Snooker World Championship
Discussion
I'd like to see Marco Fu do well. I like that guy for some reason. Robin Hull did well to qualify but has a major job in Round 1 against O'Sullivan.
Full draw here: http://snooker.org/res/bracket.asp?event=297
Full draw here: http://snooker.org/res/bracket.asp?event=297
Amirhussain said:
Gun said:
Graeme Dott (thank God)
I'm a massive Hendry fan but I really hope Ronnie gets his 6th title this year and then goes on to match/beat Hendry in years to come. Players like Selby, Robertson, Trump and (corrupt) Higgins really don't do it for me. Wouldn't mind Murphy winning it though but that's unlikely. Ding seems to struggle at this tournament as the pressure gets to him.
Edited by BlackLabel on Thursday 17th April 20:49
"P.S. Loving the Higgins hate! It's a genuine scandal that he's still playing."
I am friends with the father of one of the top sixteen players, and he tells me that they all know that Higgins is guilty of the accusation ( To put it mildly).
Same as Steven Lee---another cheat.
Both allegedly of course.
I am friends with the father of one of the top sixteen players, and he tells me that they all know that Higgins is guilty of the accusation ( To put it mildly).
Same as Steven Lee---another cheat.
Both allegedly of course.
Edited by jbudgie on Saturday 19th April 18:23
Edited by jbudgie on Saturday 19th April 18:24
I doubt give Higgins the benefit of the doubt - purely because the NOTW was invovled and they probably put a ridiculos amount of time, effort and money into getting him into that room. It is after all a few seconds of what coudl have been weeks of build up.
Yes he said certain things but if you believe his story it was just to get out of there.
I dunno if he is guilty or not but as Is ay, I woudl give him the benefot of doubt - especially considering he was already a world champion by the stage and probably loaded.
Yes he said certain things but if you believe his story it was just to get out of there.
I dunno if he is guilty or not but as Is ay, I woudl give him the benefot of doubt - especially considering he was already a world champion by the stage and probably loaded.
Yes I have seen the video. But as I say a moment in time does not tell you everything.
According to Wikipedia he is a millionaire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_snooker_milli...
According to Wikipedia he is a millionaire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_snooker_milli...
Just looked at it again
looks as though his manager stitched him up somewhat
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/09/21/rev...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/snook...
looks as though his manager stitched him up somewhat
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/09/21/rev...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/snook...
As per the link above - the video was most likely time shifted - we dont even know if the money relates to the fixing bit. - he (apparently) thought that he was going in to talk about sponsorship - it may be that they landed the bit on there about fixing in the middle/end . I can certainly see why you would play along with it just to get out and then not actually do it.
Anyway, I am highly suspicious of people liek the NOTW and dont trust anything they do like this.
Anyway, I am highly suspicious of people liek the NOTW and dont trust anything they do like this.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If you read the articles you would see how he ended up in the room and what the money could have related to.he didnt just wake up in Ukraine - his manager organsied it.
You dont know if they spent 2 hours talking about something else before coming to the topic of match fixing.
I'll take my chances with someone who was able to look at all the evidence.
1)A video which has probably been edited to show him in the worst light
2)I take the word of the person who looked into the case with all the evidence as well as my own assumptions and experience of the NOTW.
3) Meeting may have been 11 minutes, does not mean there were not other meetings or build up
4) There is a point regarding what was discussed beforehand - if you have been dealing with someone for a few weeks and they spring something like that on you then you might react differently to someone you have just met.
5) With regards to the NOTW, Higgins got off the main charge. If they were so confident he was guilty of it they could have publicised mroe evidence. Fact is when it was all looked at they just said theywere happy he was guilty of something but not the main charge of match fixing.
6) I would be interested in seeing all the evidence - why don't the NOTW reveal it? Probably because it would harm their case.
7) I don't want to 'appeal' to the NOTW. They are scumbags. My point is that they could clarify things if they wanted to.
It is a shame the snooker people did not release the full report/evidence.
Anyway, you've convinced me to trust everything the tabloid media want to spoon feed me!
2)I take the word of the person who looked into the case with all the evidence as well as my own assumptions and experience of the NOTW.
3) Meeting may have been 11 minutes, does not mean there were not other meetings or build up
4) There is a point regarding what was discussed beforehand - if you have been dealing with someone for a few weeks and they spring something like that on you then you might react differently to someone you have just met.
