Post a reply

Ebdon-Hang match

Postby rocketronnie147

Did anyone just watch the Ebdon-Hang match? I only made a small wager on Ebdon (only a 100 bucks, canadian).....Let's just say this match was rather weird. Ebdon could have won every frame (literally), and lost 4-0....he was up 50 pts in both the first 2 frames, lost them both. He was up another 40 in the 3rd frame and missed the easiest of blacks. He then went on to blow one of the easiest roll up safeties, not even getting a snooker! In the 4th frame, he was up 22 again, and missed a very easy shot to the middle pocket....I didn't think too much of it until I read up on his previous "history", and the fact he's been investigated before. Just wondering if anyone else watched this match? It was a disturbing display of snooker.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby Wildey

Peter ebdon when hes not cuing well looks like a hacker he always has.

that's the most disturbing thing about match fixing scandals then rubbish play is questioned

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby rocketronnie147

Wildey wrote:Peter ebdon when hes not cuing well looks like a hacker he always has.

that's the most disturbing thing about match fixing scandals then rubbish play is questioned


You know what, I hope you're right.....I've seen Ebdon play a lot, and even when he's off form, he grinds a lot. I'll tell you this, after I saw him blow the first 2 frames, I absolutely knew he was going to lose the next 2.....even when he was in the balls and up 32 (literally a perfect spread with no trouble), I knew he was going to lose the frame. If you see some of the long pots he succeeded on, you will know that he wasn't cuing all that bad at all.

I emailed world snooker and asked them to look into this. As I said, I don't give a hoot about a 100 bucks....but I do care about the integrity of the sports I choose to watch. Hopefully they look into it, because he's apparently been a strong candidate for match fixing before (in fact, after looking at some of the diagrams that the referee of that match brought to fruition, I have no idea how he got off.....then again, Higgins got off too so I guess the big names get passes while guy's like Lee, with virtually no evidence against them, get banned).

I know how Ebdon plays.....something still raises a red flag for me about this match. Did you watch it?

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby Ayrshirebhoy

Lee was a pretty big name as well. I don't get why people think the bigger names get away with things. These are snooker players were talking about here not mafia or drug cartels who can buy or threaten jury's.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby Andre147

rocketronnie147 wrote:
Wildey wrote:Peter ebdon when hes not cuing well looks like a hacker he always has.

that's the most disturbing thing about match fixing scandals then rubbish play is questioned


You know what, I hope you're right.....I've seen Ebdon play a lot, and even when he's off form, he grinds a lot. I'll tell you this, after I saw him blow the first 2 frames, I absolutely knew he was going to lose the next 2.....even when he was in the balls and up 32 (literally a perfect spread with no trouble), I knew he was going to lose the frame. If you see some of the long pots he succeeded on, you will know that he wasn't cuing all that bad at all.

I emailed world snooker and asked them to look into this. As I said, I don't give a hoot about a 100 bucks....but I do care about the integrity of the sports I choose to watch. Hopefully they look into it, because he's apparently been a strong candidate for match fixing before (in fact, after looking at some of the diagrams that the referee of that match brought to fruition, I have no idea how he got off.....then again, Higgins got off too so I guess the big names get passes while guy's like Lee, with virtually no evidence against them, get banned).

I know how Ebdon plays.....something still raises a red flag for me about this match. Did you watch it?


Humm have to disagree with that, there are loads of evidence that point that he is indeed guilty and no matter how much evidence Lee manages to gather in order to prove he's not he won't get away with that 12 year ban, and I hope he does get banned for that period of time because he's an absolute disgrace to the game.

And please don't bring Higgins into this, he served his time and there wasn't anymore evidence proving he should have been banned for longer.

