Ssb - john higgins returns

[MySockPuppet]

A year ago, the prospect of John Higgins becoming the black sheep of the snooker family seemed ludicrous.

He was the best player in the world with a well earned reputation as an amiable guy, unaffected by fame and fortune.

All that changed in the Ukraine earlier this year and the subsequent News of the World sting that left Higgins fighting for his professional survival.

Today he returns at the European Players Tour Championship in Hamm, Germany, his first match since losing 13-11 to Steve Davis in the second round of the World Championship.

In an interview with the Scotland on Sunday (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sport/Interview-John-Higgins-snooker-player.6615899.jp), Higgins likened this to a trip to the dentist. He is unsure about how his fellow players and the wider game will welcome him back.

Some have sent messages of support. Some have not. I know one well known player – a good friend of Higgins – who was simply too embarrassed by the whole affair to say anything to him at all.

Higgins has been the recipient of many - mainly anonymous - insults from some fans on the internet and admitted he read many of these comments through natural curiosity.

But public opinion is only that: opinion. The tribunal was headed by an independent lawyer who came to his judgement based on the available facts, not his own prejudice.

I wouldn’t write anything about John that I wouldn’t say to his face.

I believe he was very naive, well, stupid, to put himself in that situation but the idea that, were this a genuine plot, he would have trousered the £260,000 ‘bribe’ is not one I could picture. I’ve known him a while and that isn’t him.

But it is true that top sportspeople can develop a kind of arrogance without even knowing it. They become accustomed to a lifestyle and a sort of untouchability that means they don’t fully think through their actions.

Regardless of whether he was led into a possibly career ending scenario by his manager, Higgins should surely have behaved in a more professional manner.

And he knows that. He will have thought of little else since he was suspended.

Some will forever look at him and see someone they believe was prepared to cheat. Some will be happy to see a successful, contented person brought down a peg or two. Some will support him to the end.

Higgins will never convince everyone of his innocence and as the years go by the myths surrounding the case will grow.

But he’s back and he has every right to continue what was, until last May, a glorious career.
[/URL]https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/29605452-5106866194834940945?l=snookerscene.blogspot.com


[url=http://snookerscene.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-higgins-returns.html]More... (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sport/Interview-John-Higgins-snooker-player.6615899.jp)

[iksotam]

I know I'll support him till the end. The best ever player has returned on the circuit!

[Migtsf]

"I believe he was very naive, well, stupid, to put himself in that situation but the idea that, were this a genuine plot, he would have trousered the £260,000 ‘bribe’ is not one I could picture."

What is the difference? Neither Higgins nor Mooney knew the plot was not genuine. What is evident to everyone is once any of them knew about it they were willing to be part of it.

And if naivety and stupidity is the explanation for Higgins’s actions, it’s very reasonable to believe that if his manager took advantage of it and was capable of convincing him to play along that easily, then his manager would have been capable of convincing him to go ahead with it too when the time came.

[bonoman1970]

Can anyone get the lottery numbers off him for tonights euromillions ?

[wildJONESEYE]

"I believe he was very naive, well, stupid, to put himself in that situation but the idea that, were this a genuine plot, he would have trousered the £260,000 ‘bribe’ is not one I could picture."

What is the difference? Neither Higgins nor Mooney knew the plot was not genuine. What is evident to everyone is once any of them knew about it they were willing to be part of it.

And if naivety and stupidity is the explanation for Higgins’s actions, it’s very reasonable to believe that if his manager took advantage of it and was capable of convincing him to play along that easily, then his manager would have been capable of convincing him to go ahead with it too when the time came.

What we dont know and i guess never trully will know is the Conversation that took part Between Mooney and Higgins prior to the Meeting in Kiev.

Mooney might have played the Mafia Card on Higgins to scare him to go along with it when they were in the meeting and what has happened in the last 6 months makes me think something like that had happened.

