Stephen lee betting scadal?

wonderfullife · 24-09-2013 5:47pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Haan 'agreed to it' for an existing ranking tournament, for an imminent match.
Higgins 'agreed to it' for a not yet in existence exhibition tournament.

I think theres a fairly big difference there, definitely not 'the exact same thing' to use your phrase.
******
FWIW I think the NOTW played it badly with Higgins; they should have had an actual down payment of cash and left it with him and his manager for a few months, and should have been agreed for a ranking event to be the one fixed etc.
However they rushed the story through to get it into print on the day of the worlds final, and the whole thing gave him too many escape clauses.

That's a strawman argument though -

Imagine Robbie Keane agreed to match-fix against Sweden.

Then imagine he agreed to match-fix in the 3rd qualification game of the next campaign against as-yet unnamed opponents.

One is an existing fixture, the other is an unknown fixture that should still happen (hence giving him the same opportunity).

Either way what i meant by "exact same thing" - is that the method of entrapment was the same and the broad outline of what both Hann and Higgins agreed to do, was the same. With Hann it was specific to the Doherty match, with Higgins an un-named opponent in a tournament he believed would happen.

If we're getting deeper and technical, there are differences which can explain a different sentence. Hann chose not to defend himself and was "tried" in absentia. Higgins mounted a defence, including mitigating circumstances.

Still a massive disparity in sentence and it's naive to assume this was NOTHING to do with the baggage associated with Hann, compared to the good standing of Higgins in the game.

Also, Hann was harshly treated by other metrics. Peter Francisco got 5 years the 10-2 defeat to White in 1995. Bookies liability on 10-1, 10-0, 10-3 was almost zero, yet 10-2 was backed in from 9/1 into 7/4 before it was suspended with liabilities of 50 grand.

Even allowing for the fact that the actual evidence in that inquiry was thin on the ground (and relied greatly on John Spencers testimony on his shot selections, safety and missed pots), 5 years for actually throwing a game yet 8 years for agreeing verbally to do it ....hardly consistent.

zack01 · 24-09-2013 10:41pm

Higgins had his trial and the over four hours of footage from the NOTW yes four hours not the scraps the paper released with incorrect translation were found to be unfounded hence Higgins was absolved of all charges. Higgins did serve a ban for not informing the authorities about the meeting in Kiev.
Lee on the other hand has been found guilty of several match fixes, several cash deposits have been made into accounts from the matches involved. All records from phone to email have been researched and traced right back to Lee and his associates. From what I've heard it will be five years and that in effect will end his career. I do feel sorry for Lee, he's a nice bloke and I always got on well with him but there is no room for that carry on in the game.

Joe Jogia didn't get off scot free either, he's currently serving a two year ban from the game.

fryup · 25-09-2013 12:30am

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but the difference is that john higgins was a previous world champ, if he was a lowly fringe player like stephen lee he would've got the same punishment (imo)

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I think the NOTW played it badly with Higgins; they should have had an actual down payment of cash and left it with him and his manager for a few months, and should have been agreed for a ranking event to be the one fixed etc.
However they rushed the story through to get it into print on the day of the worlds final, and the whole thing gave him too many escape clauses.

totally agree they had him by the short & curlies, but made a hames of it in the end

zack01 · 25-09-2013 9:51am

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but the difference is that john higgins was a previous world champ, if he was a lowly fringe player like stephen lee he would've got the same punishment (imo)

totally agree they had him by the short & curlies, but made a hames of it in the end

You can't really call Lee a lowly fringe player, the guy was 8th in the world at the time of his ban and enjoying his best results for quite a few years. He was the holder of the PTC Grand Final and was in fact very close to breaking into the too four.

Again the NOTW didn't have anything really, the edited and wrongly translated version released online and to the public was misleading. When the over four hours of video was examined and correctly translated it absolved Hiigins of any wrongdoing. His manager at the time Pat Mooney however was charged and subsequently fired by Higgins for simply arranging such a meeting.

Even after Higgins served his six month ban and still continues to play on the circuit there will always be question marks over his integrity and standing in the game.

giant_midget · 25-09-2013 10:08am

wonderfullife wrote: »

To be fair, Quinten Hanns ban was outrageously unfair when viewed in recent context.

Lets recap: Hann was the victim of a sting by News International. Most of us would have zero time for the News of the World or The Sun in the light of whats gone on in recent years.

Anyway, his crime was admitting on video that he would lose to Ken (Doherty) in the China Open for cash.

He never actually threw any match, never took any money and it never got beyond the "would you do it for money" stage.

For all that he got 8 years.

Compare that to Higgins - he did the exact same thing (filmed by a sting from News International) agreeing in theory that he could throw or "fix" a match and ended up sitting out snooker for 6 months.

Can't help but feel World Snooker wanted shot of Hann. Two court cases over rape allegations probably not the type of fella they wanted on the circuit. But he was massively unlucky getting 8 years when the likes of Joe Jogia and John Higgins got off scot free in comparison.

I think he got 8 years was also due to the fact that he never bothered to turn up to his hearing to defend himself it might have only been 5 years or so... I did quite enjoy watching him play, you never quite knew what kind of form he was in...I doubt he will be back - flights/hotel costs/meals/various expenses no sponsor etc... and he would have had to be practicing really hard the past 8 years and playing matches (which i doubt for some reason)

Far too many up and coming lads now for him to beat.

zack01 · 25-09-2013 10:19am

12 Year Ban and ordered to pay all costs.

That's effectively a life ban.

Statement...

WPBSA Statement - Stephen Lee
25th September 2013

After a hearing that took place between 9th - 11th September 2013, on 16th September 2013 Adam Lewis QC found Stephen Lee was in breach of the 2005 and 2006 WPBSA Members Rule 2.9;

"Stephen Lee is found guilty of "agreeing an arrangement… [and of] …accepting or receiving or offering to receive… payment or… other… benefit… in connection with influencing the outcome or conduct of" each of the seven matches in breach of Rule 2.9."

A hearing was held on 24th September 2013 where submissions on sanction were made by the WPBSA and Stephen Lee.

On 25th September 2013 Adam Lewis QC delivered his decision on sanction in writing.

He concluded that that the appropriate sanction is that Stephen Lee serve a Suspension of twelve years under Rule 12.1(a) of the Disciplinary Rules.

That Suspension is to be calculated from 12 October 2012, when the interim suspension was imposed. Therefore Stephen Lee will not be able to participate in snooker before 12th October 2024.

He has ordered that he should pay a contribution towards those costs of £40,000.

The WPBSA has a zero tolerance approach to match fixing and this is further evidence of our uncompromising approach to dealing with such issues.

Jason Ferguson the Chairman of the WPBSA said: "We take no pride in having to deal with such serious issues. However this demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that snooker is free from corruption. It is an important part of our anti-corruption approach that players found to be involved in fixing matches or any aspect of a match are severely dealt with. We work closely with partners globally and the message we are sending is that if you get involved in match fixing you will be found out and removed from the sport."

Under the WPBSA Disciplinary Rules Stephen Lee has a right to appeal the finding and the sentence imposed.

giant_midget · 25-09-2013 10:47am

zack01 wrote: »

12 Year Ban and ordered to pay all costs.

That's effectively a life ban.

That's the end of that then .

Ineed also £40k fine for legal costs, ouch!

Can he still play 9 ball pool as a pro if he wished to do so?

zack01 · 25-09-2013 10:53am

giant_midget wrote: »

Ineed also £40k fine for legal costs, ouch!

Can he still play 9 ball pool as a pro if he wished to do so?

I'd say that's the only realistic option he has left really. I wouldn't be surprised to see him up roots and move to the states to play nine ball.

wonderfullife · 25-09-2013 11:55am

Obviously he still plays a few money matches here and there, been involved in a couple of the Terry Rodgers tournaments too but the money-match scene is nowhere near what it was in the 80s and 90s.

He's still a very well liked fella though. A lot of people find it hard to understand why he did it but given he's a nice lad i'm sure there'll be a fair few in the snooker world who'll stick by him and give him a few chances if he chooses to hang around.

Wouldn't be surprised in the least if he moves to Ireland though. Seems to like it here, maybe more opportunities to make a bit of cash through snooker here too than in England at present.

StephenHendry · 25-09-2013 3:52pm

i always thought the punishment given out to hann was very severe, 8 years was far too much considering lee has been given 12years, which effectively is the end of his career.

wonderfullife · 25-09-2013 4:58pm

StephenHendry wrote: »

i always thought the punishment given out to hann was very severe, 8 years was far too much considering lee has been given 12years, which effectively is the end of his career.

Lee has lodged an appeal, so i suppose this might be a case where World Snooker sends out the strong message via the 12 year ban which then gets rolled back massively to 5 years on appeal.

I'm pretty sure Lee would have recourse to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) if he wanted it. 12 years is out of sync with previous bans dished out.

It does actually make a difference too. He's only 38. A 5-year ban wouldnt end his career necessarily, plenty are now playing to a high level into their 40s and i wouldnt be surprised at all if Ronnie and Higgins win multiple titles well into their mid-40s.

wonderfullife · 25-09-2013 5:03pm

Lee speaks on camera here:

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

"very angry" and maintains his innocence 100%

lee_baby_simms · 25-09-2013 5:04pm

Fat chance of him winning an appeal.

loyatemu · 25-09-2013 5:28pm

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

Fat chance of him winning an appeal.

I see what you did there...

much money in 9-ball pool?

fryup · 25-09-2013 10:08pm

wonderfullife wrote: »

Lee speaks on camera here:

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

"very angry" and maintains his innocence 100%

very angry?? don't know thought he came across as very composed considering

wonder will he spill the beans on other players/promoters/managers etc....or will this be the beginning to others being exposed??

StephenHendry · 26-09-2013 3:48pm

i expect lee to appeal the ban given to him. 5 or 8 yrs would obviously be a big difference in terms of him realistically returning back to the tour. im sure he can compete in the pool circuit, like quinten hann has done since 06

alang184 · 26-09-2013 10:18pm

When I was reading the quotes from his interview outside his house, I was almost believing he might be innocent. But after watching the video, not a chance. Maybe a bit unfair to read into the body language and the way he speaks, but that's just my resounding impression.

If he's in financial difficulty already, then he would have had a problem anyway, regardless of this ban. He's 38 - he's past his best. How many players keep going competitively and successfully beyond 38? Think of someone like Doherty - he'd made most of his prize money by then. So I don't think the ban has a huge impact, in the long term; most of his prize money should be made by 38 years old.

The real damage may be just reputation - lack of exhibitions, media appearances, coaching etc.

Shame though. And sure this stuff has probably gone on for years. Didn't Alex Higgins mention something about carrying dirty secrets to his grave.

wonderfullife · 27-09-2013 6:16am

fryup wrote: »

very angry?? don't know thought he came across as very composed considering

wonder will he spill the beans on other players/promoters/managers etc....or will this be the beginning to others being exposed??

That was the quote

He was asked if he was angry and he said "very angry".

alang184 wrote: »

When I was reading the quotes from his interview outside his house, I was almost believing he might be innocent. But after watching the video, not a chance. Maybe a bit unfair to read into the body language and the way he speaks, but that's just my resounding impression.

If he's in financial difficulty already, then he would have had a problem anyway, regardless of this ban. He's 38 - he's past his best. How many players keep going competitively and successfully beyond 38? Think of someone like Doherty - he'd made most of his prize money by then. So I don't think the ban has a huge impact, in the long term; most of his prize money should be made by 38 years old.

The real damage may be just reputation - lack of exhibitions, media appearances, coaching etc.

Shame though. And sure this stuff has probably gone on for years. Didn't Alex Higgins mention something about carrying dirty secrets to his grave.

Well you say he's past his best but i'm not so sure.

If anything he's probably in his peak years right now.

If you look at the current top 16, there are only 3 players under the age of 30 (Trump, Allen, Ding). Even the likes of selby, robertson, murphy are all into their early 30s now and people still view them as the "younger" types.

In 2012/2013 season there were 33 tournaments and only 5 were won by a player under the age of 30. More importantly, only 2 of the full ranking events were won by players in their 20s (Mark Allen - World Open, Trump - International Open ....Ding won the PTC Grand Finals).

It's not a young mans game like most sports. Ronnie, Higgins and Williams are still at the top of the game.

So i wouldn't agree he's past his best, necessarily, he could still compete at the top level.

In terms of his career earnings, £2,060,765....you'd think 2 million he'd be comfortable. But when you break that down its not THAT much.

Professional 20 years. So £100,000 a year average before tax. Take £45,000 out of that. So he's left with £55,000 a year. For many of those years as a pro he wouldn't have had massive sponsorship, so you've got years of expenses, flights, hotels, petrol getting to and from tournaments up and down the country etc......

I wouldn't be surprised when you boil it all down if he cleared much more than 35 or 40 grand a year for his entire career. I'm not saying that's chicken feed but 40 grand a year with 4 children and a mortgage isn't rich either. Can definitely understand how he could get into difficulties, irrespective of any outside negatives such as any gambling problems.

zack01 · 27-09-2013 12:27pm

wonderfullife wrote: »

That was the quote He was asked if he was angry and he said "very angry".

Well you say he's past his best but i'm not so sure.

If anything he's probably in his peak years right now.

If you look at the current top 16, there are only 3 players under the age of 30 (Trump, Allen, Ding). Even the likes of selby, robertson, murphy are all into their early 30s now and people still view them as the "younger" types.

In 2012/2013 season there were 33 tournaments and only 5 were won by a player under the age of 30. More importantly, only 2 of the full ranking events were won by players in their 20s (Mark Allen - World Open, Trump - International Open ....Ding won the PTC Grand Finals).

It's not a young mans game like most sports. Ronnie, Higgins and Williams are still at the top of the game.

So i wouldn't agree he's past his best, necessarily, he could still compete at the top level.

In terms of his career earnings, £2,060,765....you'd think 2 million he'd be comfortable. But when you break that down its not THAT much.

Professional 20 years. So £100,000 a year average before tax. Take £45,000 out of that. So he's left with £55,000 a year. For many of those years as a pro he wouldn't have had massive sponsorship, so you've got years of expenses, flights, hotels, petrol getting to and from tournaments up and down the country etc......

I wouldn't be surprised when you boil it all down if he cleared much more than 35 or 40 grand a year for his entire career. I'm not saying that's chicken feed but 40 grand a year with 4 children and a mortgage isn't rich either. Can definitely understand how he could get into difficulties, irrespective of any outside negatives such as any gambling problems.

You can look at it whatever way you want the simple fact is he's a cheat and has been rightly punished. There are plenty of players below him in the rankings who have the same expenses etc yet none of them have stooped to the level Lee went to.

The funny thing Lee up until his ban was enjoying probably his best snooker in years but several years back when the game was on its knees Lee was one of many who struggled to make any income at all,and it was at this time the gambling on Lee's fixed matches took place. He struggled with his game , and with only six tournaments a season match practice was hard to come by. Then Barry Hearn comes in and almost overnight changes the professional game. Lee was in fact one of the players who benefitted most from the change and with over 30 events in the first season under Hearns rule and more money to be won Lee once again climbed the rankings and his game began to flourish again.

As I said earlier it's a huge pity and although the ban some will believe to be harsh I believe he got of lightly. We are not talking about an isolated incident but seven. The pro game has never been healthier and the sponsors are queuing up to invest, the last thing it needs is cheats.

StephenHendry · 27-09-2013 12:33pm

alang184 wrote: »

When I was reading the quotes from his interview outside his house, I was almost believing he might be innocent. But after watching the video, not a chance. Maybe a bit unfair to read into the body language and the way he speaks, but that's just my resounding impression.

If he's in financial difficulty already, then he would have had a problem anyway, regardless of this ban. He's 38 - he's past his best. How many players keep going competitively and successfully beyond 38? Think of someone like Doherty - he'd made most of his prize money by then. So I don't think the ban has a huge impact, in the long term; most of his prize money should be made by 38 years old.

The real damage may be just reputation - lack of exhibitions, media appearances, coaching etc.

Shame though. And sure this stuff has probably gone on for years. Didn't Alex Higgins mention something about carrying dirty secrets to his grave.

imo lee was having a really good season, last season that is before he was suspended. he had recently won the ptc grand finals, and was ranked no. 8. he would be capables still of a few more ranking titles , certainly a couple of PTCs. he had a great cueing action and with 5 ranking titles, highest ranking of no. 5, he's had a good career and perhaps should have won more given his talent

bradolf pittler · 27-09-2013 1:12pm

What are the odds on him turning out for Navan or Terry Rodgers in Killarney this year??????

Rjd2 · 27-09-2013 2:25pm

fryup wrote: »

very angry?? don't know thought he came across as very composed considering

wonder will he spill the beans on other players/promoters/managers etc....or will this be the beginning to others being exposed??

Doubt it, unless he has hard evidence, he would be get in serious legal hassle if he started accusing others and I doubt his finances which would have been stretched after this would be able for it. I imagine he will say its widespread but won't give names or anything that could get him in to much hassle.

StephenHendry wrote: »

i always thought the punishment given out to hann was very severe, 8 years was far too much considering lee has been given 12years, which effectively is the end of his career.

To be fair they were probably just totally fed up with him at that time, always in trouble would have been a smaller ban I reckon if he was squeaky clean before that I reckon.

wonderfullife · 09-10-2013 10:18pm

Steve Lee live on Talksport now for an hour giving his version of events

zack01 · 10-10-2013 9:04am

wonderfullife wrote: »

Steve Lee live on Talksport now for an hour giving his version of events

Listened to it and to be honest Lee is beginning to sound very desperate.

Not a big fan of the Daily Mail but Matt Lawtons piece sums it up really ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2451533/Stupid-weak-greedy-Behind-flash-cars-boozy-lifestyle-Lee-lived-lie--Matt-Lawton.html

StephenHendry · 21-10-2013 2:48pm

he has no chance with the appeal zack, like you say it just gets worse with him trying to defend himself, such a wasted talent, with his cue action he could have been a great, who knows

ArmaniJeanss · 17-05-2014 11:47am

Bump.
*****
Lost his appeal yesterday, predictably enough. Costs against him increased from £40K to £75K. In truth it might as well be £75M for all the chances of him being able to pay.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/may/15/stephen-lee-fails-appeal-match-fixing

Also charged on Monday with 'fraud by false representation' in the sale of a snooker cue. No more details in the article really.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-27347766

a148pro · 25-08-2014 12:14am

So he wasn't even convicted of the Higgins match in the end?

Very odd shots at the end - why didn't he just throw it earlier in the break?

Stephen lee betting scadal?

Comments