Lee on the other hand as I said fully deserves this ban.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby rocketronnie147

Andre147 PGC wrote:
rocketronnie147 wrote:
Wildey wrote:Peter ebdon when hes not cuing well looks like a hacker he always has.

that's the most disturbing thing about match fixing scandals then rubbish play is questioned


You know what, I hope you're right.....I've seen Ebdon play a lot, and even when he's off form, he grinds a lot. I'll tell you this, after I saw him blow the first 2 frames, I absolutely knew he was going to lose the next 2.....even when he was in the balls and up 32 (literally a perfect spread with no trouble), I knew he was going to lose the frame. If you see some of the long pots he succeeded on, you will know that he wasn't cuing all that bad at all.

I emailed world snooker and asked them to look into this. As I said, I don't give a hoot about a 100 bucks....but I do care about the integrity of the sports I choose to watch. Hopefully they look into it, because he's apparently been a strong candidate for match fixing before (in fact, after looking at some of the diagrams that the referee of that match brought to fruition, I have no idea how he got off.....then again, Higgins got off too so I guess the big names get passes while guy's like Lee, with virtually no evidence against them, get banned).

I know how Ebdon plays.....something still raises a red flag for me about this match. Did you watch it?


Humm have to disagree with that, there are loads of evidence that point that he is indeed guilty and no matter how much evidence Lee manages to gather in order to prove he's not he won't get away with that 12 year ban, and I hope he does get banned for that period of time because he's an absolute disgrace to the game.

And please don't bring Higgins into this, he served his time and there wasn't anymore evidence proving he should have been banned for longer.

Lee on the other hand as I said fully deserves this ban.


Okay, fair enough......I'll leave Lee out of this, but Ebdon, IMO, has shown even more evidence than that of Lee.....If Lee goes, why not Ebdon too? The proof is right there.....and what I just saw today, I mean, I won't say it was fixed.....but it sure seemed weird. I've seen, maybe 40 Ebdon matches. I've never had a feeling like I did today.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby Andre147

Maybe but I really can't see it in this day and age a player deliberately losing a match.

As Wild says, when Ebdon is really on an off day he's like a regular club player, and nowadays performances like that are way more common with him.

I'll have a look at the match and see how it went.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby edwards2000

Losing a frame, or match, and missing easy balls are not proof of guilt (not even close). The accusers of Lee would do well to remember that. The evidence against Lee is largely circumstantial, and we cannot go around blaming people because of a bad match.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby Andre147

Well I had a look at it:

1st frame there didn't seem to be anything wrong, Ebdon lost position on 50 and then missed a tough pink with the rest, Hand after a 30 odd break left him in a difficult snooker and Ebdon couldn't hit the blue 2 and on the 3rd left Hang in and he won the frame from it.

2nd frame again nothing to note...Ebdon started well after Hang missed and was up 60 points but missed a very tough red close to the bottom rail and after he couldn't escape from a good snooker on the blue Hang made a superb clearance of 59 to snatch that frame.

3rd frame again Ebdon starting better with a cracking long red and when on 31 ahead missed a straight black off its spot... but even the top players do every now and again, think he was more focused on retaining position for the next red and forgot the pot, a common error in snooker. Then after Hang closed the gap again Ebdon had a good long one but didn't quite get the snooker behind the pink... but I'll tell you even those snookers may seem very easy on screen but I assure you they're not... the cue ball was close to the cushion and sometimes it's hard to judge the correct pace like he did there. Hang again cleared up to be 3 nil ahead.

4th and last frame yet again Ebdon started with a good long one and was 32 points ahead then missed a blue to left middle, but he was close to the cushion, should have potted that no doubt, but the way he was playing that didn't surprise me. Hang duly won the match from there.

So in short I'm almost 100% sure it wasn't match fixing, it was just a very bad day at the office and you know there are players in which their bad day is way worse than others bad day, such as Ebdon here, Fu, Walden and many others.

It is like Wild said, these Major match fixing scandals like Lee's do tend some to question rubbish play, but here that was what happened, a rubbish performance and a match to forget for Ebdon, nothing else.

Hope this clears up things rocketronnie147.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby rocketronnie147

Andre147 PGC wrote:Well I had a look at it:

1st frame there didn't seem to be anything wrong, Ebdon lost position on 50 and then missed a tough pink with the rest, Hand after a 30 odd break left him in a difficult snooker and Ebdon couldn't hit the blue 2 and on the 3rd left Hang in and he won the frame from it.

2nd frame again nothing to note...Ebdon started well after Hang missed and was up 60 points but missed a very tough red close to the bottom rail and after he couldn't escape from a good snooker on the blue Hang made a superb clearance of 59 to snatch that frame.

3rd frame again Ebdon starting better with a cracking long red and when on 31 ahead missed a straight black off its spot... but even the top players do every now and again, think he was more focused on retaining position for the next red and forgot the pot, a common error in snooker. Then after Hang closed the gap again Ebdon had a good long one but didn't quite get the snooker behind the pink... but I'll tell you even those snookers may seem very easy on screen but I assure you they're not... the cue ball was close to the cushion and sometimes it's hard to judge the correct pace like he did there. Hang again cleared up to be 3 nil ahead.

4th and last frame yet again Ebdon started with a good long one and was 32 points ahead then missed a blue to left middle, but he was close to the cushion, should have potted that no doubt, but the way he was playing that didn't surprise me. Hang duly won the match from there.

So in short I'm almost 100% sure it wasn't match fixing, it was just a very bad day at the office and you know there are players in which their bad day is way worse than others bad day, such as Ebdon here, Fu, Walden and many others.

It is like Wild said, these Major match fixing scandals like Lee's do tend some to question rubbish play, but here that was what happened, a rubbish performance and a match to forget for Ebdon, nothing else.

Hope this clears up things rocketronnie147.


Ok, well I'm glad I got your opinion on the match. For me, it looked very weird. There was something in every frame (at least 1 thing), and he always did it just in time to lose the frame. Again, I don't ever want a match to be fixed.....Thanks for your input.

As another poster said, though, all of the evidence against Lee is circumstantial. I watched the supposed fixed match against Higgins, and there was only 1 shot that entire match that drew my attention (pink to black).....I don't know how any one can be sure he cheated. That would not even go to court due to insufficient evidence, and yet, it was enough to ban him for 12 years.....ah well, I hope the punishment was correct. I got a feeling the ban will be lifted, though. They've never linked him directly to any betting, or any money. Their only proof is "betting patterns" and as you would say, "a bad day at the office".....I guess we'll see how that pans out.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby Ayrshirebhoy

So your saying lee is innocent on your 'I think ebdon is match fixing' thread? If I were you mate I'd save your 100 bucks for beers and strippers. Ebdon is way to unpredictable to be betting on :)

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby rocketronnie147

Ayrshirebhoy wrote:So your saying lee is innocent on your 'I think ebdon is match fixing' thread? If I were you mate I'd save your 100 bucks for beers and strippers. Ebdon is way to unpredictable to be betting on :)


First of all, I never accused Ebdon of match fixing. I may have hinted towards that, but I never said it outright. His loss in 2008, though....I really have no idea how much more evidence you need than that (if circumstantial evidence is sufficient, as it was with Lee's case).

As for Lee, to be quite honest, I have no idea if he's innocent or guilty. I'm not suggesting it one way or the other. What I'm saying, though, is that the evidence is poor at best. As some have already said, citing poor performances and missed shots is not really logical in a game this hard. The betting patterns raise eyebrows, for sure, but with no direct link at all to these betters....You can't just assume these things, it's a person's life and career. What if he is somehow innocent? Think about it. And that's why I brought up Higgins. Though he never actually fixed a match, he was fully intent on doing so and the evidence was right there. I think it sent the wrong message to punish him so lightly for something so important to the sport.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby Ayrshirebhoy

rocketronnie147 wrote:
Ayrshirebhoy wrote:So your saying lee is innocent on your 'I think ebdon is match fixing' thread? If I were you mate I'd save your 100 bucks for beers and strippers. Ebdon is way to unpredictable to be betting on :)


First of all, I never accused Ebdon of match fixing. I may have hinted towards that, but I never said it outright. His loss in 2008, though....I really have no idea how much more evidence you need than that (if circumstantial evidence is sufficient, as it was with Lee's case).

