Ssb - john higgins returns

[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...=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’! ). 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....

[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.