5) With regards to the NOTW, Higgins got off the main charge. If they were so confident he was guilty of it they could have publicised mroe evidence. Fact is when it was all looked at they just said theywere happy he was guilty of something but not the main charge of match fixing.
6) I would be interested in seeing all the evidence - why don't the NOTW reveal it? Probably because it would harm their case.
7) I don't want to 'appeal' to the NOTW. They are scumbags. My point is that they could clarify things if they wanted to.
It is a shame the snooker people did not release the full report/evidence.
Anyway, you've convinced me to trust everything the tabloid media want to spoon feed me!
What really pissed me off was that Quiten Hann got an 8 year ban for doing the exact same thing. Yet because a high profile guy like Higgins was involved he got a slap on the wrist.
Stephen Lee's defence was even more laughable - the money was found in his wife's bank account ffs.
Barry Hearn reckons the sport is now 100% clean yet this is what Ronnie said a few months ago. And yes they did fine him for these comments.
Stephen Lee's defence was even more laughable - the money was found in his wife's bank account ffs.
Barry Hearn reckons the sport is now 100% clean yet this is what Ronnie said a few months ago. And yes they did fine him for these comments.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The NOTW are not fighting a case you are right - it is easy for them to put out limited info and ruin someones career - but if they disagreed with the judgement they could have put more out to confirm Higgins was a dodgy as you say - they didn't - either because they couldn;t be bothered or because they knew it wouldn't stand up to the same scuting as the sports adjudication panel gave it. hardly surpring - same for many NOTW stories.I fully understand what is going on - I am just willing to accept the video is not the be all and end all.
There is an 'offence' of agreeing to fix matches - Higgins was found 'not guilty'
I am aware there is no proof he fixed anything.
NOTW have released everything they have and the 2 people that saw it came to a decision. Not you, not me.
We have not seen it so cannot come to an informed decision other than relying on the people who have seen it.
The NOTW having see the decision by the panel haven't really pushed for anything else (I apreciate that once a story is doen it is done and there is no financial interest in them carrying on) - but if they were so sure Higgins was guilty of the other offence they could have said more - instead they haven't.
We have not seen it so cannot come to an informed decision other than relying on the people who have seen it.
The NOTW having see the decision by the panel haven't really pushed for anything else (I apreciate that once a story is doen it is done and there is no financial interest in them carrying on) - but if they were so sure Higgins was guilty of the other offence they could have said more - instead they haven't.
ash73 said:
What David Douglas is saying there is complete b
ks, imo. Think about it, he's asserting that (a) it's unreasonable to blame Higgins because his manager told him to go along with it, and (b) literally anyone would do the same "in his shoes", given the sponsorship money on offer.
People have to take responsibility for their own actions. If my mate says "we're going to rob this bank, just go along with it" the decision is MINE, because I have something called free will. If Douglas genuinely believes we should cut Higgins some slack because there was sponsorship money at stake (how ironic is that?!), what the fk is he employed as a police office for? Unbelievable.
I don't care that it was 3 minutes at the end of several hours negotiation; he was asked to throw frames for money and he agreed, and he even volunteered a method of payment to avoid detection. He's a disgrace to the sport.
I agree that Higgins should maybe have stood up and sais 'no' but it is easy to say that when you are not there. As Higgins has foudn out his lack of saying no has cost him.ks, imo. Think about it, he's asserting that (a) it's unreasonable to blame Higgins because his manager told him to go along with it, and (b) literally anyone would do the same "in his shoes", given the sponsorship money on offer.People have to take responsibility for their own actions. If my mate says "we're going to rob this bank, just go along with it" the decision is MINE, because I have something called free will. If Douglas genuinely believes we should cut Higgins some slack because there was sponsorship money at stake (how ironic is that?!), what the f
k is he employed as a police office for? Unbelievable.I don't care that it was 3 minutes at the end of several hours negotiation; he was asked to throw frames for money and he agreed, and he even volunteered a method of payment to avoid detection. He's a disgrace to the sport.
Douglas says Higgins said whatever just to get out of the meeting - that he is guilty of - the point of course is whether he actually had any intention of throwing frames.
You don't know if the bit about payment relates to throwing frames. Fact.
Anyway I cba debating something that happened 4 years ago and we are never going to know the information we need to know.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff