Originally Posted by LittleMissAlexa
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
TSB - Joe Jogia handed 2 year ban by WPBSA Disciplinary Committee
Collapse
X
-
forgive the pun of him being of indian extraction but hes guilty as singh
Leave a comment:
-
TSB - Joe Jogia handed 2 year ban by WPBSA Disciplinary Committee
But the bet's were placed. That's were the infringement lies and it is traced back to jogia via the text messages.
Leave a comment:
-
Agree with that ........but neither party went through with the matches .
Leave a comment:
-
TSB - Joe Jogia handed 2 year ban by WPBSA Disciplinary Committee
No betting was placed on higgins matches. Bets had been in jogia's.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally Posted by cueman View PostFor the lower ranked players its no wonder many of them turn to betting as there just isn't a living to be made in the game for those outside the 32, unless you are very lucky to come from a wealthy family.
I feel the punishment is very harsh, nothing has been proven, he pulled out of the tournament so the bets were voided so just exactly what is he being charged for! WSA seem to protect those they want to protect and the rest can go whistle. Joe has dedicated his life to playing snooker and just as he's coming into his peak years his career has been taken away from him, probably forever.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally Posted by neil taperell View PostFrom what i read Dean , he has to re-qualify in 2 years time .
Jogia isn't a big ticket item like Higgins, so they make an example of him. Law is an ass. Just look at how bankers get away with billions, but if you nick a loaf of bread in tesco, you could be up before the beek. Same by the WPSBA. It's always the small guys who get punished the hardest in life.
Leave a comment:
-
From what i read Dean , he has to re-qualify in 2 years time .
Leave a comment:
-
as I read the statement... two people he had no previous contact with before
Neil, as you say, it would take him probably 2-yrs to get back to the main tour would it not? so in essence a 4yr ban...
The statement does not say anything about his current World Ranking points?
Are these expunged or will they just drop him down the rankings as time passes?Last edited by DeanH; 26 July 2012, 08:09 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
I think there is enough proof ......why can't he answer the fact he texted 2 people 33 and 42 times . He offers no explanation.
But does appear harsh when you compare it to the Scottish cheat .
I'm led to believe that his family are quite wealthy .
Leave a comment:
-
For the lower ranked players its no wonder many of them turn to betting as there just isn't a living to be made in the game for those outside the 32, unless you are very lucky to come from a wealthy family.
I feel the punishment is very harsh, nothing has been proven, he pulled out of the tournament so the bets were voided so just exactly what is he being charged for! WSA seem to protect those they want to protect and the rest can go whistle. Joe has dedicated his life to playing snooker and just as he's coming into his peak years his career has been taken away from him, probably forever.
Leave a comment:
-
Not really a 2 year ban .......he has to re-qualify to get back on the Tour .
Leave a comment:
-
Originally Posted by DandyA View Posterrr ... the WPBSA statement seems to me a bit totalitarian - their disciplinary committee may have found him guilty but he must have a right to appeal, mustn't he? their statement would, I think, be better balanced if they detailed his rights to contest their judgement ...
and yes, the comparison with the treatment of "Honest John" are valid and pertinent ... John Higgins got a miniscule ban whereas Joe Jogia gets two years ... where's the common justice in that?
Jogia should go to CAS if he can. I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty, but a certain level of proof is required and it doesn't appear to have been met.
Leave a comment:
-
errr ... the WPBSA statement seems to me a bit totalitarian - their disciplinary committee may have found him guilty but he must have a right to appeal, mustn't he? their statement would, I think, be better balanced if they detailed his rights to contest their judgement ...
and yes, the comparison with the treatment of "Honest John" are valid and pertinent ... John Higgins got a miniscule ban whereas Joe Jogia gets two years ... where's the common justice in that?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally Posted by AndrewB View PostCan he really be classed as an "up and comer", when he's the same age as (say) O'Sullivan and hasn't reached the last 16 of a ranking event?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: