TSB - Joe Jogia handed 2 year ban by WPBSA Disciplinary Committee

[Neil Taperell]

forgive the pun of him being of indian extraction but hes guilty as singh

Lol !

[LittleMissAlexa]

forgive the pun of him being of indian extraction but hes guilty as singh

[paddybhoy30]

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.

[Neil Taperell]

Agree with that ........but neither party went through with the matches .

[paddybhoy30]

TSB - Joe Jogia handed 2 year ban by WPBSA Disciplinary Committee

No betting was placed on higgins matches. Bets had been in jogia's.

[LittleMissAlexa]

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.

its actually the top 48 who are guaranteed to be paid not just the 32

[Particle Physics]

From 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.

[Neil Taperell]

From what i read Dean , he has to re-qualify in 2 years time .

[DeanH]

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?

[Neil Taperell]

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 .

[cueman]

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.

[Neil Taperell]

Not really a 2 year ban .......he has to re-qualify to get back on the Tour .

[Particle Physics]

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?

Perhaps the problem in snooker is the obsession of betting, e.g. Willie Thorne, who can give you odds on the next duck race at the drop of a hat. If Joe was injured, and his friends were texting him to find out, and bet against him, no problem. I bit shady, but he's not deliberately trying to lose. He pulled out anyway, so all bets were off I think?

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.

[DandyA]

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?

[narl]

Can 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?

That's what I was thinking, he's around 36 and only starting to make tv stages of events. Does seem a harsh punishment though, if he was a bigger name in the game it probably wouldn't have been anywhere close to that.