John Higgins match fixing claims

zack01

The allegations of matchfixing were withdrawn by the WSA after a full investigation by the independent tribunal found no substance in the charge.

Lemegeton

zack01 wrote: »

The allegations of matchfixing were withdrawn by the WSA after a full investigation by the independent tribunal found no substance in the charge.

thats total bull****. this is what Hearn himself said


"It was felt that the match-fixing (charge) could be challenged legally because the matches involved were not under the auspices of World Snooker: it was an independent, private event," said Hearn.

"It fell outside the rules of the World Snooker Association.


that does not mean there was no substance in the charge. how can anyone look at the video of the meeting and deem there was no substance in the charge. thats just nonsense.

Myrddin

zack01 wrote: »

The allegations of matchfixing were withdrawn by the WSA after a full investigation by the independent tribunal found no substance in the charge.

Lemegeton wrote: »

thats total bull****. this is what Hearn himself said


"It was felt that the match-fixing (charge) could be challenged legally because the matches involved were not under the auspices of World Snooker: it was an independent, private event," said Hearn.

"It fell outside the rules of the World Snooker Association.


that does not mean there was no substance in the charge. how can anyone look at the video of the meeting and deem there was no substance in the charge. thats just nonsense.

Appreciate your info here Zack, all of us do. Your our window into the inner workings sometimes and your a great contributer here, but Lemegeton's point is wholly prevailent here. How can the video evidence be deemed as having no substance? I mean, John Higgins is on video tape agreeing to drop frames...you simply don't get any more concrete than that. Now by all accounts, he could certainly have been in genuine fear while doing it...but the point is we will now never know. It's a huge kick in the teeth for John proving his innocence, from my point of view.

All I can conclude, is that the game simply couldn't afford a scandal of this magnatude...and supports the theory that this is widespread in the game. I still actually feel sorry for Steve Davis, this breaking not long after that cracker of a match...

Lemegeton

EnterNow wrote: »

Now by all accounts, he could certainly have been in genuine fear while doing it...but the point is we will now never know.

his demeanour and body language give the impression of someone who is very comfortable with the conversation IMO. If he was just acting then he deserves an oscar.

seadnamac

Lemegeton wrote: »

thats total bull****. this is what Hearn himself said


"It was felt that the match-fixing (charge) could be challenged legally because the matches involved were not under the auspices of World Snooker: it was an independent, private event," said Hearn.

"It fell outside the rules of the World Snooker Association.


that does not mean there was no substance in the charge. how can anyone look at the video of the meeting and deem there was no substance in the charge. thats just nonsense.

Typical internet expert. An INDEPENDANT tribunal has looked at ALL the evidence and decided that the allegations of match fixing do not stand up. You are basing your entire damning conclusion on one piece of the evidence, a heavily edited video made by a newspaper who's sole motive is to sell copy. Not justice or fairness or anything else, just selling copy. There have also been serious questions raised regarding this video. Have a read of these.

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/09/03/in-pictures-analysis-of-evidence-in-news-of-the-world%E2%80%99s-snooker-%E2%80%98match-fix%E2%80%99-case-030901/

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/05/18/new-concerns-over-editing-of-higgins-sting-video-as-fake-website-cover-up-continues-180501/

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/05/03/revealed-the-tale-behind-the-snooker-sting-that-leaves-higgins-in-the-fight-of-his-life-030501/

Out of all the high profile stings that this newspaper claims to uncover, they rarely seem to amount to anything. That tells it's own story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/sep/03/news-of-world-entrapment-sport

seadnamac

Lemegeton wrote: »

his demeanour and body language give the impression of someone who is very comfortable with the conversation IMO. If he was just acting then he deserves an oscar.

Unless you know the man on a very personal level, you have absolutely no point of reference whatsoever as to what his demeanour and body language should or should not be. Nothing but mindless speculation. Especially considering there were large amounts of alcohol involved.

Lemegeton

seadnamac wrote: »

Typical internet expert. An INDEPENDANT tribunal has looked at ALL the evidence and decided that the allegations of match fixing do not stand up. You are basing your entire damning conclusion on one piece of the evidence, a heavily edited video made by a newspaper who's sole motive is to sell copy. Not justice or fairness or anything else, just selling copy. There have also been serious questions raised regarding this video. Have a read of these.