As for Lee, to be quite honest, I have no idea if he's innocent or guilty. I'm not suggesting it one way or the other. What I'm saying, though, is that the evidence is poor at best. As some have already said, citing poor performances and missed shots is not really logical in a game this hard. The betting patterns raise eyebrows, for sure, but with no direct link at all to these betters....You can't just assume these things, it's a person's life and career. What if he is somehow innocent? Think about it. And that's why I brought up Higgins. Though he never actually fixed a match, he was fully intent on doing so and the evidence was right there. I think it sent the wrong message to punish him so lightly for something so important to the sport.


I can't really comment on that because I never read up on them evidence wise. One was found guilty and one wasn't. I was quite happy to accept the hearing guys knew their stuff, even if the decisions had been reversed.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby roy142857

rocketronnie147 wrote:
Ayrshirebhoy wrote:So your saying lee is innocent on your 'I think ebdon is match fixing' thread? If I were you mate I'd save your 100 bucks for beers and strippers. Ebdon is way to unpredictable to be betting on :)


First of all, I never accused Ebdon of match fixing. I may have hinted towards that, but I never said it outright. His loss in 2008, though....I really have no idea how much more evidence you need than that (if circumstantial evidence is sufficient, as it was with Lee's case).

As for Lee, to be quite honest, I have no idea if he's innocent or guilty. I'm not suggesting it one way or the other. What I'm saying, though, is that the evidence is poor at best. As some have already said, citing poor performances and missed shots is not really logical in a game this hard. The betting patterns raise eyebrows, for sure, but with no direct link at all to these betters....You can't just assume these things, it's a person's life and career. What if he is somehow innocent? Think about it. And that's why I brought up Higgins. Though he never actually fixed a match, he was fully intent on doing so and the evidence was right there. I think it sent the wrong message to punish him so lightly for something so important to the sport.


I'm left questioning whether you actually read the independent inquiry report on the Stephen Lee case if you think he had no links to the betters ... or I wonder how close a link you think there should be? 3 sets of betters, one set a group of people known by Lee's manager, one set involving Lee's sponsor and his friends, and the third (not a group) being one of Lee's close friends. Just don't see how you can say there's no direct link.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby Roland

If you read the judgement there's no way you'll think Lee is innocent.

And thanks Andre for clearing up the incorrect and wild suggestion that Ebdon threw this match based on someone losing a bet.

Most people who accuse players of throwing a match in whatever sport have money placed on it.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby rocketronnie147

Sonny wrote:If you read the judgement there's no way you'll think Lee is innocent.

And thanks Andre for clearing up the incorrect and wild suggestion that Ebdon threw this match based on someone losing a bet.

Most people who accuse players of throwing a match in whatever sport have money placed on it.



I simply suggested that it wasn't the Ebdon I'm used to seeing.....then I read up about his history and it made me wonder. Trust me, I wasn't too bothered about the money. I just thought the match was weird and wanted someone else's opinion. That's all, and since you all watched it and think it was just fine.....that makes me feel better about the sport.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby rocketronnie147

roy142857 wrote:
rocketronnie147 wrote:
Ayrshirebhoy wrote:So your saying lee is innocent on your 'I think ebdon is match fixing' thread? If I were you mate I'd save your 100 bucks for beers and strippers. Ebdon is way to unpredictable to be betting on :)


First of all, I never accused Ebdon of match fixing. I may have hinted towards that, but I never said it outright. His loss in 2008, though....I really have no idea how much more evidence you need than that (if circumstantial evidence is sufficient, as it was with Lee's case).

