12 years, was it enough?

So there punishment is out, subject to an appeal. 12 years and a 40k fine (for legal expenses). He may as well declare bankruptcy and right off his debts to SWSA and the WPBSA I suppose. Was the ban long enough though?

Don't expect too many votes for 'too long' ...

Voted 'about right' even though I'd have preferred a lifetime ban, as I think it is (just) enough - I'd been fearing 8 years, which I'd see as too short.

Should that really say 'you may select up t o 3 options'?

It should also be noted that WPBSA did not give the sanction. The 12 year ban comes from an independent body. I am sure if WPBSA had their way, they would give him a life-time ban. Can WPBSA appeal that the penalty is too lenient?

12 years was about right when you compare it to the Hann situation.

Lee must be laughing all the way to the pie shop

Too short considering he was caught bang to rights for match fixing . That's the important phrase " Match fixing " . The likes of Hann and Francisco were done for bringing the game in to disrepute . Lee was found guilty of throwing several matches going back several years . He should never ever be allowed back in to the sport and this punishment isn't strong enough and not much that a deterrence

100 years would be too short.

PLtheRef wrote:12 years was about right when you compare it to the Hann situation.

nothing like the hann situation.

Wildey wrote:

PLtheRef wrote:12 years was about right when you compare it to the Hann situation.

nothing like the hann situation.

Exactly . The investigation had online evidence of internet accounts etc that all pointed back to Lee . That said Hann , Francisco and anyone else found guilty of bringing the game in to disrepute should think themselves lucky

I voted Too Short. Mainly because I thought he'd get life.

Don't really matter. No way does he make a comeback at 50.

He is innocent.

Muppet147 wrote:He is innocent.

Absolutely. Lee is taking this to the European court of human rights. He is going to get a massive payout.

Wildey wrote:

PLtheRef wrote:12 years was about right when you compare it to the Hann situation.

nothing like the hann situation.

In comparison to Hann, I do think 12 is fair. You're misunderstanding the point I'm making in that Lee's actions are no doubt considerably worse than Hann's were.

A suspension of greater than eight years was always going to be inevitable

What would Hann's ban have been if he'd turned up to the tribunal? Probably less at the time.

Lee talking to the beeb today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/snooker/24270974

I can't believe he didn't have legal representation in a case of this magnitude. Unbelievable. Apparently, he's meeting a QC this Friday to discuss the appeal. Why didn't he get one to begin with. Bizarre. And a newspaper exclusive to come, with all the facts. Interesting stuff.

Could he actually be innocent?

No

Hes trying to make out hes a victim

His body language at the start of the interview is so shifty

guilty

How do you get on the black? Tough shot to face.

Sonny wrote:How do you get on the black? Tough shot to face.

I remember watching that open mouthed, wondering what the hell he was doing.

snooky147 wrote:

Sonny wrote:How do you get on the black? Tough shot to face.

I remember watching that open mouthed, wondering what the hell he was doing.

Yes that shot tells us all we need to know, as if there were any doubts anyway... I watched it live too last year, and when he played that I was just astonished like Mike Hallet was when he commented when he said: "Hang on, what's he played there?".

The miss on the pink earlier on when he was about to make the clearance was pretty doubtfull too cause he missed it by some margin, and the very last shot he played on the black to get it safe... well that was just desperation cause he knew he couldn't win the match for his own benefit.

Good job Higgins didn't miss that snooker on the pink otherwise things coould have gotten very interesting indeed for Lee.

12 years for me is about right, I too would have prefered a life ban, but he's not coming back when he's 50 anyway cause he's not a Davis or a Jimmy and like he says by then even his father could beat him.

What a disgrace to snooker, I always liked him as a player and especially that Rolls Royce cue action, but his antics have nothing to do with that, he belongs to the scrap yard now.

Sonny wrote:How do you get on the black? Tough shot to face.

Of course it was deliberate. However, Burnett's miss against Maguire was just as blatant, and O'Sullivan's miss against Tian Pengfei was even more blatant than both of those.

Trumpster wrote:Lee talking to the beeb today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/snooker/24270974

I can't believe he didn't have legal representation in a case of this magnitude. Unbelievable. Apparently, he's meeting a QC this Friday to discuss the appeal. Why didn't he get one to begin with. Bizarre. And a newspaper exclusive to come, with all the facts. Interesting stuff.

Could he actually be innocent?

he had legal representation about 3 times then decided the greatest legal minds in the country couldn't do the job better than a unqualified clueless snooker player could.

hmmmmm that sounds just like a Snooker Player.

Maybe Wildey but it's more likely Lee was gasping and puffing to his lawyers that it's all been a big misunderstanding and he's innocent but failed to to give any explanations to his lawyers . He probably treated his lawyers with the same contempt he treated the investigation by exclaiming " Oh I can't explain that " to each and very question .

He's an idiot and like all idiots he believes everyone else is an idiot . The fact online betting accounts can be traced via their ISP numbers etc doesn't seem to have entered his thoughtless mind . H's just keep coming out with the mantra that he didn't no anything and can't explain anything

Be interesting what this great statement he'll be coming out with tomorrow ? Some people think 12 years is an adequate ban but it sickens me that when he's 50 he might be able to make more money after being exposed as a parakeet

yea no lawyer wants to get involved with a un winnable case.... Professional Pride and all that