that with the 6 months and £85,000. Higgins was done harsh.

If you think Higgins is hard done by then imagine how Mooney must be feeling

mooney was guilty john said that in his statement even.

Mark King should be done for his comments

I've only just contributed to this thread because there's something that's been niggling at my mind about Hann

It's much easier to throw a match if it's one sided because the guy who has taken a dive has to win less frames . It's harder to throw a match say 7-9 or -8-9 because the parakeet still has to win 7 or 8 frames .

It's interesting the number of times Hann suffered heavy defeats . Anyone remember that match with Ronnie Sullivan at the ( I think ) Grand Prix where he was trailing 0-1 had a great chance to level the match then blew it ? After it was 0-2 he then started smashing the reds all over the table every opportunity he took which quickly led to a 5-0 Ronnie victory and the crowd booing Hann's lack of effort

And of course the legendary match with Mark Williams where he led 2-0 only to lose 13 frames in a row helped greatly by smashing in to the reds in the same way someone smashes a pack of pool balls during a break off shot in the pub

In other words the WPBSA had probably been suspicious of Hann for a long period of time but hadn't any proof until the sting by The Sun hence everything starts making sense . We can all name a couple of matches where it looks like Hann has gone ouyt of his way to lose

That's a fair point about the 13-2 match.

Hann did things that was different but how arrogant could he be ?

would he be that arrogant of throwing his cue at everything trying to lose in a blatant way ?

yes i think he could.

anyway getting rid of hann was the right thing to do he showed little if no remorse for being caught and if he didn't give a rubbish about defending himself then he pleaded totally guilty without opening his gob.

To be honest, I don't care if he was innocent. I think they should've banned Hann for 8 years purely for being a shithead.

SnookerFan wrote:To be honest, I don't care if he was innocent. I think they should've banned Hann for 8 years purely for being a shithead.

Ya just like they shouldn't have banned Higgins because he was a seemingly nice Family Guy.

=oP

Noel

Hanns to unrelated visits to court for alleged sexual assault/rape wouldn't have helped his case imo. Oh that and he didn't defend himself

case_master wrote:<laugh> Hanns to unrelated visits to court for alleged sexual assault/rape wouldn't have helped his case imo. Oh that and he didn't defend himself

he was innoceNt of the rape incIdent and if they took that in to account then he has a good case to sue the old WSA board

GJtheaussiestud wrote:

case_master wrote:<laugh> Hanns to unrelated visits to court for alleged sexual assault/rape wouldn't have helped his case imo. Oh that and he didn't defend himself

he was innoceNt of the rape incIdent and if they took that in to account then he has a good case to sue the old WSA board

Then why didn't he? He chose instead to do nothing. Guess he didn't care as much about the sport as his fans cared about him playing it.