-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Badsnookerplayer » 15 Mar 2017 Read
I would have thought he would have been aware of the Alfie Burden case...
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by PoolBoy » 15 Mar 2017 Read
Yeah, not great news for Stuart Bingham. He'll probably get a short ban sometime next season.
I don't believe a word of his 'defence' that he didn't realise a professional snooker player couldn't gamble on the outcome of matches between his fellow-pros!
There's obviously the opportunity for 'collusion', so it is rightly barred - sorry Bingo; although I'm not accusing you of cheating, I'm not 'buying' your naivety defence!
-
PoolBoy
- Posts: 1559
- Joined: 14 April 2014
- Location: Inverness
by SnookerFan » 15 Mar 2017 Read
Stupid thing for Bingham to do really. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.
I can believe he didn't mean any harm. But a really, really stupid thing for him to do.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 150745
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Cloud Strife » 15 Mar 2017 Read
Rules are rules, so Bingham will have to accept whatever comes his way. I'm sure he knew what he was doing, pleading ignorance won't cut it. However, I do have some sympathy with Bingham as I think the rules are silly and overly controlling, IMO.
I wonder how he got caught though. Did someone grass him up?
-
Cloud Strife
- Posts: 18548
- Joined: 28 January 2014
- Location: Antarctica
- Snooker Idol: Roger Federer
- Highest Break: 155
- Walk-On: Don Vedda - buck You
-
by SnookerFan » 16 Mar 2017 Read
Surely he knew what the rules were though?
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 150745
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Badsnookerplayer » 16 Mar 2017 Read
He absolutely must have known the rules and it does not add up for him to claim that he thought only bets on other players were disallowed:
1. Precedent of others being banned - he must know of this.
2. It is blindingly obvious. If I am a friend of a player then there is potential for me to try to influence his play and bet on it.
I reckon he thought he would get away with it as there was no 'flurry' of suspicious betting just one accumulator.
Own up Bingo.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Andre147 » 16 Mar 2017 Read
Badsnookerplayer wrote:He absolutely must have known the rules and it does not add up for him to claim that he thought only bets on other players were disallowed:
1. Precedent of others being banned - he must know of this.
2. It is blindingly obvious. If I am a friend of a player then there is potential for me to try to influence his play and bet on it.
I reckon he thought he would get away with it as there was no 'flurry' of suspicious betting just one accumulator.
Own up Bingo.
Fully agree with your post, it was impossible for him not to know this would have consequences, and the 2 points you make are well accurate.
-
Andre147
- Posts: 41792
- Joined: 09 October 2011
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie and Luca
- Highest Break: 27
- Walk-On: Spies - Coldplay
by kolompar » 17 Mar 2017 Read
He also says he used someone else's account. Very suspicious. I say ban him for life
-
kolompar
- Posts: 1904
- Joined: 13 July 2012
- Snooker Idol: Tony Drago
- Highest Break: 25
by Cloud Strife » 17 Mar 2017 Read
kolompar wrote:He also says he used someone else's account. Very suspicious. I say ban him for life
This just makes it sound like he knew exactly what he was doing and what the rules are regarding what he was doing, but was hoping he wouldn't get caught by using someone else's account.
-
Cloud Strife
- Posts: 18548
- Joined: 28 January 2014
- Location: Antarctica
- Snooker Idol: Roger Federer
- Highest Break: 155
- Walk-On: Don Vedda - buck You
-
by TheSaviour » 18 Mar 2017 Read
That´s awful news. I found Bingham the most intriguing player there just is. If he gets just a short ban it won´t be problem to him, ranking wise. He is that much good. If he plays in 5 tournaments, he is basically guaranteed to have at least 2 two deep runs. No other player can take things and it that much guaranteed. Perhaps that´s why he was so careless. I just thought he might get some kind of a fine, not a ban.
Stuart is so gritty that it is almost a joke. Some other players can make some incredible things while being bigged up and their matches have been marketing well. So they answer well when there is some pressure. That´s good. But they make those things when there are optimal conditions. I don´t know if things have been thought over and predicted optimally, these days. But that´s a different thing comparing to having more or less optimal conditions. Which nowadays Barry Hearn and cos can very well arrange.
So I am just saying Stuart was careless. But he can afford to do that.
-
TheSaviour
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: 27 May 2014
- Location: Vandalising is boring when you have nothing to say.
- Snooker Idol: At times David Gilbert.
- Highest Break: 147
by Holden Chinaski » 18 Mar 2017 Read
I find it hard to believe Bingham did not know this could get him in trouble. He's a professional snooker players FFS. Surely he and his entourage know it's not a good idea to bet on matches, even if it's not your own matches....
-
Holden Chinaski
- Posts: 30131
- Joined: 26 July 2013
- Location: Belgium
- Snooker Idol: The Belgiums
- Walk-On: A little less conversation - Elvis
by Pink Ball » 18 Mar 2017 Read
Cloud Strife wrote:kolompar wrote:He also says he used someone else's account. Very suspicious. I say ban him for life
This just makes it sound like he knew exactly what he was doing and what the rules are regarding what he was doing, but was hoping he wouldn't get caught by using someone else's account.
Where does it say this? That doesn't sound good at all.
-
Pink Ball
- Posts: 22309
- Joined: 07 April 2015
- Location: Galway city, Ireland
- Snooker Idol: You are a banker
- Walk-On: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfgIUiCiUQ
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Badsnookerplayer » 18 Mar 2017 Read
Now this is interesting...
Go to Bingo's website
http://stuartbingham.uk.com/ and search for 'betting'. There is a statement on his own case but he also comments on Leo Fernandez' ban in which he states:
"I think betting gives players lower down the rankings a chance to get a bit of money on the side.
"But I've spoken to snooker's chief of anti-corruption Nigel Mawer and he says they monitor all the betting patterns and all of the shots - so you are not going to get away with it and it is just not worth it."
It seems that he is speaking more about match-fixing but it seems implausible that he was unaware that he may not place a bet. I like Bingo and think he needs to proceed with transparency and honesty so as not to tarnish his reputation any further.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Holden Chinaski » 19 Mar 2017 Read
WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!
-
Holden Chinaski
- Posts: 30131
- Joined: 26 July 2013
- Location: Belgium
- Snooker Idol: The Belgiums
- Walk-On: A little less conversation - Elvis
by Stookey » 05 Apr 2017 Read
Dan-cat wrote:Ban him till he's 50!!
Agreed, he can't be trusted.
Last edited by
Stookey on 04 Aug 2017, edited 1 time in total.
-
Stookey
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 04 April 2017
by SnookerFan » 05 Apr 2017 Read
Holden Chinaski wrote:WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 150745
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-