As for Lee, to be quite honest, I have no idea if he's innocent or guilty. I'm not suggesting it one way or the other. What I'm saying, though, is that the evidence is poor at best. As some have already said, citing poor performances and missed shots is not really logical in a game this hard. The betting patterns raise eyebrows, for sure, but with no direct link at all to these betters....You can't just assume these things, it's a person's life and career. What if he is somehow innocent? Think about it. And that's why I brought up Higgins. Though he never actually fixed a match, he was fully intent on doing so and the evidence was right there. I think it sent the wrong message to punish him so lightly for something so important to the sport.


I'm left questioning whether you actually read the independent inquiry report on the Stephen Lee case if you think he had no links to the betters ... or I wonder how close a link you think there should be? 3 sets of betters, one set a group of people known by Lee's manager, one set involving Lee's sponsor and his friends, and the third (not a group) being one of Lee's close friends. Just don't see how you can say there's no direct link.


Do you have a link to this independent inquiry? I tried to find more information, but couldn't. All I've seen is the video footage of a few of the matches that were purported to be fixed. And I've heard a few interviews from Lee, where he said that all the money he's gotten has been accounted for, and that he has no direct ties to anyone that they suggested (that were involved with the betting). I hope he's guilty since he got 12 years. I'm not a fan of his at all, I just want them to be positive when they hand down such a sentence.....

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby edwards2000

The enquiry also doesn't show any evidence for this. So you are taking their word for it. What is a fact is, the police dropped the case because of lack of evidence. That's very telling. The civil cases don't need to prove something beyond reasonable doubt, and in my view, that's a mistake and undemocratic.

I am not in the least impressed by the report. And as I said, much of that is circumstantial at best. I don't know whether Lee did what he is accused of, but the evidence isn't good enough to be talking about it like it is a fact. Hopefully, Lee's appeal will be fairer. Although I'd like these things dealt with by the police and by the courts, not so called independent bodies that are not held accountable by true justice.

In my view, allowing the governing body of the sport itself, and a tribunal, to decide cases is asking for corruption. We get miscarriages of justice even in trials with a full jury, so how on earth can an alternative without jury and full cases be fair?

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby rocketronnie147



Thanks,

I'm about half way through, and yea, though the evidence is all circumstantial, it's pretty bad. The one thing that would absolutely seal this are the phone conversations and texts. I assume these were not possible to retain due to the criminal proceedings being dropped. However, it makes you wonder why criminal proceedings were not followed through? I've seen people get convicted based on circumstantial evidence, and these phone recordings would have really solidified the case.

The one thing that gets me about the timing of the calls is the fact that he would obviously communicate with these people since they are his marketing, managing team, etc....Maybe I haven't gotten to this yet, but if they had shown that he contacted these people before and after these "fixed matches", but didn't before and after most other matches.....well, then that would really look bad on him.

Time to finish the rest.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby Wildey

edwards2000 wrote:Losing a frame, or match, and missing easy balls are not proof of guilt (not even close). The accusers of Lee would do well to remember that. The evidence against Lee is largely circumstantial, and we cannot go around blaming people because of a bad match.

evidence against lee is after years of proof. Its not circumstantial o knee jerk there's a pattern that dates back 5 years over many matches.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby edwards2000

It is circumstantial, which is why the police dropped the case. It simply wouldn't hold up in a proper court. If I dig far enough I could show dodgy games and patterns with Hendry going back 5 years, but all that proves is I can find convenient parts that agree with me. We are entering dangerous territory with this. Even if Lee is guilty, sooner or later this barmy set up is going to ban a genuine player. It's this I object to the most.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby rocketronnie147

Wildey wrote:
edwards2000 wrote:Losing a frame, or match, and missing easy balls are not proof of guilt (not even close). The accusers of Lee would do well to remember that. The evidence against Lee is largely circumstantial, and we cannot go around blaming people because of a bad match.

evidence against lee is after years of proof. Its not circumstantial o knee jerk there's a pattern that dates back 5 years over many matches.


