Ssb - higgins may be out until february

[superaussie]

excellent points from hot pot i agree completely with him on this

[bigbreak]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...g-verdict.html

States quite clearly here that he was charged with bringing the game into disrepute .

Unless they are wrong

they got it wrong just like a lot of others

[hotpot]

they got it wrong just like a lot of others

And these

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...6908-22546829/

I dont want to harp on about it but its clear that he brought the game into disrepute .

Its just like an employee who has done something seriously wrong, and gets suspended , which will come under gross misconduct , which could be for a number of things . Ie fighting .

Higgins was charged with the following "intentionally giving the impression to others that they were agreeing to act in breach of the betting rules" and failing to report the matter promptly to the governing body. Which in effect meant he was guilty of bringing the game into disrepute .

And i,m not anti Higgins , i,m delighted hes back . Snooker would,nt be the same without him .

[debs]

Hi all new here dont want to get off on the wrong foot but a lot of people seem to think that Higgins punishment fits his crime.
Wish i could share the sentiment guys but just shouts out that he is an untouchable to me.
Mooney was his long term manager and i am guessing friend, they have after all made a lot of money together, just on his own back sorts this all out and then hints to Higgins just before the start of the meeting that match fixing maybe spoken off.
Why would he do that unless he thought Higgins would be open to it? does not make sense.
Higgins has never come across as a shrinking violet he has always been outspoken on all sorts of topics.
Dont buy it and thats not all that bothers me with this whole thing either it stinks from start to finish.

Another thing watching the final this morning and i think it was Joe J mentioned that J Burnet has just opened his own Snooker hall doing well for a journeyman eh.

[Migtsf]

I’ve just heard Barry Hearn talking to the BBC about the Higgins case, and there is a point that I find important to highlight here. He says that the independent tribunal had access to all the information, not only the NOTW video we all saw.

It’s still not quite clear to me if that means the tribunal had access to the full unedited version of the video, but if they did, it sort of removes the importance that has been recently put on the fact that the two most serious accusations on the Scots were dropped by World Snooker because World Series was out of their jurisdiction.

I mean, if the independent tribunal did in fact have access to the full unedited video, and if evidence that Higgins was guilty of match-fixing was there, wouldn’t they be able to charge Higgins with the very same accusations dropped by World Snooker?

Since they didn’t, the logical conclusion here is that Higgins is innocent of match-fixing.

[wildJONESEYE]

I’ve just heard Barry Hearn talking to the BBC about the Higgins case, and there is a point that I find important to highlight here. He says that the independent tribunal had access to all the information, not only the NOTW video we all saw.

It’s still not quite clear to me if that means the tribunal had access to the full unedited version of the video, but if they did, it sort of removes the importance that has been recently put on the fact that the two most serious accusations on the Scots were dropped by World Snooker because World Series was out of their jurisdiction.

I mean, if the independent tribunal did in fact have access to the full unedited video, and if evidence that Higgins was guilty of match-fixing was there, wouldn’t they be able to charge Higgins with the very same accusations dropped by World Snooker?

Since they didn’t, the logical conclusion here is that Higgins is innocent of match-fixing.

if the world series is out of their jurisdiction why is mooney banned for life from involvement in snooker.

it is obviously in their jurisdiction why else waste months looking at it.

the serious accusations was looked at then decided no point carry on with it regarding john so it was droped and they charged him for the inability to use a telephone.

[Migtsf]

Well, the president of World Snooker and the snooker authorities concluded, after thorough investigation, that they couldn’t maintain the most serious charges because it was out of their jurisdiction, so I’m not going to put that into question.

The point I’m trying to make here is that when this piece of information was made public, it seemed that the Higgins defense had shielded itself in a technicality, something that is acceptable in any court, but doesn’t look good with the public opinion.

