Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ssb - lee verdict soon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ssb - lee verdict soon

    The Stephen Lee hearing has ended in Bristol and a judgement is expected within the next few days.


    Lee was charged with several counts of match fixing. The three day hearing was heard by Sports Resolutions UK and chaired by Adam Lewis QC.


    Lewis has returned to London to consider the evidence and is likely to present his verdict on Friday or possibly early next week.


    Lee, a former world no.5 and five times ranking event winner, was suspended last October.


    More...

  • #2
    Its taken since last October which is a very long time.

    Hopefully proper justice will be served whichever way it goes.

    Match fixing is a sad and terrible thing for any sport.

    Comment


    • #3
      The repercussions of this verdict are huge. Guilty, well that'd the end of his career (for a long time at least).....not guilty, where does he go from here? Ranking points, lost earnings, reputation tarnished even if found not guilty as there will still be doubters out there, etc etc.....I await the decision with baited breath.
      You may defeat me but I will fight you to the very end!!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by fred.england View Post
        I await the decision with baited breath.
        There's no need to await the decision with baited breath. I can tell you what the decision will be right now.

        There is so much "circumstantial" evidence against Stephen Lee that he has ZERO chance of being found NOT GUILTY on all of the charges.

        Therefore it is CERTAIN that he will be found GUILTY on at least one of the charges, which will be enough to give him a lengthy ban.

        How do I know this? I am not a clairvoyant, and I cannot predict the future. But, in this case, it's blindingly obvious that he will be found guilty of SOMETHING.

        The reason for this is because it's a CIVIL hearing and not a CRIMINAL hearing.

        In a CRIMINAL hearing the Judge will either say that a defendant has to be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", or the Judge will say that you "have to be sure" that he is guilty in order to convict him.

        But, in a CIVIL hearing, which Stephen Lee has just had, the criterion of proof is totally different. In a CIVIL hearing, the outcome can be decided on "the balance of probability."

        (In effect, this means that "circumstantial" evidence carries much more weight in a CIVIL hearing than it does in a CRIMINAL hearing.)

        So, in Stephen Lee's CIVIL hearing, the only criterion needed to find him guilty is that that Adam Lewis QC thinks "it is more likely that he did do it than he didn't do it".

        And, when you look at the huge amount of "circumstantial" evidence against Stephen Lee, and the fact that the Adam Lewis QC only needs to think "it is more likely that he did do it than he didn't do it" in order to find him guilty, then it doesn't take a genius to realize that Stephen Lee is DEFINITELY going to be found guilty.

        I'm sorry for all the Stephen Lee fans out there. I am not personally a 'fan' of Stephen Lee, but I did enjoy watching him play snooker. I enjoyed watching his Rolls Royce cue-action.

        But, I'm sure that, for the foreseeable future, his Rolls Royce cue-action will only be seen in exhibitions, non-WPBSA sanctioned tournaments, and possibly the 9-ball pool circuit.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Achamian View Post
          There's no need to await the decision with baited breath. I can tell you what the decision will be right now.

          There is so much "circumstantial" evidence against Stephen Lee that he has ZERO chance of being found NOT GUILTY on all of the charges.

          Therefore it is CERTAIN that he will be found GUILTY on at least one of the charges, which will be enough to give him a lengthy ban.

          How do I know this? I am not a clairvoyant, and I cannot predict the future. But, in this case, it's blindingly obvious that he will be found guilty of SOMETHING.

          The reason for this is because it's a CIVIL hearing and not a CRIMINAL hearing.

          In a CRIMINAL hearing the Judge will either say that a defendant has to be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", or the Judge will say that you "have to be sure" that he is guilty in order to convict him.

          But, in a CIVIL hearing, which Stephen Lee has just had, the criterion of proof is totally different. In a CIVIL hearing, the outcome can be decided on "the balance of probability."

          (In effect, this means that "circumstantial" evidence carries much more weight in a CIVIL hearing than it does in a CRIMINAL hearing.)

          So, in Stephen Lee's CIVIL hearing, the only criterion needed to find him guilty is that that Adam Lewis QC thinks "it is more likely that he did do it than he didn't do it".

          And, when you look at the huge amount of "circumstantial" evidence against Stephen Lee, and the fact that the Adam Lewis QC only needs to think "it is more likely that he did do it than he didn't do it" in order to find him guilty, then it doesn't take a genius to realize that Stephen Lee is DEFINITELY going to be found guilty.

          I'm sorry for all the Stephen Lee fans out there. I am not personally a 'fan' of Stephen Lee, but I did enjoy watching him play snooker. I enjoyed watching his Rolls Royce cue-action.

          But, I'm sure that, for the foreseeable future, his Rolls Royce cue-action will only be seen in exhibitions, non-WPBSA sanctioned tournaments, and possibly the 9-ball pool circuit.

          Exactly a civil hearing that i had a while ago i was told the balance of probability is all they need so they only have to be 51 pc sure to find guilty, stinks really when you think his whole future hangs in the balance.

          Comment


          • #6
            Once again begs the question why John Higgins never came before a civil hearing?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gmg View Post
              Once again begs the question why John Higgins never came before a civil hearing?
              Isn't this the exact same thing Higgins went through?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gmg View Post
                Once again begs the question why John Higgins never came before a civil hearing?
                Originally posted by gavpowell View Post
                Isn't this the exact same thing Higgins went through?
                gavpowell is correct I think ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...er/8973869.stm

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gmg View Post
                  Once again begs the question why John Higgins never came before a civil hearing?
                  john higgins was caught on video conspiring to fix matches. there was no evidence or money trail to indicate that he had actually fixed matches or taken any money to fix matches. therefore, they got him on a "bringing the sport into disrepute" charge for which he was suspended and fined

                  stephen lee's case is a bit different - they are charging him with irregularities in specified matches over a number of years
                  Last edited by arbitrage; 14th September 2013, 12:53 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by arbitrage View Post
                    john higgins was caught on video conspiring to fix matches. there was no evidence or money trail to indicate that he had actually fixed matches or taken any money to fix matches. intent does not equal an act of criminality. therefore, they got him on a "bringing the sport into disrepute" charge for which he was suspended and fined

                    stephen lee's case is a bit different - they are charging him with irregularities in specified matches over a number of years
                    What was the difference between Higgins alleged crime, and Hann's ?

                    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...er/4725612.stm

                    Reads like the same ( agreeing to fix, but not following through with it ).

                    I always thought Hann's was drug related, but reading the report, it was 8 years for

                    "knowingly entered in an agreement to join in an unlawful enterprise to fix results for financial gain."

                    but that,

                    "The newspaper ( The Sun ) did not go through with any agreement with Hann, but just by agreeing to lose, he was in breach of rule 2.8."

                    I'm not asking to re-inforce my own belief btw, just don't know the full circumstances.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Higgins stayed and fight his case in a tribunal Quinten Hann ran away like the coward he is and did not bother attempting to Fight his case.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by arbitrage View Post
                        john higgins was caught on video conspiring to fix matches. there was no evidence or money trail to indicate that he had actually fixed matches or taken any money to fix matches. intent does not equal an act of criminality. therefore, they got him on a "bringing the sport into disrepute" charge for which he was suspended and fined

                        stephen lee's case is a bit different - they are charging him with irregularities in specified matches over a number of years
                        Intent most definitely is criminal as it falls under the conspiracy law be it civil or criminal

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The evidence gathered under subterfuge for Higgins would never have been admissible in a real courtroom and the level of proof needed in these hearings is not the same. In a real courtroom if there is reasonable doubt then a jury must find not guilty and I feel this should still be the standard that the QC should be striving to attain in the Lee case.

                          Interestingly he has not rushed to reach a decision so perhaps there is some doubt - therefore not guilty in a real court but my guess is this hearing will find him guilty of something perhaps deserving of a partial ban time already served and a small fine which will avoid potential repercussions and allow the player to continue on from where he is. We shall see soon.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Byrom View Post
                            The evidence gathered under subterfuge for Higgins would never have been admissible in a real courtroom and the level of proof needed in these hearings is not the same. In a real courtroom if there is reasonable doubt then a jury must find not guilty and I feel this should still be the standard that the QC should be striving to attain in the Lee case.

                            Interestingly he has not rushed to reach a decision so perhaps there is some doubt - therefore not guilty in a real court but my guess is this hearing will find him guilty of something perhaps deserving of a partial ban time already served and a small fine which will avoid potential repercussions and allow the player to continue on from where he is. We shall see soon.
                            the fact he threw out 3 set of legal representation and ended up doing representing himself must show that the lawyers was not convinced by his version of events.

                            personally i think that will count against him.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by luke-h View Post
                              Intent most definitely is criminal as it falls under the conspiracy law be it civil or criminal
                              let me rephrase that. they charged him with intent, he was able to defend himself against that charge by claiming that mooney had organized the meeting, he had no idea what was going down and that he felt threatened if he didn't go along. that story is a bit of a stretch but as it is a case of your word against mine and mooney took the blame on his shoulders, WPBSA had to clear him of that charge since there was no other evidence e.g. money trail etc. to refute his claim

                              http://www.sportingintelligence.com/...ill-qc-080902/

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X