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/09/03/in-pictures-analysis-of-evidence-in-news-of-the-world%E2%80%99s-snooker-%E2%80%98match-fix%E2%80%99-case-030901/

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/05/18/new-concerns-over-editing-of-higgins-sting-video-as-fake-website-cover-up-continues-180501/

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/05/03/revealed-the-tale-behind-the-snooker-sting-that-leaves-higgins-in-the-fight-of-his-life-030501/

Out of all the high profile stings that this newspaper claims to uncover, they rarely seem to amount to anything. That tells it's own story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/sep/03/news-of-world-entrapment-sport

the video was edited just to show the most damaging bits from the meeting. so ****ing what. they did not fabricate john higgins being there and discussing throwing frames and then suggesting he uses a second mortage to hide the money, this to me is not the behaviour of someone who is just playing along. John higgins has already admitted saying what the video accuses him of. his story of just playing along and being uncomfortable just does not fit. and like i already posted the charge was not dropped because it was found not to stand up.

"It was felt that the match-fixing (charge) could be challenged legally because the matches involved were not under the auspices of World Snooker: it was an independent, private event," said Hearn.

"It fell outside the rules of the World Snooker Association.

seadnamac wrote: »

Unless you know the man on a very personal level, you have absolutely no point of reference whatsoever as to what his demeanour and body language should or should not be

oh im sorry. John higgins obviously laughs,smiles and makes jokes when he is in fear of his life. i misjudged him :rolleyes:. whats your point of reference as to how he would behave in that situation.

you are entitled to your opinion and if you want to believe he is innocent then nobody can change your mind. as far as i am concerned this stinks to high heaven.

Myrddin

seadnamac wrote: »

Typical internet expert. An INDEPENDANT tribunal has looked at ALL the evidence and decided that the allegations of match fixing do not stand up. You are basing your entire damning conclusion on one piece of the evidence, a heavily edited video made by a newspaper who's sole motive is to sell copy. Not justice or fairness or anything else, just selling copy. There have also been serious questions raised regarding this video. Have a read of these.

Your calling him an internet expert, and then quoting links to an internet site yourself? Nobody is professing to be an expert here, we were denied the oppurtunity to hear John argue his case against the video. What we got instead, was a note he read out that was written by his PR man. If that's good enough for you then so be it, but I find it sorely lacking.

He's on tape agreeing to throw frames, and on tape deciding the best method to account for any payoff (2nd mortgage, house in Spain)...How anyone can think these points have no substance to warrant a charge of match-fixing beggars belief. And if the 'video is edited with wrong words' theory is to hold, why didn't John raise this point after he first saw the video? Again, I'm not wholly convinced either way, but to deny match fixing charges in the hearing is just wrong.

seadnamac

Lemegeton wrote: »

and like i already posted the charge was not dropped because it was found not to stand up.

"It was felt that the match-fixing (charge) could be challenged legally because the matches involved were not under the auspices of World Snooker: it was an independent, private event," said Hearn.

"It fell outside the rules of the World Snooker Association.

Except that Hearn is referring to the charges against MOONEY and not Higgins. Did you even read the article?

Hearn; "Had that technicality not existed, they would have charged Mr.Mooney with everything."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/snooker/8983814.stm

You need to look beyond sensationalist headlines and out of context quotes when damning somebody.

Lemegeton

seadnamac wrote: »

Except that Hearn is referring to the charges against MOONEY and not Higgins. Did you even read the article?

Hearn; "Had that technicality not existed, they would have charged Mr.Mooney with everything."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/snooker/8983814.stm

You need to look beyond sensationalist headlines and out of context quotes when damning somebody.

if they cant bring the charge against mooney then the same reasoning holds for Higgins. why would they bother bringing it against one and not the other. Mooney had been to other meeting previous to this and discussed the throwing of frames so if they could not even charge mooney with it because of this technicality they could never hope to charge Higgins.

seadnamac

EnterNow wrote: »

He's on tape agreeing to throw frames, and on tape deciding the best method to account for any payoff (2nd mortgage, house in Spain)...How anyone can think these points have no substance to warrant a charge of match-fixing beggars belief. And if the 'video is edited with wrong words' theory is to hold, why didn't John raise this point after he first saw the video? Again, I'm not wholly convinced either way, but to deny match fixing charges in the hearing is just wrong.

You're making it sound like you think that because the charge was dropped it means that they didn't even consider it? They looked at all the evidence and the context involved and decided he was telling the truth and had no case to answer. You can't get much more clear cut than that.

