by Ck147 » 01 Nov 2019 Read
BSP, don't push it, don't push it or you'll get a war you won't believe, let it go, let it go.
-
Ck147
- Posts: 10607
- Joined: 17 February 2019
- Location: Just outside London
- Snooker Idol: Neil Robertson
- Highest Break: 16
- Walk-On: Clubbed to Death
by Pink Ball » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Ck147 wrote:BSP, don't push it, don't push it or you'll get a war you won't believe, let it go, let it go.
This is like McLovin begging Mike Tyson to bring it on
-
Pink Ball
- Posts: 22258
- Joined: 07 April 2015
- Location: Galway city, Ireland
- Snooker Idol: You are a banker
- Walk-On: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfgIUiCiUQ
by Ck147 » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Pink Ball wrote:Ck147 wrote:BSP, don't push it, don't push it or you'll get a war you won't believe, let it go, let it go.
This is like McLovin begging Mike Tyson to bring it on
-
Ck147
- Posts: 10607
- Joined: 17 February 2019
- Location: Just outside London
- Snooker Idol: Neil Robertson
- Highest Break: 16
- Walk-On: Clubbed to Death
by Badsnookerplayer » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Ck147 wrote:BSP, don't push it, don't push it or you'll get a war you won't believe, let it go, let it go.
Nothing is over
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Badsnookerplayer » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Dan-cat wrote:Baddy is jesting.
Well there is a point in there. I think it is very likely that the guilty verdict was correct.
It always felt they needed to provide evidence of deliberate missed shots or fluffed safeties. The fact that they could not do this did feel unsatisfactory. I will have a look at the link Pinkball sent as I don't think I ever did this at the time.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Ash147 » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Pink Ball wrote:Badsnookerplayer wrote:An impressive copy and paste affair then.
I repeat - show me one shot - just one - that you think indicates a deliberate miss.
Surely can't be that hard to find. Then I will be satisfied.
But you won't be able to.
Not one shred
Here’s a frame full of them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ky0HKesFOT0
There's no evidence to suggest that he was deliberately missing there. In fact, Hendry was missing easier shots than Lee. I think that it was just a poor frame of Snooker.
-
Ash147
- Posts: 8136
- Joined: 14 November 2018
- Walk-On: Baby Shark Doo Doo
by Ck147 » 01 Nov 2019 Read
He's not going to look like he's deliberately missing now is he...come on. He's definitely a crafty one that big fella, could see it in his eyes, guilty as hell.
-
Ck147
- Posts: 10607
- Joined: 17 February 2019
- Location: Just outside London
- Snooker Idol: Neil Robertson
- Highest Break: 16
- Walk-On: Clubbed to Death
by Iranu » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Ash147 wrote:Pink Ball wrote:Badsnookerplayer wrote:An impressive copy and paste affair then.
I repeat - show me one shot - just one - that you think indicates a deliberate miss.
Surely can't be that hard to find. Then I will be satisfied.
But you won't be able to.
Not one shred
Here’s a frame full of them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ky0HKesFOT0
There's no evidence to suggest that he was deliberately missing there. In fact, Hendry was missing easier shots than Lee. I think that it was just a poor frame of Snooker.
To be fair what evidence would you expect to see? A fistpump every time he misses?
-
Iranu
- Posts: 41172
- Joined: 24 January 2010
- Walk-On: Fort Knox - Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds
by Ash147 » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Iranu wrote:Ash147 wrote:Pink Ball wrote:Badsnookerplayer wrote:An impressive copy and paste affair then.
I repeat - show me one shot - just one - that you think indicates a deliberate miss.
Surely can't be that hard to find. Then I will be satisfied.
But you won't be able to.
Not one shred
Here’s a frame full of them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ky0HKesFOT0
There's no evidence to suggest that he was deliberately missing there. In fact, Hendry was missing easier shots than Lee. I think that it was just a poor frame of Snooker.
To be fair what evidence would you expect to see? A fistpump every time he misses?
I'm just saying that there was nothing in that frame that wouldn't occur in any other frame of Snooker.
-
Ash147
- Posts: 8136
- Joined: 14 November 2018
- Walk-On: Baby Shark Doo Doo
by Badsnookerplayer » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Well that's what I mean really. I have not watched the link yet but to say he is guilty because you can see it in his eyes does not cut it when a player has lost his livelihood. To restate, I think the circumstantial evidence is pretty convincing. My point is not that he was innocent - rather that there is no 'smoking gun'.
I do understand that if you are a professional player then it is easy to mess up without it being obvious.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Pink Ball » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Ash147 wrote:Pink Ball wrote:Badsnookerplayer wrote:An impressive copy and paste affair then.
I repeat - show me one shot - just one - that you think indicates a deliberate miss.
Surely can't be that hard to find. Then I will be satisfied.
But you won't be able to.
Not one shred
Here’s a frame full of them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ky0HKesFOT0
There's no evidence to suggest that he was deliberately missing there. In fact, Hendry was missing easier shots than Lee. I think that it was just a poor frame of Snooker.
There is, though. There were irregular betting patterns suggesting he might lose that frame. He played very poorly, and lost the frame, as irregular betting patterns suggested he would.
In isolation, no big deal. But that there were SIX other instances where this happened and the result went as the irregular betting patterns suggested they would... don’t be bucking daft.
-
Pink Ball
- Posts: 22258
- Joined: 07 April 2015
- Location: Galway city, Ireland
- Snooker Idol: You are a banker
- Walk-On: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfgIUiCiUQ
by Pink Ball » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Badsnookerplayer wrote:Well that's what I mean really. I have not watched the link yet but to say he is guilty because you can see it in his eyes does not cut it when a player has lost his livelihood. To restate, I think the circumstantial evidence is pretty convincing. My point is not that he was innocent - rather that there is no 'smoking gun'.
I do understand that if you are a professional player then it is easy to mess up without it being obvious.
People who are up to bad carry on aren’t known to make it obvious that they’re doing so.
-
Pink Ball
- Posts: 22258
- Joined: 07 April 2015
- Location: Galway city, Ireland
- Snooker Idol: You are a banker
- Walk-On: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfgIUiCiUQ
by Ash147 » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Pink Ball wrote:Ash147 wrote:Pink Ball wrote:Badsnookerplayer wrote:An impressive copy and paste affair then.
I repeat - show me one shot - just one - that you think indicates a deliberate miss.
Surely can't be that hard to find. Then I will be satisfied.
But you won't be able to.
Not one shred
Here’s a frame full of them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ky0HKesFOT0
There's no evidence to suggest that he was deliberately missing there. In fact, Hendry was missing easier shots than Lee. I think that it was just a poor frame of Snooker.
There is, though. There were irregular betting patterns suggesting he might lose that frame. He played very poorly, and lost the frame, as irregular betting patterns suggested he would.
In isolation, no big deal. But that there were SIX other instances where this happened and the result went as the irregular betting patterns suggested they would... don’t be bucking daft.
Coincidences.
-
Ash147
- Posts: 8136
- Joined: 14 November 2018
- Walk-On: Baby Shark Doo Doo
by Badsnookerplayer » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Pink Ball wrote:Badsnookerplayer wrote:Well that's what I mean really. I have not watched the link yet but to say he is guilty because you can see it in his eyes does not cut it when a player has lost his livelihood. To restate, I think the circumstantial evidence is pretty convincing. My point is not that he was innocent - rather that there is no 'smoking gun'.
I do understand that if you are a professional player then it is easy to mess up without it being obvious.
People who are up to bad carry on aren’t known to make it obvious that they’re doing so.
Of course but not always.
Remember Burnett vs Maguire
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Pink Ball » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Ash147 wrote:Pink Ball wrote:Ash147 wrote:Pink Ball wrote:Badsnookerplayer wrote:An impressive copy and paste affair then.
I repeat - show me one shot - just one - that you think indicates a deliberate miss.
Surely can't be that hard to find. Then I will be satisfied.
But you won't be able to.
Not one shred
Here’s a frame full of them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ky0HKesFOT0
There's no evidence to suggest that he was deliberately missing there. In fact, Hendry was missing easier shots than Lee. I think that it was just a poor frame of Snooker.
There is, though. There were irregular betting patterns suggesting he might lose that frame. He played very poorly, and lost the frame, as irregular betting patterns suggested he would.
In isolation, no big deal. But that there were SIX other instances where this happened and the result went as the irregular betting patterns suggested they would... don’t be bucking daft.
Coincidences.
Extraordinary coincidences.
-
Pink Ball
- Posts: 22258
- Joined: 07 April 2015
- Location: Galway city, Ireland
- Snooker Idol: You are a banker
- Walk-On: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfgIUiCiUQ
by SnookerFan » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Ash147 wrote:Coincidences.
It's a rather large coincidence if he keeps fluffing routine shots at a time that several supposedly unrelated people have put on bets of several thousand pounds.
Maybe if one punter put on a large bet, and the player he bet on to lose missed a difficult frame ball, I'd believe it was a coincidence.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 149860
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by gallantrabbit » 01 Nov 2019 Read
It's very clear Lee was at it. Only not as clear as Burnett being at it. Gawd how he got away with that I don't know...
-
gallantrabbit
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: 08 February 2010
- Location: são paulo
- Snooker Idol: forever jimmy
- Highest Break: 134
by Pink Ball » 01 Nov 2019 Read
SnookerFan wrote:Ash147 wrote:Coincidences.
It's a rather large coincidence if he keeps fluffing routine shots at a time that several supposedly unrelated people have put on bets of several thousand pounds.
Maybe if one punter put on a large bet, and the player he bet on to lose missed a difficult frame ball, I'd believe it was a coincidence.
A coincidence that happened seven times.
-
Pink Ball
- Posts: 22258
- Joined: 07 April 2015
- Location: Galway city, Ireland
- Snooker Idol: You are a banker
- Walk-On: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfgIUiCiUQ
by SnookerFan » 01 Nov 2019 Read
gallantrabbit wrote:It's very clear Lee was at it. Only not as clear as Burnett being at it. Gawd how he got away with that I don't know...
If Burnett was at it, Maguire was too.
They were either both in on it, or neither were.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 149860
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Dan-cat » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Badsnookerplayer wrote:Well that's what I mean really. I have not watched the link yet but to say he is guilty because you can see it in his eyes does not cut it when a player has lost his livelihood. To restate, I think the circumstantial evidence is pretty convincing. My point is not that he was innocent - rather that there is no 'smoking gun'.
I do understand that if you are a professional player then it is easy to mess up without it being obvious.
I think the large payments into his wife's bank account the day after losing were quite damning.
-
Dan-cat
- Posts: 31402
- Joined: 20 August 2013
- Location: Shoreditch, London
- Snooker Idol: The Rocket + The Nugget
- Highest Break: 53
- Walk-On: www.instagram.com/dan_cat
-
by SnookerFan » 01 Nov 2019 Read
Dan-cat wrote:Badsnookerplayer wrote:Well that's what I mean really. I have not watched the link yet but to say he is guilty because you can see it in his eyes does not cut it when a player has lost his livelihood. To restate, I think the circumstantial evidence is pretty convincing. My point is not that he was innocent - rather that there is no 'smoking gun'.
I do understand that if you are a professional player then it is easy to mess up without it being obvious.
I think the large payments into his wife's bank account the day after losing were quite damning.
What?
His wife was losing snooker matches for money as well?
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 149860
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Wildey » 06 Nov 2019 Read
And then he was going to take World Snooker to court.
well that petered out in to ummmmmmm NOTHING.
if there was insufficient evidence no court in the land would have backed World Snooker and he knew that well after his solicitor told him anyway. but if the evident was there he would have lost the same case twice and his reputation really screwed.
as it is there are still a few gullible people some on here that still think hes innocent and he was banking on that to try and get his career back on track.
-
Wildey
- Posts: 64323
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: North Wales
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: the one and only
by Johnny Bravo » 06 Nov 2019 Read
Wildey wrote:And then he was going to take World Snooker to court.
well that petered out in to ummmmmmm NOTHING.
if there was insufficient evidence no court in the land would have backed World Snooker and he knew that well after his solicitor told him anyway. but if the evident was there he would have lost the same case twice and his reputation really screwed.
as it is there are still a few gullible people some on here that still think hes innocent and he was banking on that to try and get his career back on track.
So what if he conceded a few frames, I still want him back. I like the way he played.
-
Johnny Bravo
- Posts: 7401
- Joined: 24 November 2016
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie O Sullivan
- Highest Break: 122
by Iranu » 06 Nov 2019 Read
Johnny Bravo wrote:Wildey wrote:And then he was going to take World Snooker to court.
well that petered out in to ummmmmmm NOTHING.
if there was insufficient evidence no court in the land would have backed World Snooker and he knew that well after his solicitor told him anyway. but if the evident was there he would have lost the same case twice and his reputation really screwed.
as it is there are still a few gullible people some on here that still think hes innocent and he was banking on that to try and get his career back on track.
So what if he conceded a few frames, I still want him back. I like the way he played.
-
Iranu
- Posts: 41172
- Joined: 24 January 2010
- Walk-On: Fort Knox - Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds
by SnookerFan » 07 Nov 2019 Read
Wildey wrote:And then he was going to take World Snooker to court.
well that petered out in to ummmmmmm NOTHING.
if there was insufficient evidence no court in the land would have backed World Snooker and he knew that well after his solicitor told him anyway. but if the evident was there he would have lost the same case twice and his reputation really screwed.
as it is there are still a few gullible people some on here that still think hes innocent and he was banking on that to try and get his career back on track.
Yeah, Stephen Lee is a bellend.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 149860
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-