[Migtsf]

That’s fantasy. Higgins never said he was scared of his own manager. What he said was that he “found the atmosphere in the meeting somewhat intimidating”.

The Scot looks a lot of things on that meeting but one thing he doesn’t look is scared, besides, no sign of intimidating actions has been found by the investigation.

The tribunal didn’t buy the intimidation argument or Higgins wouldn’t have been found guilty of intentionally giving the impression to others that they were agreeing to throw frames for money, the same way people are not found guilty when they commit crimes in self-defense.

What set Higgins apart from his managed was that no evidence was found that Higgins had prior knowledge, but also nothing has been found to indicate he wouldn’t go ahead with it.

If the bribe scam was genuine, by the end of the season Higgins would have stolen €300.000 from the gambling industry.

[wildJONESEYE]

That’s fantasy. Higgins never said he was scared of his own manager. What he said was that he “found the atmosphere in the meeting somewhat intimidating”.

The Scot looks a lot of things on that meeting but one thing he doesn’t look is scared, besides, no sign of intimidating actions has been found by the investigation.

The tribunal didn’t buy the intimidation argument or Higgins wouldn’t have been found guilty of intentionally giving the impression to others that they were agreeing to throw frames for money, the same way people are not found guilty when they commit crimes in self-defense.

What set Higgins apart from his managed was that no evidence was found that Higgins had prior knowledge, but also nothing has been found to indicate he wouldn’t go ahead with it.

If the bribe scam was genuine, by the end of the season Higgins would have stolen €300.000 from the gambling industry.

the Atmosphere in the meeting was intimidating but maybe that was the paranoia Mooney had put in his mind.

[wildJONESEYE]

look Mooney knew exactly what they were going to discus but the last thing he wanted was for John to say NO WAY get out of my face so he probably gave john some intimidating thoughts before the meeting.

[Skypigeon]

I know I'll support him till the end. The best ever player has returned on the circuit!

I'll always support him, he's one of the best players snooker's ever seen! Extatic to have him back!

[Migtsf]

the Atmosphere in the meeting was intimidating but maybe that was the paranoia Mooney had put in his mind.

Maybe, maybe, maybe…

Maybe there was no intimidation at all, and all is what appears to be. How about that?!

There is a principle called Occam’s razor that says "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one."

Besides, the tribunal didn’t think there was any intimidation so why should any of us?

If Higgins was really scared how come nobody can see that in the released video?

If that is him acting and since he fooled everybody with it, how can anyone from now on tell when he is telling the truth?

Why should we believe him now he knows he is being filmed and not when he didn’t know he was being taped?

[sh1234]

Besides, the tribunal didn’t think there was any intimidation so why should any of us?


If you apply that logic to this, why do people still think that he was guilty?

[Migtsf]

I’m sorry sh1234, but I don’t understand your question.

The main thing here is not if people think he is guilty or not. The most important thing is the TRIBUNAL found him GUILTY!

We saw him on video agreeing to throw frames for money and that’s exactly what he was found guilty of. The heavy-editing of the video argument was BS as was the intimidation excuse. They just couldn’t nail him with actually bribery charges because, since the scam was not for real, no frame was actually thrown and no money exchanged hands.

Now that Higgins is back to winning, in some people's minds, somehow it proves he wasn't guilty. Go figure. :confused:

All the dirt is now going to be swept under the carpet as if it never happened, and whether people like the punishment he got or not, he is now untouchable.

[Theguywithaplan]

I’m sorry sh1234, but I don’t understand your question.

The main thing here is not if people think he is guilty or not. The most important thing is the TRIBUNAL found him GUILTY!

We saw him on video agreeing to throw frames for money and that’s exactly what he was found guilty of. The heavy-editing of the video argument was BS as was the intimidation excuse. They just couldn’t nail him with actually bribery charges because, since the scam was not for real, no frame was actually thrown and no money exchanged hands.

Now that Higgins is back to winning, in some people's minds, somehow it proves he wasn't guilty. Go figure. :confused:

All the dirt is now going to be swept under the carpet as if it never happened, and whether people like the punishment he got or not, he is now untouchable.

As I understood it he was found guilty of bringing the game into disrespute and found not guilty of match fixing or intending to fix matches?

[thinsy]

The way I see it many people have been sent to prison with sentences too short for their crime, some with sentences too long for their crime..... Some people are falsely accused/condemned, some are falsely aquitted. But each one will do the punishment given!

Whether right or wrong John has served his punishment....

If you like him then enjoy the snooker he will provide for our entertainment.
If you don't like him, don't watch. Don't let his future upset you!!

[miscuehamburg]

What I would have expected from a world number one and a genuine ambassador of the game then, would have been to walk instantly out of the room as the talk about match fixing begun.

[Case454]

That’s fantasy. Higgins never said he was scared of his own manager. What he said was that he “found the atmosphere in the meeting somewhat intimidating”.

The Scot looks a lot of things on that meeting but one thing he doesn’t look is scared, besides, no sign of intimidating actions has been found by the investigation.

The tribunal didn’t buy the intimidation argument or Higgins wouldn’t have been found guilty of intentionally giving the impression to others that they were agreeing to throw frames for money, the same way people are not found guilty when they commit crimes in self-defense.

What set Higgins apart from his managed was that no evidence was found that Higgins had prior knowledge, but also nothing has been found to indicate he wouldn’t go ahead with it.

If the bribe scam was genuine, by the end of the season Higgins would have stolen €300.000 from the gambling industry.

The QC said he believed John wouldn't go ahead with it and that John's account was ture. Remember there was email and phone evidence provided.

[hotpot]

The independent body that investitagted this incident looked at a lot more evidence and facts than any of us has ever seen or heard .

If there was any factual evidence of match fixing then they would have slung the book at John , There was,nt , end of .

I just cant understand the knockers who are not prepared to understand or accept this , saying that , thats what makes the forum so interesting and enjoyable .

[circle]

There has been that many players involved in match fixing rumours that we could have a tournament just for them

But I wont be taking bets!

[Iszkiri]

there has been that many players involved in match fixing rumours that we could have a tournament just for them

but i wont be taking bets!

:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d

[Mignon]

What I would have expected from a world number one and a genuine ambassador of the game then, would have been to walk instantly out of the room as the talk about match fixing begun.
I have to agree.
Terribly, terribly disappointing....
Warm welcome in Hamm.
Well, a little warmer and it would have lacked decency. Glad there haven't been red carpets, flowers and standing ovations to show solidarity.... with whom?.... For what?....
Sad situation but we have to accept the verdict and try to forget and move on.
Those of us who can.


There has been that many players involved in match fixing rumours that we could have a tournament just for them

But I wont be taking bets!

:D :D :D :D :D :D

[Erwan_BZH]

Please, please, please......

Let's not start the 13245678565222th topic about that incident. He's back, period.

I, for sure, am delighted he's back and all I want is to see him answer the critics ON THE GREEN BAIZE. And I'm sure he will.

Welcome back John, and best of luck! :snooker:

[Mignon]

Please, please, please......

Let's not start the 13245678565222th topic about that incident.

Well, nobody's THAT popular! :D



I, for sure, am delighted he's back and all I want is to see him answer the critics ON THE GREEN BAIZE. And I'm sure he will.

It's not ON THE GREEN BAIZE that he shows.... naïveté and receives criticism :D


Welcome back John, and best of luck!

I agree that snooker is richer with him on the tour but I don't think that welcoming him back should look in any way like "congratulations". ;)
(Not that you implied that, Erwan. :D ) Forgetting and moving on may take some time....

[Erwan_BZH]

Oh no, I don't say it to 'congratulate' him, just to it's good to see him back.

And yes, his showed his naivety OFF the green baize but you know as well as me that he'll be waited around the corner by his detractors....on any pitch.

[Monsoon]

I’m sorry sh1234, but I don’t understand your question.

The main thing here is not if people think he is guilty or not. The most important thing is the TRIBUNAL found him GUILTY!

We saw him on video agreeing to throw frames for money and that’s exactly what he was found guilty of. The heavy-editing of the video argument was BS as was the intimidation excuse. They just couldn’t nail him with actually bribery charges because, since the scam was not for real, no frame was actually thrown and no money exchanged hands.

Now that Higgins is back to winning, in some people's minds, somehow it proves he wasn't guilty. Go figure. :confused:

All the dirt is now going to be swept under the carpet as if it never happened, and whether people like the punishment he got or not, he is now untouchable.

Wrong Wrong Wrong........found guilty of bringing game in to disrepute only. As others have said there were email etc that we do not have the benefit of. Independent tribunal had all the facts and made a decision based on this......accept it and move on please.

[Mignon]

Oh no, I don't say it to 'congratulate' him, just to it's good to see him back.

And yes, his showed his naivety OFF the green baize but you know as well as me that he'll be waited around the corner by his detractors....on any pitch.
Critics are not necessarily detractors and the man has to face the music and learn the sad lesson. Wouldn't it have been just great if the whole situation hadn't existed? Unfortunately, this is not the case.
As I said, moving on may take some time....

[Migtsf]

Wrong Wrong Wrong........found guilty of bringing game in to disrepute only. As others have said there were email etc that we do not have the benefit of. Independent tribunal had all the facts and made a decision based on this......accept it and move on please.

Perhaps, you all dirt sweepers and history re-writers should read this:

http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=26897&highlight=betting+rules

It says there that Higgins admitted to intentionally giving the impression to others that he was going to throw away frames for money.

The only reason why the tribunal didn’t make much of it was because there was no actual crime. The scam was not real, therefore no frames were fixed and no money exchanged hands.

Anyway, to the public in general, what matter is it was clear that had Higgins been given a genuine offer to fix results of snooker matches he would start a parallel career in the criminal world.

[darrus]

I have to agree.
Terribly, terribly disappointing....
Warm welcome in Hamm.
Well, a little warmer and it would have lacked decency. Glad there haven't been red carpets, flowers and standing ovations to show solidarity.... with whom?.... For what?....


Having two of five WPBSA directors flown to Hamm to greet and welcome John Higgins is red carpet and fanfare enough. I doubt any of the players have ever been aforded such a welcome.

It just shows how important is John Higgins for current administration. Judging by this weekend, he is clearly declared an appropriate role model, an example for every player to follow, and let's not forget that he's supposed to be teaching the young players how to behave. He is supposed to be the image of snooker and a flagbearer. New times, new values etc.

For myself, I am glad that both Hendry and Davis decided not to participate in all this.

[Mignon]

Apparently, Jason Ferguson and David Douglas were there for the WPBSA meeting where they were supposed to outline the governing body’s zero-tolerance crackdown on corruption and to brief the players on the newly-set hotline.
Actually, I tend to believe that seeing Douglas and attending the meeting wasn't something Higgins would call 'pleasant' at the moment. :D

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/snooker/8127073/John-Higgins-in-the-spotlight-as-WPBSA-sets-up-confidential-hotline-over-snooker-corruption.html

[darrus]

Apparently, Jason Ferguson and David Douglas were there for the WPBSA meeting where they were supposed to outline the governing body’s zero-tolerance crackdown on corruption and to brief the players on the newly-set hotline.
Actually, I tend to believe that seeing Douglas and attending the meeting wasn't something Higgins would call 'pleasant' at the moment. :D

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/snooker/8127073/John-Higgins-in-the-spotlight-as-WPBSA-sets-up-confidential-hotline-over-snooker-corruption.html

Oh yes, the launch of the third anti-corruption structure in snooker in three months. So expertly timed to remind everyone who forgot or doubted that WPBSA is fighting the match-fixing with all their might. I'll wait till I see the results - any results - before I buy the hype.
And anyway, the point is, they were attending Higgins match. And it shows a lot, two of five board members, including the head of WPBSA, fly overseas to watch a player in his first-round match.

