John Higgins match fixing claims

fryup

Anyone who thinks that Laurel & Hardy sorry Higgins & Murray are innocent are completely deluded or just plain thick.

onlyrocknroll

fryup wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that Laurel & Hardy sorry Higgins & Murray are innocent are completely deluded or just plain thick.

Whoa, let's keep this civilized. I assume that's directed at me as it's only me and Armin_Tamzarian who are saying he might be innocent.

No need to resort to petty name calling.

Exclamation Marc

fryup wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that Laurel & Hardy sorry Higgins & Murray are innocent are completely deluded or just plain thick.

I do seriously question Higgins, but let's be honest, it is very easy to edit together footage to make someone look a lot worse than they are, there's been many situations over time when pieced together footage/edited down footage has destroyed someone when taken out of context, so to say anyone believing innocence is thick/deluded is a bit far fetched.

It's not always black and white.

pathway33

If all John was worried about was getting out of there with his life why did he start complicating things by talking about his property in spain and getting his mortgage paid off? Surely he would have said ok 300, let's shake on that.

Why does he start twiddling his thumbs when he is asked is it 200 or 300? Why does he get nervous then and put his hand behind his head if he was thinking I'm never going to see this money anyway because I'm only playing along. I'm no behaviour psychologist but even with editing the dogs in the street can tell you that John is only twiddling because there's 100k on the line.

In his defence perhaps if he had more time to think about it, he would have said no. He was playing davis on wednesday was it and this happened on friday?

My verdict is he is as guilty as hell and he should get a 1 year ban. Robertson will then be number 1 and Hearn will be pleased with that as it will give the game an even bigger profile in Australia.

Dave!

A ONE year ban?!

Exclamation Marc

Oh listen I'm not saying he's innocent, but they easily could have asked him "how will you get rid of this 300 grand we'll give you", there's no guarantee he volunteered this info.

Also, if he's as guilty as hell, I can guarantee you the ban will be seriously worse than 1 year! As Barry Hearn or someone on BBC on Sunday said, they only two people convicted of fixing were given 5 and 8 year bans.

pathway33

Yeah 1 year because he didn't actually throw a frame yet or have money in his account. Hann got 8 years I think but that was for an offence already committed.

I'm sticking to a 1 year ban

pathway33

FireballPitcher wrote: »

Oh listen I'm not saying he's innocent, but they easily could have asked him "how will you get rid of this 300 grand we'll give you", there's no guarantee he volunteered this info.

That's true. I had the impression he was going into more detail off his own back but editing is a powerful thing

fryup

Higgins would want to have a neck like an elephant to return to the game, he will be looked upon with suspicion from all quarters.

Anyway as someone mentioned before what was he and his manager doing in kiev of all places...don't think the game even exists out there.

aDeener

fryup wrote: »

Higgins would want to have a neck like an elephant to return to the game, he will be looked upon with suspicion from all quarters.

Anyway as someone mentioned before what was he and his manager doing in kiev of all places...don't think the game even exists out there.

were they not under the illusion going out that these people were considering investing in snooker, staging events out there etc. then when they were there the notion of fixing frames came up


plus, i cant see higgins ever coming back to snooker regardless of the outcome of this. he will probably do what hann did and join the pool circuit

ArmaniJeanss

fryup wrote: »

Anyway as someone mentioned before what was he and his manager doing in kiev of all places...don't think the game even exists out there.

This would surely be a good reason to be actually going out there, capturing an unexposed market from the start.
If you are going to stick to places where the game already has a strong presence then it'll never expand.

whosedaddy?

He claims in his defence that he didn't know if this was the Russian mafia ....and he felt the best course of action was just to play along with these guys.

Err, wouldn't playing along (without the intention to actually throw a frame) not be way more dangerous - as the Mafia is more likely to come after him once he refuses further down the line - and they may have lost money....

What would have happened if he had declined politely and gotten up - nothing. I doubt Higgins thought they would shot him on the spot.

Lemegeton

aDeener wrote: »

were they not under the illusion going out that these people were considering investing in snooker, staging events out there etc. then when they were there the notion of fixing frames came up

nope because mooney had already met one of the guys before in edinburgh and the subject was brought up then.

davej

Lets face it. Higgins is almost certainly finished in Snooker.
The real question is, who else might be found out as a result of this scandal ?

davej

Lemegeton

davej wrote: »

Lets face it. Higgins is almost certainly finished in Snooker.
The real question is, who else might be found out as a result of this scandal ?

davej

ill bet those names are the revelations the notw claim they have yet to reveal

fryup

Frank Spencer wrote: »

Found this on the net.

quote: reckon Higgins has been framed. It's a pity that NOTW were trying to screw him over, what with the planted camera and everything. Since the video is edited, we can't be sure if he initially baulked at the suggestion, but decided to play along for fear of his safety. We also can't be sure that he would follow through with the claims, and in the end he didn't pocket any money, but he should at least have given Barry Hearn the tip. You can chalk that up to stupidity on his part. However, until I hear every side of the story, I'm willing to give poor Higgins a break.

where did you get that quote from...got a link??

and who wrote it Higgin's mother:cool:

a148pro

oh dear

reidsa

i cant believe it but having seen the evidence, its hard not to believe it

Blobby George

Snooker is in the gutter now. Make no mistake about it. Just like Cycling can't shake the drug cheats tag from it's sport Snooker will suffer the same fate.

walshb

John is screwed here. You know, snooker ain't like soccer where you could murder your wife and kids and you would still have fans screaming your name in applause.

syngindub

walshb wrote: »

John is screwed here. You know, snooker ain't like soccer where you could murder your wife and kids and you would still have fans screaming your name in applause.

what sort of comment is that?
I can assure you, no fans i know would support a player who has murdered his wife and kids !!

abouttobebanned

This whole affair has sparked so much debate for a number of reasons:

1. It's so damn hard to believe that a multi-millionaire, world number one snooker player would risk it all for 300k - especially not in a hotel room where all too often things that are too good to be true always end up being just that.

2. The entrapment. It's sly and it's underhand, but we already know that NOTW is both of those things so we can't exactly complain about it now.

3. Higgin's excuse. When people are backed into a corner they defend themselves in whatever way they can. Lying is usually the first thing. Think of Bill Clinton after he was accused...the unbelievable accusation was followed by even more unbelieveble lies and stories. After a while...he realises he's beat and the truth comes out. I don't think the truth will come out in the Higgin's case but the lie is just as unbelievable. Aside from the fact that he looks fairly comfortable in the video (there are no worried glances to his manager which one would expect if he was scared)...when the story broke, Mooney immediately quit...there was no mention of fear or anything...he was caught by the balls, he knew it, so he quit. Higgins thought about it for a while before acting, and when it came to the acting part, he did just that. Even more annoying is that it's one of those lies that can never totally be disproved. The sad thing about this is that it gives hope to the many loyal, but deluded, fans.

mark renton

walshb wrote: »

John is screwed here. You know, snooker ain't like soccer where you could murder your wife and kids and you would still have fans screaming your name in applause.

OJ played American Football walshb - not soccer

abouttobebanned

And he didn't kill any kids. Or to put it another way, he didn't officially kill anyone...

syngindub

Did he play football after allegedly murdering his wife ??

mark renton

I had a few quid on Ronnie to beat Selby in WC, now Ronnie decided he had had enough when he still winning and just gave up.

If I had backed John and lost and later found out he had taken a bung then this I could understand he did for money

but Ronnie is just as bad IMO

abouttobebanned

john47832 wrote: »

I had a few quid on Ronnie to beat Selby in WC, now Ronnie decided he had had enough when he still winning and just gave up.

If I had backed John and lost and later found out he had taken a bung then this I could understand he did for money

but Ronnie is just as bad IMO

Not really. Snooker is not a sport designed for gambling. The only one that I know of that is is BAGS. (Bookies Afternoon Greyhounds).

Nobody is making you bet on snooker, or any other sport for that matter, so if a player just gives up you should be more annoyed with yourself for backing a player that has a tendancy to...give up. A similar example in darts would be adrian lewis...a great talent but when things are going against him, his shoulders slump and he throws in the towel. Should he be banned? No, he should be slapped by his missus...but it's not the same as cheating.

Lemegeton

syngindub wrote: »

Did he play football after allegedly murdering his wife ??

he had been out of football for a good few years before the murders.

mark renton

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Not really. Snooker is not a sport designed for gambling. The only one that I know of that is is BAGS. (Bookies Afternoon Greyhounds).

Nobody is making you bet on snooker, or any other sport for that matter, so if a player just gives up you should be more annoyed with yourself for backing a player that has a tendancy to...give up. A similar example in darts would be adrian lewis...a great talent but when things are going against him, his shoulders slump and he throws in the towel. Should he be banned? No, he should be slapped by his missus...but it's not the same as cheating.

I'm not questioning the cheating part - of course it is cheating

I'm questioning the reasoning - Ronnies reason was that, as Selby put it "put it up to him"

Johns reason was to make more money - greedy yes but understandable

Also snooker is perfect for gambling, its a 2 horse race, whereas football matches and the like are 3 horse races with more parameters to take into consideration

I'm not aware of Adrian Lewis but I would speculate he is one of those where if things are not going his way (losing) then he gives up easily

Ronnie was a disgrace - he was winning and decided he didnt want to go on

paul150

Theres more to the story yet. The front page of the NOTW 2moro