Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    everyone can talk until theyre blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is, money is higgins main priority, hes probably even betted on himself to be back playing in the UK this year, which would have been a good bet, considering he is a big name player.
    Blown away

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally Posted by Ekphantos View Post
      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
      If there is any difference it seems to be only "a technicality" IMO.

      Weren't they both caught by the same type of sting, and Higgins in effect gets away with it but Hann doesnt.
      "You can shove your snooker up your jacksie 'cos I aint playing no more!" Alex Higgins.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally Posted by dannyd0g View Post
        If there is any difference it seems to be only "a technicality" IMO.

        Weren't they both caught by the same type of sting, and Higgins in effect gets away with it but Hann doesnt.
        Not sure.

        "Intentionally giving the impression..." (i.e. to those in the 'sting' meeting) is perhaps a different thing. You might say to me under duress that you're willing to bump off my nextdoor neighbour because I can't stand his late-night parties. But until it is arranged it is only words.

        Perhaps if the News of the World had not published their story quite so immediately after the meeting, we might have known whether Higgins would have pulled out, carried it through, notified the Association, and all the rest of it. But the immediacy of the publication rather put all that out of Higgins's hands.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally Posted by dannyd0g View Post
          If there is any difference it seems to be only "a technicality" IMO.

          Weren't they both caught by the same type of sting, and Higgins in effect gets away with it but Hann doesnt.
          yes, both very very similar, lets just say if it was quinten up in front of the snooker jury today, he would of got the book thrown at him.
          Blown away

          Comment


          • #35
            Read the verdict from an independant body.
            The most John was guilty of was naivety. 6 months ban and 75K seems like a fairly severe punnishment to me. Get back on the table John and hold your head up high.
            Roy Bacon

            Comment


            • #36
              Thank goodness its all over-its a real shame that this verdict or at least the waiting for it has overshadowed the players over in China playing the Shanghai Masters

              Comment


              • #37
                Some people need to remember that Hann did not defend himself, he did not say he was innocent, he retired the day before the hearing. What does that say?

                Also Higgins was not found guilty of throwing frames.

                No one here seen all the evidence for/against Hann and no one here seen all the evidence for/against Higgins.

                Comment


                • #38
                  It's difficult bordering on impossible to believe that Mooney orchestrated all this completely alone and Higgins never knew a thing.

                  Off-topic edit: Four months passes quickly... but now it's snooker season again for me.
                  Last edited by hegeland; 8 September 2010, 04:53 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally Posted by Case454 View Post
                    Some people need to remember that Hann did not defend himself, he did not say he was innocent, he retired the day before the hearing. What does that say?

                    .
                    It possibly says that Higgins has better people around him to advise him better
                    "You can shove your snooker up your jacksie 'cos I aint playing no more!" Alex Higgins.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally Posted by Case454 View Post
                      Some people need to remember that Hann did not defend himself, he did not say he was innocent, he retired the day before the hearing. What does that say?

                      Also Higgins was not found guilty of throwing frames.

                      No one here seen all the evidence for/against Hann and no one here seen all the evidence for/against Higgins.
                      If Hann was as high a profile players as higgins, with all his titles under his belt, he wouldnt of retired the day before any hearing, because he would of known he wouldnt get the book thrown at him, like he did get.
                      Blown away

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally Posted by jw147 View Post
                        If Hann was as high a profile players as higgins, with all his titles under his belt, he wouldnt of retired the day before any hearing, because he would of known he wouldnt get the book thrown at him, like he did get.
                        He had a chance to defend himself and didn't take it. That's the main difference between these cases. If he'd bother to do something the result could've been different. Higgins put in a big effort to clear his name, Hann didn't do anything (i.e. admitted that he's guilty). That makes these cases incomparable.

                        You can whine all you want but it doesn't change the result. I'm happy that John is still around, hopefully his game will be also.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Im not whining, it doesnt bother me that hes still playing, i actually like him. But he should of got banned for at least 2 seasons because common sense tells you hes guilty.

                          His reputation is in tatters anyway, hes never gonna have the same respected authority in the game anymore. It will be interesting how the crowd react to him during the UK.
                          Blown away

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I completely disagree with those in this thread wielding the axe.

                            Sorry but ''common sense'' doesn't suggest he's guilty. We have not seen the full evidence, or heard it. Myself, like a lot of others, were swayed by the unedited tapes, which the sole intention was to condemn Higgins.

                            I can understand how some people are finding it difficult to accept and also, there will be a few out there who wanted him banned just because they either don't like him, or for the media frenzy it would have caused but a proper tribunal has found him not guilty. We should have faith in that.

                            IMO, the full, unedited tapes should be made available for the public to see, just to put minds at rest and see how Higgins was roped in.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Since 6 month ban does end in November, it doesn't seem so bad that most of it was during the off season. Admittedly, he has missed PTC and Shanghai(and will miss the World Open), but he won't be excluded from the UK Champs, Welsh Open, China Open, World Champs.

                              The question is how has this affected his rankings, earnings, publicity etc.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Did Higgins fly with Mooney to Kiev to join the Red Party or just go for drinks with strangers?
                                :snooker:

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X