And don't you find it strange that it is Douglas who comes out with this babble about "John said he regrets bringing the name of snooker down" etc while Higgins himself never publicly stated anything of the sort?

I understand and respect it that they're doing what they think needs to be done. They see the need clear Higgins, build him up again him and present him as a face of modern snooker.
But a bit more subtlety would be better. Just my opinion.

[gazza147]

Dont Worry too Much he May be Out of the Tourny Soon!

Hes 2-0 Down to TOM FORD.

[cuemaxx]

2-1. Come on John! We need ya buddy....;)

[Iszkiri]

And now 2-2. Come John!:)

[Case454]

Perhaps, you all dirt sweepers and history re-writers should read this:

http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=26897&highlight=betting+rules

It says there that Higgins admitted to intentionally giving the impression to others that he was going to throw away frames for money.

The only reason why the tribunal didn’t make much of it was because there was no actual crime. The scam was not real, therefore no frames were fixed and no money exchanged hands.

Anyway, to the public in general, what matter is it was clear that had Higgins been given a genuine offer to fix results of snooker matches he would start a parallel career in the criminal world.

Wrong! They did not pin any more on him because they believed that he had no intention of going through with it and that he had no prior knowledge of the match fixing issue.

[darrus]

Wrong! They did not pin any more on him because they believed that he had no intention of going through with it and that he had no prior knowledge of the match fixing issue.

Believed, exactly. And any decision bassed on assumptions and impressions instead of facts will always be questionable.
Not to mention that we know that Ian Mills QC is sometimes wrong in his beliefs. As I remember, he once believed that Linford Christie wasn't using the doping - decision later overruled with 2-years ban by IAAF because: "UK Athletics misdirected itself and reached an erroneous conclusion".
I'm not saying there was an error this time. I'm just saying that dropping the charges and saying "we believe he is good and his manager is bad" is the best way to clear one's name.

The blame lies with WPBSA though. The way they've handled the whole story - it was so unconvincing, it may serve as an example how these things shouldn't be done.

[Mignon]

Fans see only what they want to see and tend to think mostly in terms of ‘with us /against us’. Probably, it’s in the nature of being a fan even if things can be more complex than that and there are more colours than white and black (if we agree to call these two ‘colours’! :D). John can win all the matches in all the rest of his life, the stain will never wash away completely. Playing snooker is one thing, the Kiev moment is another. He’s one of the best players ever. That is one discussion (but I believe there is little discussion about that). The Kiev mistake is a totally different discussion. That is the saddest thing about the whole stupid mistake he made> it matters less how long the ban is or how large the fine, because there’s no punishment as tough as the one he has inflicted on himself by damaging his reputation. Sadly, there will always be a Kiev paragraph in his biography and a Higgins-Kiev paragraph in the history of the sport. :(

And (Darrus is right) there will always be a rather large chapter of ‘how not to’ as far as the WPBSA is concerned.... :D

[Gargon]

I think he has put himself across really well in EPTC5 and is currently in the quarter finals and I hope he wins it or atleast reaches the final to put all his doubters to rest.

[Theguywithaplan]

I think he has put himself across really well in EPTC5 and is currently in the quarter finals and I hope he wins it or atleast reaches the final to put all his doubters to rest.

To be fair, no one is doubting his ability on the table. Whether he wins or loses here proves absolutely NOTHING.

[gazza147]

Hes 2-0 Down again against Anthony Hamilton.

[Theguywithaplan]

two all now

[Migtsf]

Wrong! They did not pin any more on him because they believed that he had no intention of going through with it and that he had no prior knowledge of the match fixing issue.

The tribunal was never going to act heavily against Higgins unless they found real hard evidence.

Punishing him for not reporting the incidence was an easy call, but on the other charge that Higgins admitted to be guilty of, since there was no evidence of prior knowledge and since no frames were thrown and no money exchanged hands they decided that what he said in between was not that important. After all, no crime was committed, and that was the main concern of the tribunal.

Nevertheless, the QC said:

“Mr Higgins can be criticised for the way in which he chose to respond to the situation in which he found himself.”

This shows how much they believed Higgins’s story.

If in fact they had found evidence that Higgins had reasons to feel intimidated and that he was in danger for his life, they wouldn’t have said that he could be criticized because he would be acting in self-defense.

Anyway, nobody saw an intimidated Higgins in the video, and the investigation also found nothing that could be seen as intimidation or a threat to Higgins’s life.

Back to the verdict, intimidation is only mentioned once: “He also found the atmosphere in the meeting somewhat intimidating”.

The way the phrase is constructed and the place where it is inserted looks like they had forgotten about it the first time they wrote the verdict, and they only decided to add it later on because Higgins’s lawyers must have insisted that something was said about intimidation to give some weight to Higgins’s initial explanation for his behavior in the meeting.

It doesn’t look like the QC gave any importance to that particular aspect of the story.

The tribunal also said: “However, I do not consider, in the circumstances that any very serious sanction should follow from his admitted breach of the Rule referred to in Charge 3.”, but they did punish Higgins for it too.

“TAKEN WITH THE OTHER CHARGE WHICH HE HAS ADMITTED, it seems to me that his conduct in failing to report the incident immediately warrants a short suspension from his membership of the Association and from the playing rights that his membership affords him. In my judgment, the proper length of such suspension is one of 6 months.”

And:

“Having considered the gravity of the ADMITTED RULE BREACHES (plural) and heard from Mr Clancy as to his client’s financial circumstances, I consider that he should pay a fine of £75,000 and make a contribution to the Association’s costs of £10,000.”

[circle]

I think he has put himself across really well in EPTC5 and is currently in the quarter finals and I hope he wins it or atleast reaches the final to put all his doubters to rest.

It doesnt matter what he does on the table - some folk will doubt him forever.

[Looki]

To be fair, no one is doubting his ability on the table. Whether he wins or loses here proves absolutely NOTHING.

It proves something, it proves that he's not letting "that incidence" affect his game and he's able to continue his career like a true professional no matter what.

I.e. he's getting on with it unlike some people here..

[wildJONESEYE]

Maybe, maybe, maybe…

Maybe there was no intimidation at all, and all is what appears to be. How about that?!

There is a principle called Occam’s razor that says "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one."

Besides, the tribunal didn’t think there was any intimidation so why should any of us?

If Higgins was really scared how come nobody can see that in the released video?

If that is him acting and since he fooled everybody with it, how can anyone from now on tell when he is telling the truth?

Why should we believe him now he knows he is being filmed and not when he didn’t know he was being taped?

Thats Just it if Mooney been feeding him intimidating thoughts how intimidating the meeting we see was inmaterial.

ive looked at the meeting just now and John does not look comfortable and relaxed so who ever thinks that is kidding themselves.....he was figgiting playing with his nose and ears a sure sign of Nerves of some kind.

now that could be because he was Nervous about what they were going to do or he was **** Scared.

smiling is a way of hiding nerves so again that proves nothing.

[Migtsf]

Come on, Higgins does that all the time. That was his normal self. Anyway, you and I can both believe what we want but what matters is the tribunal didn’t buy the intimidation crap or they wouldn’t have sanctioned Higgins on the charge of giving the impression to others he was going throw away frames for money, because he would be acting in self-defense.

We saw him saying one thing in that video, and we saw him later saying he didn’t mean any of it. No one can tell in which situation he is telling the truth, but one thing is certain he is lying in one of them. That means he has mastered the skills to deceive others and from now on every single word that comes out of his mouth cannot be trusted.