Ssb - higgins does it again

[ace man]

did he trough that game ?

Game against Davis? That thought crossed my mind, but this year he did look down and out against Rory McLeod. I think Higgins does have trouble sometimes handling really good tacticians, especially slower ones.

[ace man]

For me its a disgrace that he's even been allowed to play again let alone win the World Championship

If you were in charge of World Snooker, would you ban your #1 player for life? Would you really? I know what your thinking, but that decision isn't exactly easy. Snooker isn't a huge sport, and they cannot afford to lose a player like that. So he recieves a slap on the wrist.
And yes, the rules are not the same for #1 player and for #93 player. They never will be. It's just not in human nature. Some people are more equal than others. The law is not the same for regular citizen and member of parlament. It's a fact of life and the world we live in. Deal with it or fight it if you like.

[Straight strike]

But after his defeat to Davis, higgins went with his manager to meet the Russian Mafia abroad straightaway. It left people with many many imaginary thoughts.

It's all down to politics in the end. But it was really ugly for the disciplinary committee to wrap things up in such a manner.

[Straight strike]

If I did not remember it wrongly, some other wrongful doings of higgins was exposed. He phoned to the bookie to bet on his opponent to win during the match interval using his own account(this was totally insane) but was of course rejected. It was a very serious disciplinary issue for a professional sportsman. Did he get any punishment on that?

[Straight strike]

His explanation was something like he wanted to hedge against his loss in prize money should he got beatened. If his reputation had been so badly damaged after the incidence, we well deserved it.

[The Statman]

There were many questions that the whole situation brought up, not all of them answered. But we do not know all the details.

There were two huge questions which I find difficult to explain if Higgins was guilty of more than he was in the end done for. One of those is why, if the videotape was so incriminating, did the tape need to be edited so heavily by the News of the World. Surely heavily editing something which would be evidence enough in its original form is defeating the whole aim of the exercise.

At one point, Higgins shakes his head and the subtitle is "Yes" - would Higgins not be more likely to be saying "No" while shaking his head? Have you ever heard Higgins say "Yes" in any interview ever? In his broad Scottish accent I have only ever heard him say "Aye".

This is just one example which I concluded would render the videotape evidence pretty much inadmissible as evidence so how was he ever going to be found guilty even if he was?

Anyhow, there's no point saying you'll never watch snooker again now that Higgins has won the championship, if you didn't feel likewise at the fact that he was allowed ever to compete again. That's a little inconsistent.

At the end of the day I suspect there are some details of the whole case that we will never know, and I suspect he is guilty of perhaps a bit more than the verdict found - but a good deal less than what a lot of people seem to be inferring. Fortunately (for me, for starters) it is not yet against the law to be an idiot.

When all is said and done, there is little doubt that Higgins is one of the very best players, on the table, and that is where the world championship is contested and not in a kangaroo court of ethics.

Well done John!

[Straight strike]

He should be kept out from the hall of fame in snooker. I would like to see his MBE medal ripped off from him as well.

[debs]

Again the papers report today that Hearn and WS hands were tied because of legal technicalities.
As WS had no jurisdiction over the tournament in the Ukraine where the alleged match fixing was to happen.
So as much as it has confused me as he has acted like the injured party and an innocent guy all season, this says it all he got off on a technicality.
Now i will just have to try and forget it as he is not going away. And like you said it is not against the law being an idiot or is it?
But we do all make mistakes so as much as it gets to me i think this is the only way to get past it by putting it down to a major boo boo.

[GQ Man]

There were many questions that the whole situation brought up, not all of them answered. But we do not know all the details.

There were two huge questions which I find difficult to explain if Higgins was guilty of more than he was in the end done for. One of those is why, if the videotape was so incriminating, did the tape need to be edited so heavily by the News of the World. Surely heavily editing something which would be evidence enough in its original form is defeating the whole aim of the exercise.

At one point, Higgins shakes his head and the subtitle is "Yes" - would Higgins not be more likely to be saying "No" while shaking his head? Have you ever heard Higgins say "Yes" in any interview ever? In his broad Scottish accent I have only ever heard him say "Aye".

This is just one example which I concluded would render the videotape evidence pretty much inadmissible as evidence so how was he ever going to be found guilty even if he was?

Anyhow, there's no point saying you'll never watch snooker again now that Higgins has won the championship, if you didn't feel likewise at the fact that he was allowed ever to compete again. That's a little inconsistent.

At the end of the day I suspect there are some details of the whole case that we will never know, and I suspect he is guilty of perhaps a bit more than the verdict found - but a good deal less than what a lot of people seem to be inferring. Fortunately (for me, for starters) it is not yet against the law to be an idiot.

When all is said and done, there is little doubt that Higgins is one of the very best players, on the table, and that is where the world championship is contested and not in a kangaroo court of ethics.

Well done John!

Yadda Yadda Yadda well done with your P.C view well done.

[Straight strike]

Let alone the set up in Ukraine, I think any sportsman are strictly forbidden to bet on his/her matches by any sporting association alike. For instance, if a jockey is found betting in horse races (using other's identity of course), a ban will be imposed on him/her. But why Higgins could get away from it? His previous ban had nothing with this, am I right?

[The Statman]

Yadda Yadda Yadda well done with your P.C view well done.

Equally well done with your uninformative response.

[The Statman]

Let alone the set up in Ukraine, I think any sportsman are strictly forbidden to bet on his/her matches by any sporting association alike. For instance, if a jockey is found betting in horse races (using other's identity of course), a ban will be imposed on him/her. But why Higgins could get away from it? His previous ban had nothing with this, am I right?

Well actually it has only been banned in snooker since the Higgins story. Highest break bets were commonplace - i.e. the holder betting that it will be beaten during the tournament - they win the prize if it isn't and the bet if it is.

Joe Swail certailny made no secret of it in 2000 when he was the front-runner and, donkeys' years before that, John Spencer was not against the principle.

You are right; it certainly should be outlawed but it never has been in snooker, until now.

[Straight strike]

An intended robbery is a crime in itself with sufficient proof, this is the law in our society. An intended betting on his opponent should also be regarded as a break of rules within the WPBSA. It is unbelievable that Higgins just walked away from it.

[Straight strike]

Really? I am absolutely stunned.

[Straight strike]

Now I can understand why so many low ranking players still survived in the circuit year after year!