Ayrshirebhoy wrote:As a Higgins fan, when 'that' video first came out I was shocked and thought, that's the end for you John. However, as time went on it seemed to be only one side of the story and when the news of the world refused to hand over the unedited version I knew he was innocent of match fixing. Stupid yes but even Ronnie said in his he has been approached before. i also refuse to believe the governing body would be so corrupt to hide facts to keep a player on the tour. So I trust the governing body to have sufficient reason to find him not guilty just as I trust they had good reason to find Stephen lee guilty. If the 2 judgements had been reversed and if it was lee who was still playing I would have had no problem with that. If you can't trust what the top men in a sport are saying it's probably time to move on. That's why I'm not such a big football fan anymore.
They found Higgins not guilty because he hadn't fixed a match, simple as that. They made the correct call. I'm not accusing World snooker of wrongdoing!
They could have, and did, find him guilty of giving the impression he would breach betting rules. The reason Sullivan got in no trouble for not reporting the approach made to him is because it only became knowledge years later, and Sullivan hadn't fixed a match. Only Higgins knows if he would or wouldn't have fixed a match. But I think if they found he 'gave the impression he'd breach rules' he should have received a tougher punishment. But I'm not accusing World Snooker of wrongdoing on that point.
I also agree that there's no comparison between Higgins' and Lee's cases. Lee DID fix matches. The comparable case was with Hann, but he put up no fight so that's also different.