Myrddin

seadnamac wrote: »

You're making it sound like you think that because the charge was dropped it means that they didn't even consider it? They looked at all the evidence and the context involved and decided he was telling the truth and had no case to answer. You can't get much more clear cut than that.

And how was it deemed John was genuinely in fear of his life, & not just out to make money? How can context even come into it, unless one of the board memmbers was in the room the day the video was made?

fryup

seadnamac wrote: »

Unless you know the man on a very personal level, you have absolutely no point of reference whatsoever as to what his demeanour and body language should or should not be. Nothing but mindless speculation. Especially considering there were large amounts of alcohol involved.

large amount of alcohol?? he seemed quite coherent in the video to me

nah! he knew damn well what he was up to and if anything it he has form when it comes to this sort of thing

zack01

Guys, the independent panel have gathered all the information, they have conducted all the necessary interviews and have done so since mid May.
The only piece of supposed evidence was the infamous video, this has been studied by various experts and found to be edited very badly to the point where in one scene the clothes worn are different to the previous scene and then changed again. Even the translation of the audio was found to be hugely different to what the NOTW had printed.
Higgins has been found guilty and rightly so of not making the authorities aware of the meeting in Kiev, he was the current world champion and world number one and should have explained what had happened.

My question is to you, what did you want to happen, did you want Higgins to be hit with a five year ban??
It appears that most of you are dissappointed with the outcome of the hearing.
I have said it since the story broke and I'll say it again, there isn't a straighter player on the tour and now he has been cleared rightly of any wrongdoing albeit he was wrong to not come forward straight after the infamous meeting.

By trying to bring disgrace and shame to Higgins and the game on the say so of a worthless paper and the pathetic doctured video it served up is an insult to anyones intelligence, the sooner people except the outcome the better.

seadnamac

EnterNow wrote: »

And how was it deemed John was genuinely in fear of his life, & not just out to make money? How can context even come into it, unless one of the board memmbers was in the room the day the video was made?

I don't know I wasn't privvy to the hearings so you'll have to ask them. But if you can't take an independant tribunals word for it when they have completely cleared him of the allegations then you're going down the conspiracy theorist route in my opinion.

It's pretty unambiguous...

"It's the decision of some of the best legal brains in this country, bearing in mind the evidence and handled in an independent way."

"We have had due process. We have gone through exactly the right channels as laid down by our rules."

"The case has been heard by a totally legal board of people independent in every sense."


"Having studied all of the evidence in its entirety, the WPBSA and Sports Resolutions accept that there has been no dishonesty on the part of John Higgins and accordingly the WPBSA has withdrawn the allegations of match fixing against him.”

Lemegeton

zack01 wrote: »

Guys, the independent panel have gathered all the information, they have conducted all the necessary interviews and have done so since mid May.
The only piece of supposed evidence was the infamous video, this has been studied by various experts and found to be edited very badly to the point where in one scene the clothes worn are different to the previous scene and then changed again. Even the translation of the audio was found to be hugely different to what the NOTW had printed.

yes the video was heavily edited and multiple scenes were cobbled together from the meeting to make it as damaging as possible. the way the conversation played out in the video is not the actual timeline. nobody is disputing that. But the statements made by john higgins in the video have never been disputed or challenged by him. the talking about hiding the money, describing how easy it would be to throw a frame, discussing the amount of money he would get. Higgins has admitted to having this conversation and has not challenged or disputed what he said in the meeting. so as far as im concerned the editing of the video is irrelevant

Myrddin

zack01 wrote: »

My question is to you, what did you want to happen, did you want Higgins to be hit with a five year ban??
It appears that most of you are dissappointed with the outcome of the hearing.
I have said it since the story broke and I'll say it again, there isn't a straighter player on the tour and now he has been cleared rightly of any wrongdoing albeit he was wrong to not come forward straight after the infamous meeting.

I'm after watching the video again Zack, to be fair I havn't seen it since when all this broke. The first thing that struck me is John saying jokingly "There arn't any cameras in here are there"...and he's looking up at the ceiling in a humourous manner. That's before the discussion even began, so one would assume there's something nefarious going on...

