Ssb - higgins does it again

[The Statman]

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.

But was there sufficient proof?

A heavily edited tape which is proved to have been wrongly subtitled is perhaps not as good proof as an original, unedited recording. Without full knowledge of the full evidence, how can we be sure of anything? I'm not saying he's got away with it; nor that he has been made a scapegoat unfairly - because I don't know. And not knowing the full facts, just saying he's got out of it is almost tantamount to saying there is no confidence in any justice system (which may or may not be true!).

But just throwing mild insults on an internet forum with no serious attempt to back up an opinion is a waste of time and, frankly, I've got better things to do with my time than to be told I'm just being PC because my opinion differs from the writer's. There is no point going any further with a faceless argument that neither side is ever going to win.

[Straight strike]

But why the bookie rejected his bet in the first place if there was no problem?

[Gerry Armstrong]

Betting on yourself to get beat was commonplace in snooker for many years. It was generally refered to as laying off your prize money and is a very common practice in betting.

As an example, if you were in the Last 32 and guaranteed £1,000 and the Last 16 was guaranteed £2,000, if you bet £500 on your opponent to beat you at even money, you could guarantee yourself £1,500 as a mimimum, win or lose.

If you win, you're now on a guaranteed £2,000 less your lost £500 bet. If you lose the match you get your guaranteed £1,000 plus your winning bet. Assuming the stake money came out of your £1,000 guaranteed Last 32 money, you are guaranteed £1,500 whether you win or lose. From a financial point of view, especially for lesser players who for years got little or no prize money as there were so few tournaments, it makes perfect sense from a financial point of view.

However, clearly betting on yourself to lose isn't acceptable in a sporting sense and that's why it's now banned as it would be very easy to create a scenario where you're actually financially better off losing rather than winning and that's when all the fun starts and sporting integrity ends.

[Straight strike]

It's the first time to hear about this but I have already figured out straightaway that it will be a great inducement for match fixing if the return of losing a match is higher than the prize money a player can earn from winning. Cant imagine the practice can go on for so long before someone finally put a halt on it.

To sum up in a few words. Being a man with an Honour, an icon in snooker, the general public are expecting a higher moral standard from Mr. Higgins. This is indeed very common for any public figure alike, such as politician or religious people. Now Mr. Higgins has done a few things which are very inappropriate. Facing criticism of some kind is just another price he has to pay apart from his fine and ban from playing for six months.

[FerruleFox]

I was pretty upset when the scandal broke last year, just as many are here. None of us will ever know the truth however, so we can either accept the disciplinary hearing's findings or abandon the sport all together. John served his time fair and square. Everyone in the sport has accepted him back, including the pro's he's competing against.

I, for one, am glad he's back because he's clearly the best player in the world at the moment. In fact, he's raising the game to a new level with his combination of break building, tactical play and tenacity. Apparently, now he wants to go after Stephen's record of 7 world titles. The game is better off with him in the field imo.

[Straight strike]

I know sports are never clean when betting is involved, cheating can never stop, never. But the way he behaved in the video really disgusted me, it's just the opposite to his image in public.

[BikiniKill]

But was there sufficient proof?

A heavily edited tape which is proved to have been wrongly subtitled is perhaps not as good proof as an original, unedited recording. Without full knowledge of the full evidence, how can we be sure of anything? I'm not saying he's got away with it; nor that he has been made a scapegoat unfairly - because I don't know. And not knowing the full facts, just saying he's got out of it is almost tantamount to saying there is no confidence in any justice system (which may or may not be true!).

But just throwing mild insults on an internet forum with no serious attempt to back up an opinion is a waste of time and, frankly, I've got better things to do with my time than to be told I'm just being PC because my opinion differs from the writer's. There is no point going any further with a faceless argument that neither side is ever going to win.

I'm appreciate your reasoned argument, and I know that people won't really be swayed either way with this. I just watched the video again and can't find the place you mention where he shakes his head and the dialogue said yes.. I agree that the tape has been edited, and I think it probably has been cut together to look worse, like the part with the champagne coming right after the agreement to take 300k.

But I don't personally feel like the parts that are there can be disputed. I don't trust a tabloid blindly, and without the video evidence would have been completely loathe to agree that the world number 1 could have done such a thing. I may not enjoy watching him play, but I respected his position and attitude. He appears relaxed, he agrees to four frames 'in year one.' I think he had a horrible lapse in judgement, maybe precipitated by a shady manager. But the lapse was too great for me to forgive, and I don't think he was given anywhere near a suitable punishment. He clouded the reputation of the game, and any advances it has made thereafter have been in spite of this.

[The Statman]

I was pretty upset when the scandal broke last year, just as many are here. None of us will ever know the truth however, so we can either accept the disciplinary hearing's findings or abandon the sport all together. John served his time fair and square. Everyone in the sport has accepted him back, including the pro's he's competing against.

...and also by the majority of the audience in his semi-final when the heckler spouted out. And those tickets were sold before the draw, never mind the semi-final line-up, was known so it's not the case that it was a room full of people who had consciously bought tickets to watch him.

I, for one, am glad he's back because he's clearly the best player in the world at the moment. In fact, he's raising the game to a new level with his combination of break building, tactical play and tenacity. Apparently, now he wants to go after Stephen's record of 7 world titles. The game is better off with him in the field imo.

I certainly agree with you that the game is better off with Higgins in it, at least on-the-table.

Nothing has convinced me that he is more guilty than he was found, but I'm no more certain than anyone else.

But when I make comments giving an insight as to why I have my opinion, and the only responses are pretty much one-liners telling me I'm a jerk, it doesn't influence me to change my mind.

[not aimed at you]
You won't win an argument by telling me I'm wrong, you'll win the argument by convincing me that I'm wrong. In the mean time, I'll enjoy first class snooker on the green baize and not take much notice of the argument.

[miscuehamburg]

The contents of the notw-tape were never questioned by Higgins (or his army of lawyers), weren't they? His defence based on non-proven intend to really throw frames. So, the next time you get caught with a machine gun in a bank...
However, I won't do any more JH bashing. He played brilliantly in the last 1 1/2 sessions (after the missed blue by Judd), and I think he deserved to win that match. A real snooker-terminator, as Davis said. Whether he deserved to take part in it, -or the whole season for that matter-, is another question that cannot be answered without a proper investigation, which never took place. My problem is that I have had quite a few not so snooker prone friends wondering about the man with such reputation winning the title again

[Welshsteve]

I think most people's gripe with this, just as it is mine, is the fact that John has come back from his ban and trying to come across as the "hard done by" party in all this, with people speaking about how difficult it has been for him. I know he's had his dad dying, and you wouldn't wish that on anybody, but the fact remains that John has tarnished the image of snooker in many people's eyes.

I just find it quite ironic that World Snooker continue to associate themselves with betting firms.

[Straight strike]

Some choose to keep liking Higgins but some don't. What's wrong about that? We stay on this forum for one simple reason: We all have geniune interest in snooker and that's enough.

[asbjorng]

I say that people do stupid things, stand up for what they've done, and MOVE ON. I have mixed feelings about Higgins' victory. After all that's happened he's not my favorite player, but I certainly enjoy his marvellous game. I think that hating him because of some dumb decisions is pretty silly. The championship title was indeed well deserved after all.

Just my two cents....

[Straight strike]

Higgins had played very well since he got back from behind, I was impressed. But a title written by BBC sports was indeed a better description of the match, "Judd Trump mistakes hand John Higgins title".

[Straight strike]

JT was a better player for most of the time but he made a few deadly mistakes that cost him the match.

[debs]

I think most people's gripe with this, just as it is mine, is the fact that John has come back from his ban and trying to come across as the "hard done by" party in all this, with people speaking about how difficult it has been for him. I know he's had his dad dying, and you wouldn't wish that on anybody, but the fact remains that John has tarnished the image of snooker in many people's eyes.

I just find it quite ironic that World Snooker continue to associate themselves with betting firms.

I found watching him this season a little confusing you know the guy has such strenght of character to fight on despite everything that is going on around him. And because of this i felt bad and thought he must be innocent and been set up.

Everyone here seems to think that the betting on himself issue is the worst. When i assumed like mentioned earlier that lower ranked players done this all the time although using someone else to lay the bets for them when they felt that they had no chance in hell of winning.
What bothered me was the alleged match fixing i have read here that the matches did not exist so it is not relevant but he was there to create the matches right so they would exist yes?
I now know that WS/BHearn could not do anything about this because jurisdiction laws and so he got off on a technicality this to me means he was guilty right?? Which means his behaviour over the season is unreal as he has acted like he done nothing wrong the man confuses the hell out of me.

But no matter what luck playing percentages hard work and bloodymindedness he has reached great heights.