Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Stephen lee betting scadal?

«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,145 ✭✭✭BQQ


    yeah, I was really pleased to see him return to form last year.
    Hope he didn't do anything, but suspicion has been following him around for a good while.

    Regardless, I find it grossly unfair that he's suspended before he's been found guilty of anything.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭giant_midget


    Hopefully none of this is true. Snooker seems to be in the spotlight the past few years for cheating allegations (some true some not) - It looks bad for the sport. The bookies have an obligation to run back to WSC when weird betting patterns arise.

    £250k was bet on his match with Higgins before it started and by the end this was upto £650k...This is not normal for a PL snooker match

    It's a pity S Lee is suspended as his play of late was really good to watch! Apartently Judd Trump has being mouthing off on his twitter account which has not pleased Lee.

    We'll all have to wait and see. Fingers crossed WS do their investigation promptly otherwise Lee could have a civil case for loss of earnings...


  • Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    Why would Lee be suspended and not Higgins also I wonder..?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,051 ✭✭✭keysersoze0330


    Sad to hear this also. Really was glad to see Stephen back to his best the last year or 2. Trump would do well to keep his mouth shut also.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,615 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Why would Lee be suspended and not Higgins also I wonder..?

    In order to fix a game, you only need one player to throw it - the winning player doesn't even have to be aware that anything is afoot.

    Heres the entire game if anyone is interested, I've only watched from 1:19:55 on, and a few key things happen.

    Lee misses a straighforward pink with the rest, whilst playing the tracking quite strangely as well.
    Lee pots that pink a few shots later, but tracks the black almost the worst way possible.
    Plays a really weird safety shot on the black to leave it for Higgins.
    (In fairness he also plays a really good safety on the pink at one stage).
    Loses, shakes hands and starts complaining to Higgins, apparently about the cushions and cloth (for show?)

    Theres no smoking gun by any means, but it sure looks weird.





  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,615 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    snookerbackers analysis of it, and some more details of how the betting market was reacting to the events on the table, e.g., Higgins still favourite to win when he was 2-1 down and thus had to win the remaining 3 frames.
    Also includes link to information on some CCJs that Lee has against him, which was news to me.

    http://www.snookerbacker.com/2012/10/15/stephen-lee-guilty-until-proven-innocent/


  • Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    I'll take a look at both links this evening...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭zack01


    Lee does'nt do himself any favours with his shot selection and in lieu of recent allegations against him he's going to draw more attention to himself each time a situation like that appears. Personally if i saw that happen down in the club i'd say hang on a minute this guy is trying to throw the frame here.
    Surely Lee knows that he's being watched and if he did throw that frame and is found out he could find himself banned. He's currently suspended so he'll miss the third European event in Belgium this weekend.
    Unless the WPBSA have concrete info on him gaining financial gain then i really dont think a lot more can be done and he'll be back playing soon enough.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    In order to fix a game, you only need one player to throw it - the winning player doesn't even have to be aware that anything is afoot.

    Heres the entire game if anyone is interested, I've only watched from 1:19:55 on, and a few key things happen.

    Lee misses a straighforward pink with the rest, whilst playing the tracking quite strangely as well.
    Lee pots that pink a few shots later, but tracks the black almost the worst way possible.
    Plays a really weird safety shot on the black to leave it for Higgins.
    (In fairness he also plays a really good safety on the pink at one stage).
    Loses, shakes hands and starts complaining to Higgins, apparently about the cushions and cloth (for show?)

    Theres no smoking gun by any means, but it sure looks weird.



    zack01 wrote: »
    Lee does'nt do himself any favours with his shot selection and in lieu of recent allegations against him he's going to draw more attention to himself each time a situation like that appears. Personally if i saw that happen down in the club i'd say hang on a minute this guy is trying to throw the frame here.
    Surely Lee knows that he's being watched and if he did throw that frame and is found out he could find himself banned. He's currently suspended so he'll miss the third European event in Belgium this weekend.
    Unless the WPBSA have concrete info on him gaining financial gain then i really dont think a lot more can be done and he'll be back playing soon enough.
    where to start:

    Right - he has the perfect angle on the pink to do 2 things: either drop it in with a touch of left hand side or a gentle stun shot to create the same angle. The pink was a total snatch, hit way too hard too.

    When Higgins leaves the pink over the left middle, the angle is more than there to drop it in and be plum on the black. Even if he wanted to stun it in off 2 cushions he got nowhere near enough stun on it to do it. Any professional snooker player or top amateur would be embarrassed to finish without a pot on the black from that pink.

    On the final safety on the black, surely he's got a few options. he can drop the black on to the black cushion leaving the white anywhere. He can force a cocked hat double with a lot of top, he can even play super thin off the black bringing the white across the table. ANYTHING but what he did.

    There may be a few mitigating factors - the shot clock for one. He can argue he snatched on the pink due to time ticking down. He can argue the cloth wasn't gripping or cushions sliding (to explain the tracking on the black).

    All in all, he appears guilty as sin based on that frame alone.....my only doubt would be whether all the money was purely on Higgins to win or was it on 4-2. Because making it that obvious is silly. He could have easily played a few bad safeties and been down 4-0 if that's all he wanted to do. If the weight of money was on 4-2 then throw the book at him.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 57 ✭✭Greenbaize


    If Stephen Lee really did do this, and I am sure the bookies can spot this sort of thing a mile away then he should be banned plain and simple. A serious example has to be made in the game to let other players know that if you dare insult the game by doing something like that then you will face the toughest consequences there is and be banned from the game for a few years at least if not indefinitly.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Giruilla


    Thought there were a few suprisingly wide misses during last fram by Lee but that pink at pace and then the black was laughable!

    Winners prize fund - 50,000. Wonder how much Lee would receive, were it the case he threw it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭giant_midget


    Giruilla wrote: »
    Thought there were a few suprisingly wide misses during last fram by Lee but that pink at pace and then the black was laughable!

    Winners prize fund - 50,000. Wonder how much Lee would receive, were it the case he threw it.

    Yes there was something a bit suss about the pink to black, Not much to do with the white, below centre cue ball and gently tap in and perfect on the black...I still want to believe that he is innocent. If it was anyone else i would say otherwise..

    From watching snooker for many many years i have noticed with Lee that his shot selection is a bit diffrent at the best of times...He seems to always leave it til the last minute to go into the pack of reds.
    He let's himself run out of options far too early.. he's messes up position on the blue or get's too straight on the black resulting on him having to play a safety shot, With Hendry, Higgins, Ronnie them lads open the pack very early to create a winning chance for themselves.

    He seems to time the cue ball sooo sweet and has plenty of cue power. If he could apply the same break building logic as any of the top 4 players he would probably be a world champion by now!

    Hopefully this mess will be cleared up soon. VERY hard to prove that he is cheating..All this time he is banned he's not earning. It's hurting himm badly im sure!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    Yes there was something a bit suss about the pink to black, Not much to do with the white, below centre cue ball and gently tap in and perfect on the black...I still want to believe that he is innocent. If it was anyone else i would say otherwise..

    From watching snooker for many many years i have noticed with Lee that his shot selection is a bit diffrent at the best of times...He seems to always leave it til the last minute to go into the pack of reds.
    He let's himself run out of options far too early.. he's messes up position on the blue or get's too straight on the black resulting on him having to play a safety shot, With Hendry, Higgins, Ronnie them lads open the pack very early to create a winning chance for themselves.

    He seems to time the cue ball sooo sweet and has plenty of cue power. If he could apply the same break building logic as any of the top 4 players he would probably be a world champion by now!

    Hopefully this mess will be cleared up soon. VERY hard to prove that he is cheating..All this time he is banned he's not earning. It's hurting himm badly im sure!
    honestly it depends where the lump of this £650 grand traded on the match came from and if they could link any of it to him. At the end of the day all it would take is 1 person he's well connected with to have a lot of money on Higgins and Lee is toast. Betfair have name of account holders and can trace the I.P. addresses etc so if he is guilty there won't be much hiding place.

    Mind you, Jamie Burnett committed the worst , most obvious "throw" of a match v Stephen Maguire and got off with it, so who knows.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭zack01


    Stephen Lees ban as from last night will continue and he will now miss the PTC Finals in Galway in March. It's a huge blow for Lee as from what I'm hearing he's struggling for funds and is basically selling himself for exhibitions anywhere that will take him.

    I'm surprised it's taken World Snooker this long to either charge him or free him to play but my general feeling from talking to several people in the know is that Lee will be convicted and face a lengthy ban.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭zack01


    World Snooker today released a statement that confirms investigations into Stephen Lee now includes his particiapation into several other events including the World Championships and that Lee "has a case to answer".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,070 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    He's been found guilty and faces a lifetime ban

    Good enough for him!

    http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/16/stephen-lee-ban-match-fixing


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭zack01


    zack01 wrote: »
    Stephen Lees ban as from last night will continue and he will now miss the PTC Finals in Galway in March. It's a huge blow for Lee as from what I'm hearing he's struggling for funds and is basically selling himself for exhibitions anywhere that will take him.

    I'm surprised it's taken World Snooker this long to either charge him or free him to play but my general feeling from talking to several people in the know is that Lee will be convicted and face a lengthy ban.

    I heard a whisper today that Lee will get a five year ban


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭StephenHendry


    zack01 wrote: »
    I heard a whisper today that Lee will get a five year ban

    he will be very lucky to get that zack, it could well be a life time ban for him, there were so many matches that were rigged etc.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 17,137 Mod ✭✭✭✭cherryghost


    Ronnie dragging the sport down further claiming he knows others who have done match fixing, Barry Hearn asks to name and shame.... I feel this could be dark days ahead for snooker :(


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    Ronnie dragging the sport down further claiming he knows others who have done match fixing, Barry Hearn asks to name and shame.... I feel this could be dark days ahead for snooker :(

    This is a really tough situation for Barry Hearn. The perception that the sport is clean is obviously crucial in terms of sponsorship.

    In terms of Ronnie and Stephen Lee, it's also tough for Hearn. He knows both of them pretty well and it's never nice when someone you know puts you in a really difficult position. It's sort of like an ex-girlfriend turning up at your mams house at Xmas - we could all do without it!

    Is it limited to Steven Lee? I'm certain it was wider than that circa 2007-2011 when even the top pros were playing for small prize money. I'm also certain plenty are getting through the net - even now.

    Take a PTC tournament for example. Hundreds of entrants, very little in the way of tv coverage, lots of the early rounds watched by 1 man and a dog under little scrutiny. Then obviously it's best-of-7. £100 to enter a PTC event. And some of the pros ranked around say 96th-128th in the world might not make much more than 5-6 grand a year after expenses. That's if they get lucky and play well - many pros struggle to break even without help. So it's effectively worse than living on the dole.

    Whether it's through secretly backing themselves to win (or lose) i feel certain that many pros further down the list are up to some shenanigans to try make it economically viable for them to remain professional and try further their dreams of making it big as a pro.

    So, for example, a pro ranked around 110th enters a PTC in Rotterdam. £100 entry, flights, accomodation, food, drink etc etc really he's looking at £500 to enter the tournament. The realistic chances of him getting past the last-64 are slim. But to make the week profitable, he would need to reach the last-16 (and that would still only leave him £400 in profit). Even a huge run and getting to the 1/4 final may only see a player come out with £800 profit.

    So, of course there is a temptation to get bets placed on his matches: whether that's to win the ones he thinks he will win or to lose the ones he thinks he will win.

    For some, it's the difference between paying the rent or not. If done smartly, nobody will ever notice either. The likes of the WBSA and the betting sites, they all look for suspicious patterns. But it'd still be very easy to get away with it.

    Player A 4/11 v Player B 2/1

    Ladbrokes, Paddy Power, Boyles, William Hill, Betfair, Betfred etc.......some cities in the UK could have 10-15 different bookmakers in same city and countless betting shops in the city. Send 3 or 4 mates around on a bicycle and they each put £50 quid on Player B at 2/1 in 10-20 shops.

    Nobody is going to bat an eyelid. In fact nobody would bat an eyelid at one single bet of 500 on Player B at 2/1.

    So you have a situation where as a once-off, maybe to try pay the rent, Player A plays poorly and cashes in, and it's very difficult to crack down on unless it's done in a haphazard way like Steven Lee did. When you try rip bookies off more than £100,000 of course they'll come after you.

    It's a sad and cynical view but i know for certain some pros bet on their own matches through other routes.

    If World Snooker want to eradicate this problem, there is a simple solution: increase prize money for the earlier rounds in the likes of the PTC's. Right now you could win 4 matches and still not cover your expenses for the week so there's an obvious temptation there for shenanigans.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 558 ✭✭✭bradolf pittler


    Match betting in PTC a event isn't covered by bookies until the later stages ie from the q finals onwards,The event in kilarney a few years back had a ladbrokes on site and you still could only bet on outright winner.
    Too many unknowns and amateurs for a bookie to get involved and get stung


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭zack01


    Match betting in PTC a event isn't covered by bookies until the later stages ie from the q finals onwards,The event in kilarney a few years back had a ladbrokes on site and you still could only bet on outright winner.
    Too many unknowns and amateurs for a bookie to get involved and get stung

    You can bet online on all matches in PTC events, several online sites such as Apollobet are specialists in snooker betting and offer prices on all matches.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 558 ✭✭✭bradolf pittler


    zack01 wrote: »
    You can bet online on all matches in PTC events, several online sites such as Apollobet are specialists in snooker betting and offer prices on all matches.

    More fools them then,How can they acuratly price up a match between say a low ranking pro and half decent amateur?If both players were in on the fix they could easily make a killing.
    It happens in the amateur ranks aswell although not for big money but i have seen instances esp in round robin events where players throw games to knock rival players out and to keep friends in.pretty sickening if you ask me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭giant_midget


    zack01 wrote: »
    I heard a whisper today that Lee will get a five year ban

    What do you think personally this will do for his career? Would you think it would be possible for Lee to make a return after five years, I dont think so considering the amount of decent asian players making qtrs/semi's now. I used to really enjoy watching him play, he hits the ball so sweet...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭zack01


    What do you think personally this will do for his career? Would you think it would be possible for Lee to make a return after five years, I dont think so considering the amount of decent asian players making qtrs/semi's now. I used to really enjoy watching him play, he hits the ball so sweet...

    Regardless of the talent out there now It will finish him as a snooker player that competes on the pro circuit and will certainly end his professional career.The ban will not apply to amateur events not under the WPBSA but you can be sure the amateur body the IBSF will enforce a ban should he wish to enter any of their events.

    He will still play exhibitions I'm sure but he's done them to death over the last year and last I heard he was offering his services at an exhibition of €400 per night.
    Add to the fact he's been auctioning of some his trophies and memorabilia he's collected over the years it all adds up to a sad end to a career of a very talented snooker player.

    I remember watching him play just after he won the English amateur and Instantly became a fan of his game. It's a pity really but as the WPBSA and his fellow players have said they is simply no room for cheats in the game. The evidence against him was overwhelming right down to the cash lodgements in his wife's bank account.

    Which brings me to say that I can't believe he would risk his career for that money. He was currently 8th in the world and enjoying some of his best results for several years.

    The sentence should be announced any day soon, as I said I did hear a whisper of five years.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12 TrevSmyth147


    Quentin Hann's ban is up next year (2014). I wonder if he'll make a return. He had bags of talent and is still only 36. I'd like to see him back.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 904 ✭✭✭realgolfgeek


    Quentin Hann's ban is up next year (2014). I wonder if he'll make a return. He had bags of talent and is still only 36. I'd like to see him back.

    I'd hate to see him back,
    I'd hate to see Lee back,
    I'm disgusted Higgins was allowed carry on.

    It's becoming a joke of a game now. These people should be banned for life playing professional snooker ...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    I'd hate to see him back,
    I'd hate to see Lee back,
    I'm disgusted Higgins was allowed carry on.

    It's becoming a joke of a game now. These people should be banned for life playing professional snooker ...

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,615 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    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.

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭zack01


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    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)

    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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭zack01


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭giant_midget


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭zack01


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭giant_midget


    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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭zack01


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭StephenHendry


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    Lee speaks on camera here:

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

    "very angry" and maintains his innocence 100%


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,479 ✭✭✭lee_baby_simms


    Fat chance of him winning an appeal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,331 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Fat chance of him winning an appeal.

    I see what you did there...

    much money in 9-ball pool?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    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??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭StephenHendry


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 113 ✭✭alang184


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭zack01


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭StephenHendry


    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


  • Advertisement
Advertisement