Ssb - higgins fined £75,000 but free to play

[jw147]

Higgins was found guilty of "Intentionally giving the impression to others that they were agreeing to act in breach of the Betting Rules."

It is not the same... so READ THE VERDICT

Its all the same old ****, simple as that. Are you telling me that if Hann was in the same situation as Higgins today, with all the evidence against him, he would of got away as lightly??? Do me a favour.

ferret: Profanity will not be tolerated on TSF, expletive removed

[Ekphantos]

The part about Mooney's financial situation is odd:
"I do not intend additionally to impose any financial sanction on Mr Mooney other than that he must make a contribution to the Association’s costs in the amount of £25,000. Mr Phillips has explained to me his client’s precarious financial circumstances in the light of the recent events which have unfolded. It does not seem to me in the light of that information that an Order to make payment of a fine would be proportionate. "

I wouldn't have expected him to be too poor to pay a fine

[jw147]

Correct me if I'm wrong (it wouldn't be the first time) but didn't money change hands in the Hann case? I seem to remember money being transferred into his bank account before he was busted.

I wouldnt mind some of the money higgins has in his bank account from corruption, wouldnt mind at all

[cueman]

Think he's got off very lightly IMO. When you see what is happening with the Pakastani cricketers you can see how lucky he was that there wasn't any forthcoming snooker events to be bribed in at the time of the sting. Had there been a tournament just around the corner I'm sure Higgins would have gone along with a bribe and then this would have been a different story. The timing of this has saved his career IMO but this will damage his reputation either way and it will be interesting to see how the audience are with him and of course his fellow professionals, although I'm sure many would have done the same in his situation anyway.

[The Statman]

Think he's got off very lightly IMO. When you see what is happening with the Pakastani cricketers you can see how lucky he was that there wasn't any forthcoming snooker events to be bribed in at the time of the sting. Had there been a tournament just around the corner I'm sure Higgins would have gone along with a bribe and then this would have been a different story. The timing of this has saved his career IMO but this will damage his reputation either way and it will be interesting to see how the audience are with him and of course his fellow professionals, although I'm sure many would have done the same in his situation anyway.

The difference is, though, as I remember it, that Mooney and Higgins were being apparently approached to throw frames of tournaments which had not even been set up, in tournaments featuring Higgins and the like against Ukrainian (or wherever) amateurs. So I'm not sure that the close season has any relevance.

It is clear that Mooney was certainly found to be the main perpetrator in this, and that Higgins was secondary; it's difficult to know how to compare the verdict with others that have gone before, because the charges and the whole story do not seem to be comparable to any situation that has been seen before.

In the end, he's been walloped financially and will serve a bit more of a ban, without it having ruined his future career completely. If there was any room for doubt of his guilt but certainty that he was not totally above board, that seems a reasonable approach to me.

[mathsisfun]

From my point of view there was zero evidence he'd ever fixed anything ever. And there was evidenve he intended to fix frames in the future, but the evidence had a lot of issues such as Higgins being in an iffy situation and his manager having a ... well I don't know how to put it.

[Giggity1984]

The thing is, to the outsider, it doesn't look great on him. I've read everything there is to read about this and studied it quite a lot, as I'm sure many on here will have done too, and I still feel a little unsettled by the result. His name will be forever associated with this mud now. Every miss(easy or otherwise!) will be questioned. My gf sometimes sits and watches the snooker with me and I think that she won't be able to support him again. Real Shame.

Bet he regrets it. Will be interesting to see him play in his first televised match after this one.

[cue1]

The difference is, though, as I remember it, that Mooney and Higgins were being apparently approached to throw frames of tournaments which had not even been set up, in tournaments featuring Higgins and the like against Ukrainian (or wherever) amateurs. So I'm not sure that the close season has any relevance.

It is clear that Mooney was certainly found to be the main perpetrator in this, and that Higgins was secondary; it's difficult to know how to compare the verdict with others that have gone before, because the charges and the whole story do not seem to be comparable to any situation that has been seen before.

In the end, he's been walloped financially and will serve a bit more of a ban, without it having ruined his future career completely. If there was any room for doubt of his guilt but certainty that he was not totally above board, that seems a reasonable approach to me.

That's a fair way to look at it but I, personally, find it difficult to digest that if he (higgins) felt threatened/intimidated in Kiev then why didn't he pick up his phone & ring Barry Hearn the moment he got out of that room? To me, it would seem like the logical thing to do!!!

I guess we'll never know but at least he got some form of punishment for bringing the game into disrepute. He's now cleared of all the charges & nearly done with his ban so good luck to him for the rest of the season... I don't think it's gonna be easy for him to cope for a while!

[beechy1212]

We have to remember that Mooney is also Higgins' mate. Maybe it wasn't as easy as picking up a phone.

The verdict was, that Mooney was guilty and they tried roping Higgins in without him having any prior knowledge. The edited tapes had him banged to rights but that was the sole purpose of the sting.

IMO, having seen only the edited tapes, he was guilty but thank goodness for a proper hearing with all the evidence available (full tapes etc) and you can easily see how Higgins was sucked in unintentionally.

IMO, Higgins has been an idiot but that's all. Anyone is capable of a mistake. He's made his and his ame has been dragged through the mud because of it. He's not guilty of match fixing, after a fair and proper hearing. He should be treated as being not guilty, so Snooker can now carry on moving in the right direction.

[mathsisfun]

That's a fair way to look at it but I, personally, find it difficult to digest that if he (higgins) felt threatened/intimidated in Kiev then why didn't he pick up his phone & ring Barry Hearn the moment he got out of that room? To me, it would seem like the logical thing to do!!!

If he wasn't going to rig the frame then there wouldn't really be any need to ring Barry Hearn. Anyway, he may have just wanted to have a break for a few days after what could have been a distressing incident.

[jrc750]

If he wasn't going to rig the frame then there wouldn't really be any need to ring Barry Hearn....

This is where you are wrong, the rules state you have to inform the "boss" if you have been approached to fix matches.

[cue1]

If he wasn't going to rig the frame then there wouldn't really be any need to ring Barry Hearn.

Well, that's an assumption and we all know where assumptions lead us! Snooker is higgins' job & in business you always have to cover your behind because you don't know when, where or why you're targeted. Like I said in my earlier post, reporting it to whoever is in charge seemed like the logical thing to do and failure to do so is why I find it hard to digest!!!

[mathsisfun]

I understand he broke the rule:

"Failing to disclose promptly to the Association full details of an approach or invitation to act in breach of the betting rules."

But this seems a minor infringement to what people are banding about. Yes, he admits that he may never have informed the association of the approach but considering the story broke only a few days after the incident we will never know.

And he was in an unusual situation where his manager would have been implicated.

[mathsisfun]

Also, I was hal-heartily hoping he would be banned since it would bump Jimmy's ranking up a place

[mathsisfun]

Also, I was half-heartily hoping he would be banned since it would bump Jimmy's ranking up a place