Though as I read this, it seems more than likely that he's guilty of something, for you to say it's not circumstantial is so, so wrong.....the entire case is circumstantial my friend.....Show me one piece of direct evidence! There literally is not one piece of evidence that directly links him to the crime. The circumstantial evidence is strong, for sure, but it's just that, circumstantial. I didn't say it was a knee jerk reaction or anything of the sort. I simply said that though the evidence is strong, it's all getting there in a round about way. As preposterous as this sounds, he could in fact be innocent.

When they showed video of Higgins, for example, that was direct evidence.....you saw him in a video and there was 0 doubt as to what he was doing. There's nothing like that here about Lee.

As I said, the more I go over this case, the more I start to think that he did in fact do something wrong. To what degree or what exactly it was....I'm not positive, but it sure looks bad. However, I can see this being reversed. Does anyone know why they can't listen to his calls or read the texts that were sent? In court, normally if there is sufficient evidence (even circumstantial), they normally allow warrants to attain the records and text messages. Any idea?

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby rocketronnie147

Here's something interesting.....this is what Lee said to the commission (point 74)

There was some suggestion from Mr Lee that the police had records of the actual contents of texts sent by
or to Mr Lee. Mr Lee suggested that the reason the police had decided not to bring charges is that they
knew that the content of the texts exonerated Mr Lee. There was no evidence at all that the police
actually had the content of texts. The WPBSA did not accept that the police actually had the context of
the texts. This operated at the level of assertion only, therefore.

If Lee truly believes this and has nothing to hide, I expect him to ask for these text message contents to be released.....Since he's suggesting there's nothing incriminating in them, and in fact, they exonerate him.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby Skullman

If they can exonerate him, I don't see why Lee can't attempt to release them himself.

And speaking of which there were several financial and managerial documents that Lee apparently possessed that could explain away things like unusual sums of money entering his accounts, and yet he hasn't released them.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby rocketronnie147

The deeper I read into this, the worst it gets, lol. How he spoke to one of the gamblers, and they all made new accounts from the same IP.....I have to say that these guys were not exactly intelligent, lol. Though circumstantial, that's some heavy duty evidence!

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby rocketronnie147

Ok, well, I'm done reading the report. If the penalty was death or freedom, I'd set him free....If the penalty was jail or freedom, I don't know what I would do.....if the penalty were banning him for 12 years or letting him play, I guess I'd have to admit it, I'd ban him. Though nothing directly links him to it, when you put it all together, it just looks like he jeopardized the integrity of the sport for personal gain. I hope that he admits to it and just gives his side of the story. It would put full closure on the whole thing. Too bad....to have all that talent and throw it away.

Re: Ebdon-Hang match

Postby Andre147

rocketronnie147 wrote:Ok, well, I'm done reading the report. If the penalty was death or freedom, I'd set him free....If the penalty was jail or freedom, I don't know what I would do.....if the penalty were banning him for 12 years or letting him play, I guess I'd have to admit it, I'd ban him. Though nothing directly links him to it, when you put it all together, it just looks like he jeopardized the integrity of the sport for personal gain. I hope that he admits to it and just gives his side of the story. It would put full closure on the whole thing. Too bad....to have all that talent and throw it away.


Yeah fully agree, he's a disgrace to this sport and therefore fully deserves the ban that was applied to him. It's like you say, all that telent thrown away just for personal interest, a shame, he had one of the best cue actions ever and this comes at a time when he had rediscovered his best form and won that PTC Grand Finals and was playing great, competing with the top boys. Now all that was for nothing because he can't play until he's 50, and by then like he said even his father will be able to beat him. <laugh>

Any player involved in something like this in the future will just be plain stupid because sonner or later they won't get away with and it will cost them their careers, just like Lee.