The second odd comment was, "I'm thinking to myself, I've got a second property in Spain, is there any way I can get a small mortgage or something, and you could pay it off or something". Now unless these arn't the words spoken by John, and I assume they are because it hasn't been argued otherwise, then I'm sorry...but a match-fixing/bribe charge HAS to be answered, it simply has to be. For the sake of everyones credability, the WPBSA included.

The comments continue, and whatever is printed in the tabloid is no concern to me, it's John Higgins' voice & comments that's of interest to me here. I'd simply love to know in a genuine way, how the board deemed this unworthy of a match fixing charge.

Myrddin

seadnamac wrote: »

I don't know I wasn't privvy to the hearings so you'll have to ask them. But if you can't take an independant tribunals word for it when they have completely cleared him of the allegations then you're going down the conspiracy theorist route in my opinion.

It's pretty unambiguous...

I'll remind you of my previous sentiments...

EnterNow wrote: »

I wouldn't victimise him too heavily, & I'd hate to see him reviled over this.

EnterNow wrote: »

I'd love to think he was innocent I really would

EnterNow wrote: »

All I can conclude, is that the game simply couldn't afford a scandal of this magnatude

EnterNow wrote: »

Again, I'm not wholly convinced either way

I'm not out to see anyone done in the wrong, especially John Higgins. I'll also remind you, they havn't cleared him or anyone else of the allegations. The allegations were dropped, on what basis I'd love to know, but they have not been answered. He answered allegations of a lesser charge, and was given the six month ban for those, not for the video footage.

All I'm asking is, was that John Higgins in the video agreeing to drop four frames for €300k, and debating the best methods to absorb the money? Was it him or was it not him, or were his words dubbed?

Chucky the tree

seadnamac wrote: »

Out of all the high profile stings that this newspaper claims to uncover, they rarely seem to amount to anything. That tells it's own story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/sep/03/news-of-world-entrapment-sport

Eh, no it doesn't.

Here's what the article in the blog posted earlier said...

John Higgins did not face charges of match fixing and bribery after they were withdrawn by the WPBSA.

If that's true and the independent commission didn't drop it then it looks like an under the carpet job.

davej

Forgive my ignorance on this if it has already been answered..

Why didn't the NOTW wait to see if Higgins actually would throw the frames before confronting him and breaking the story ?

It seems they didn't really ever get down to the nitty gritty details - i.e. giving bank a/c details or the exact game or frame number that he would throw.

davej

Myrddin

davej wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance on this if it has already been answered..

Why didn't the NOTW wait to see if Higgins actually would throw the frames before confronting him and breaking the story ?

It seems they didn't really ever get down to the nitty gritty details - i.e. giving bank a/c details or the exact game or frame number that he would throw.

davej

Because as far as I know, it's them that would be incriminated then, entrapment etc.

Exclamation Marc

EnterNow wrote: »

Because as far as I know, it's them that would be incriminated then, entrapment etc.

It wasn't that. Entrapment is a crime involving the police or similar law enforcement body committing the entrapment/encouraging. A private party cannot be guilty of entrapment, the NOTW never would have been incriminated on this.

Maybe they published the story when they did because they knew that he wouldn't follow through with it. That if they waited for the event in question, he wouldn't throw the frames and any work they did would be down the tube.

If I was an editor of a newspaper, I'd rather wait and show that the frames were thrown (much like the cricket scandal) and report it all. The only reason I'd publish it before the event is if I knew the person in question wasn't following through.

Myrddin

FireballPitcher wrote: »

It wasn't that. Entrapment is a crime involving the police or similar law enforcement body committing the entrapment/encouraging. A private party cannot be guilty of entrapment, the NOTW never would have been incriminated on this.

Well that answers that I've no idea why tbh

Exclamation Marc

EnterNow wrote: »

Well that answers that I've no idea why tbh

Yeah its very strange. Especially when you compare to how they handled the cricket betting scandal. The cricket scandal shows they were prepared to wait and see if they players followed through. The snooker one shows that possibly they didn't have faith in Higgins following through.

But as you said in an earlier post, there are arguments both ways, and its difficult to decide its a shame its not more clear cut either way

blinding

I am convinced that the result of this Tribunal was fixed.

Lets face the truth here folks. Snooker is a dirty rigged game and we cannot be sure about the results of any matchs, even classic from yester- year must come under suspicion especially when you consider the way the snooker authorities have dealt with this latest dirty dealing

ArmaniJeanss

davej wrote: »

Why didn't the NOTW wait to see if Higgins actually would throw the frames before confronting him and breaking the story ?

Well for starters they couldn't do that because the competition in question doesn't actually exist
They would have had to hire a snooker hall in Kiev, tv company, other players, a crowd, create a fake competition but have to pay the other honest players anyway etc etc.

Just not an option for them.

Also they don't think long term in the tabloid industry - getting the story out for the Sunday of the World Championships would have been seen as important.

fryup

blinding wrote: »

I am convinced that the result of this Tribunal was fixed.

Lets face the truth here folks. Snooker is a dirty rigged game and we cannot be sure about the results of any matches

its just one big clique really, everyone is friends of friends :cool:

Myrddin

In fairness lads, the board was independant...and I don't know if I can stretch to believe they were hand-picked Sport on the whole can be very corrupt, but this matter is just going to have to be accepted.

Nobody here who believes Higgins is innocent, denies that it's him on tape joking about hidden cameras, agreeing to drop four frames, and debating how to "launder" the money.

But nobody here who believes he's guilty, can deny that this stinks of a set up, has the signature of a media tabloid on it, and just never "felt" right from the beginning.

As I said before, I'm not convinced either way. The better side of me believes that Higgins is a family man, at the top of his game, was the current number 1, was the world champion, & had no reason to (forgive the expletive) wipe his backside with €300k, and that this is a typical tabloid bonanza.

The pessimist in me, believes that it's entirely possible that greed could get the better of a top sportsman, believes that most sports potentially have this thing going on much more than we know, and believes that every man has his price. I also know what I hear and see on the video, although edited, appears to be John Higgins agreeing to drop four frames for €300k and discussing with his manager the best way to absorb the money.

If asked to make a decision in the here & now, I'd probably lean more towards Higgins' version of events. But I do maintain, to drop the charges of match fixing, and to deny Higgins to chance to publically clear his name, was a shot in the foot by the WPBSA. I do agree the event was outside their durastiction, but nevertheless, John Higgins is a professional Snooker player. Even if for his public image, if would have been a lot better if he was cleared of the full allegations, and not that they were dropped.

seadnamac

EnterNow wrote: »

I'll also remind you, they havn't cleared him or anyone else of the allegations. The allegations were dropped, on what basis I'd love to know, but they have not been answered. He answered allegations of a lesser charge, and was given the six month ban for those, not for the video footage.

EnterNow wrote: »

If asked to make a decision in the here & now, I'd probably lean more towards Higgins' version of events. But I do maintain, to drop the charges of match fixing, and to deny Higgins to chance to publically clear his name, was a shot in the foot by the WPBSA.

I'm not sure which one of us is interpreting it wrong here but the actual ruling states that; Regarding Higgins;

"The Association has withdrawn Charges 1 and 2.[match fixing]

The Association has explained that this withdrawal resulted from an acceptance, following an investigation which all concerned have correctly characterised as very thorough and fair, that Mr Higgins had truthfully accounted for his words and actions at the meeting in Kiev on 30 April"

They are stating that they withdrew the charge because they found that he was telling the truth. They are not stating that they withdrew the charge because of jurisdiction issues.

Regarding Mooney they state that;

"The Association has also withdrawn Charges 1 and 2.
The Association’s explanation for these withdrawals was very different. The Association maintained that Mr Mooney had in fact intended to act fraudulently and corruptly as alleged. However, a last minute argument advanced on behalf of Mr Mooney by Mr Phillips QC, based on a proper construction of the Rules to which Charges 1 and 2 refer had persuaded the Association that it did not have sufficient prospects of proving those Charges."


They are stating that they withdrew these charges based on last minute jurisdiction issues.


A couple of points on this;


1) If they had any doubt over Higgins innocence but wanted to sweep it under the carpet then they had an obvious and easy oppurtunity here to do so. They could have just used this jurisdiction issue as a means to keep Higgins clean. Instead they chose to make a clear distiction between the rulings for the two parties, and expressively state they found Higgins to be telling the truth.


2) They state that it was a last minute issue brought up by lawyers for Mooney. It is within reason to assume that they were not aware of this issue while making their decision on the charges against Higgins.


For me, the way the statement is constructed it is blindingly clear that they have cleared Higgins of match fixing and that the technicality did not contribute to their decision.

The official ruling in full;
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/09/08/in-full-the-john-higgins-match-fix-ruling-by-ian-mill-qc-080902/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.