Ssb - maguire v burnett: Wpbsa statement

[Templeton Peck]

The circumstancial evidence is overwhelming - heavy betting from new accounts localised in one area. The fact that some of the shots look well dodgy, well Francisco was banned on less compelling evidence if you ask me. You're not going to get 100% proof in a case like this, but on the balance of evidence available it was fixed in my view. I'm not for ending someone's career unless it can be proven in a criminal court, but I think both players should be dropped at least 16 places in the rankings and given an extra round to qualify through because on balance it was a fixed result.

[snooker66]

The circumstancial evidence is overwhelming - heavy betting from new accounts localised in one area. The fact that some of the shots look well dodgy, well Francisco was banned on less compelling evidence if you ask me. You're not going to get 100% proof in a case like this, but on the balance of evidence available it was fixed in my view. I'm not for ending someone's career unless it can be proven in a criminal court, but I think both players should be dropped at least 16 places in the rankings and given an extra round to qualify through because on balance it was a fixed result.

Thank you! At last someone else seeing it as it is. Yeh you can't prove it 100% but the evidence is pretty overwhelming if you ask me...

[Monique]

Thank you! At last someone else seeing it as it is. Yeh you can't prove it 100%but the evidence is pretty overwhelming if you ask me...but there again according to another forum member earlier in this thread I am just naive.

The "naïve" remark was targeted at people who wonder why police inquiries take time. There is a huge difference between being strongly convinced of something and proving it in law. Common sense isn't enough and hard evidence holding in front of a court is much harder to establish!

Moreover, why again carry on with it when it was all exposed already?

[snooker66]

The "naïve" remark was targeted at people who wonder why police inquiries take time. There is a huge difference between being strongly convinced of something and proving it in law. Common sense isn't enough and hard evidence holding in front of a court is much harder to establish!

Moreover, why again carry on with it when it was all exposed already?

No Monique! It was not aimed at you! Another user GOMH71 said I was personally naive earlier in the thread!! I quite agree with you police investigations should take time and be correct in their conclusions.

[snooker66]

whatever happened to quintan hann?

Banned for fixing! Playing Pool I believe. I think his ban was 8 years or something. Maybe we will see him qualifying on the PIOS one day...or maybe not.... :-)

[spike]

Maybe we will see him qualifying on the PIOS one day...or maybe not.... :-)

I doubt it very much..

[Templeton Peck]

There was a lot of money at stake. Gangsters wouldn't have been thrilled if they had changed the result to cover their backs. If the result had been 9-4 then the bookies probably would have paid up on that score and collected on 9-3. By sticking to the plan the stakes on 9-3 will presumably be returned once the investigation is over, since some of those would have been legitimate bets.

[wildJONESEYE]

look there is no excuse for any enquiery to take this long...

years ago maybe but for christ sake things have moved on and on this the investigation has been dragged out from all common sense...

what evidence they got now they havent got in january february ill answer it sod bloody all.....its been tied up in bureaucracy and Red Tape crap..thats suffocating and hindering the legal system in britain and proberbly the world...

you know what a policeman cant take a pair of binoculars with him on the street without asking permision of the chief constable that would proberbly take a few hours and forms to fill so they cant be bothered...

[snooker66]

There was a lot of money at stake. Gangsters wouldn't have been thrilled if they had changed the result to cover their backs. If the result had been 9-4 then the bookies probably would have paid up on that score and collected on 9-3. By sticking to the plan the stakes on 9-3 will presumably be returned once the investigation is over, since some of those would have been legitimate bets.

I quite agree with your post mate. I would just saying had they both been innocent they could have made it 9-4 and pretended that was legit. I think they made it 9-3 because they were both in on it. Don't like to say it but there's a large amount of evidence all be it circumstantial.

[wildJONESEYE]

I quite agree with your post mate. I would just saying had they both been innocent they could have made it 9-4 and pretended that was legit. I think they made it 9-3 because they were both in on it. Don't like to say it but there's a large amount of evidence all be it circumstantial.

if they both was inocent a scoreline would finish how it finishes like Hendry losing 9-0 in 1998 you cant start to say if they inocent it would finish 9-4 if maguire was 9-3 or 9-2 better than burnett.

[snooker66]

if they both was inocent a scoreline would finish how it finishes like Hendry losing 9-0 in 1998 you cant start to say if they inocent it would finish 9-4 if maguire was 9-3 or 9-2 better than burnett.

Maybe but even so given the damage it could potentially have done to the career, it might have been the logical thing to do *if* they are innocent. You could make the argument that then they would also be fixing a match when innocent. I have to say I do not believe they are innocent anyway.

[jb134]

I have to say I do not believe they are innocent anyway.

What do you base that opinion on?

[Looki]

Do you think they're both guilty? And if so what speaks for them both to be guilty and not Burnett alone?

[Templeton Peck]

I'm no Einstein, but it takes two players to guarantee a 9-3 scoreline. If only Burnett was in on it then you would have seen a pattern of covering bets on 9-2, 9-1, and 9-0.

[Migtsf]

I’ve just found out what happened.

Apparently someone overheard a conversation in a bar in Glasgow. Two men were talking about the match between the two players and one of them said at some point he strongly believed Maguire was going to win 9-3.

A 3rd man, someone who already had a bit too much of alcohol, overheard this conversation and he thought the other man meant 9-3 was a sure thing. Well, that 3rd man happened to be a postman, and one who likes to talk a little too much too. So, instead of keeping this valuable piece of information to himself, he spread it the next day when he was delivering the mail.

You all know what happened next.