However, contrary to what some people were assuming, we know now that the technicality didn’t prevent the independent tribunal from looking at all the information, therefore, if they had found evidence of match-fixing by Higgins they would have reinstated the charges dropped by World Snooker. At least that’s my understanding. If a man goes to court to be judged for stealing, and during the examination of the evidence it is found he also killed someone, the court is not going to let him get away with it just because he wasn’t on trial for murder, or is it?....

[snooky147]

if the world series is out of their jurisdiction why is mooney banned for life from involvement in snooker.

it is obviously in their jurisdiction why else waste months looking at it.

the serious accusations was looked at then decided no point carry on with it regarding john so it was droped and they charged him for the inability to use a telephone.

It's not the fact that it was a World series event that was in question. If you read the verdict they were questioning the words Tour”, “Tournament” and “Match” in relation to any claim of match fixing.
A weak play on words in my opinion but one which got them off on the two most serious charges.

[debs]

Right its all better then, just some simple misunderstanding its all ok

Dress it up anyway you want it is what it is. But you are not alone in your trust of Higgins Virgo thinks he just made a mistake and has been treated too harshly.

Well i am coming at it from an ordinary Snooker fans point of view and to me the people that are buying this bull are the the ones guilty of being naive.

It reminds me of when a government puts forward some new law that nobody wants and we are told live with it as we are your betters and we know whats best.

Yes he made a mistake and he got caught and i am sure over the next few months he will give plausible sad eyed interviews and people will gush what a shame poor Higgins wee honest ordinary Scottish boy got mixed up with the wrong crowd. If there was a uke: smiley i would use it. Isnt it stange that some people can do no wrong.

[wildJONESEYE]

It's not the fact that it was a World series event that was in question. If you read the verdict they were questioning the words Tour”, “Tournament” and “Match” in relation to any claim of match fixing.
A weak play on words in my opinion but one which got them off on the two most serious charges.

its not off for mooney is it ...

why cant he come back next year managing players ?

[Migtsf]

Mooney knew about the match-fixing offer for much longer that Higgins. Both men claimed they had to intentions to go ahead with it, but the independent tribunal only believed in Higgins.

It had nothing to do with the tournament being out of World Snooker jurisdiction.

[wildJONESEYE]

Mooney knew about the match-fixing offer for much longer that Higgins. Both men claimed they had to intentions to go ahead with it, but the independent tribunal only believed in Higgins.

It had nothing to do with the tournament being out of World Snooker jurisdiction.

it was either in World Snooker jurisdiction or it wasn't no half measures here what does it matter if mooney knew of it longer.

my point is you cant pick and choose when you in charge and when you not.

if the independent tribunal banned mooney they had the authority to do so if it wasn't in their jurisdiction regarding the World Series what was to stop mooney telling them to get lost it was my tournaments.

its obvious they looked at it all and came to the correct decision Mooney was bent and John got caught on the hop.

its wrong trying to separate both men from the judgements.

its like someone stealing and someone receiving stolen goods the sentence for the same thing differs.

[snooky147]

its not off for mooney is it ...

why cant he come back next year managing players ?

It is off, as you say for Mooney Wild. They took John Higgin's account as being truthful so therefore they dropped the two most serious charges but Mooney only got the two serious charges dropped by his solicitors objection to the definitions of the wording I posted earlier. His ban has been recommended as being permanent.

[debs]

So Mooney takes the fall for his FRIEND how nice of him. While poor little John gets to play the innocent victim.
Sure he will have to play it carefull for a while but my guess is he is a very good actor and will manage just fine.
There was only one right outcome for me in this and it has not happened it is a total disgrace.
I am as mad as hell but not shocked as that is the way of the world.

[thinsy]

So Mooney takes the fall for his FRIEND how nice of him. While poor little John gets to play the innocent victim.
Sure he will have to play it carefull for a while but my guess is he is a very good actor and will manage just fine.
There was only one right outcome for me in this and it has not happened it is a total disgrace.
I am as mad as hell but not shocked as that is the way of the world.

A member for nearly 2 years and only managed 4 posts!!!!!!!

A really big snooker fan then??? Or are you just another 'Anti-snooker' person who appears just when scandal appears??