Snooker
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 551 comments are related to the topic:
The Final: M.Selby v J.Higgins
The Final: M.Selby v J.Higgins
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 551
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
"i saw a wobble, was that with no hit........"
Static electricity. |
|
By:
hit that red there
|
|
By:
No cant have this scum bag win and Mark would not lie........
|
|
By:
https://youtu.be/RWS2onQlOOE?t=56
in honour of ding junhui, player of the tournament! |
|
By:
Coop you must be loving this, Ken Doherty on the comms
|
|
By:
If it hit at that speed huge odds on it be touching ball. It wasn't, because it never hit.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
CUSHION FIOST
|
|
By:
the crucible teatre
|
|
By:
have we had "the atmosphere is electric" yet?
|
|
By:
Taylor said "you can see the atmosphere"
|
|
By:
well, you can.
|
|
By:
THE JESTER
|
|
By:
FROM LEICESTER
|
|
By:
CHANCE
|
|
By:
too much chicken kiev more like
|
|
By:
PIVOTAL. SHOT.
|
|
By:
David Douglas, the former high-ranking Metropolitan Police officer who investigated match-fixing allegations against the world No1 snooker player John Higgins, has spoken in detail for the first time about why he concluded Higgins never intended to fix any match.
Higgins was banned earlier this month for six months, and fined £75,000, for talking about betting and for failing to report an approach about illicit gambling. Two other charges relating to fixing and corruption were dropped. Almost inevitably, the stigma of being accused by the News of the World on 2 May of “shaking hands on a disgraceful deal to fix a string of high-profile matches after demanding a £300,000 kickback” means mud will stick, regardless of an independent tribunal’s findings. |
|
By:
And he pretended he didn't see the black wobble. A bounder I say.
|
|
By:
Not to mention WISE that his agent said on the way in
'If they ask a few questions about throwing some matches don't worry about it'. Later he blamed his agent for misleading him and he knew nothing until walking into the room.. COMPLETE COVER UP.... |
|
By:
QUESTION 1: Some observers will be puzzled why, given the apparently damning evidence contained in the News of the World tape, which led Barry [Hearn] to suspend John [Higgins] in the first place, what the rationale was for withdrawing the most damaging charge against him, namely that he was prepared to fix frames for money. Why was that charge withdrawn without the evidence being tested?
DAVID DOUGLAS: I think you’re right in using the word that it was ‘apparently’ damning evidence, and the first thing I’ll say is that when we investigate any complaint then we’re not just going to focus on what’s in the headlines, or what’s in the newspaper or what’s on television. It’s about doing a full and thorough investigation. And that’s what the players deserve as much as anything else. If allegations are going to be made against them, they deserve to have it fully investigated and that’s what we’ll do, and that’s what I like to think we did in the case of John Higgins. So when you look at everything that happened, the News of the World did a full undercover operation on Pat Mooney and John Higgins. It went on for a long time. And in actual fact when you look at what John did, and what the evidence shows, it shows that John knew nothing about the corrupt throwing of frames etcetera until literally he was just going into the final meeting in Kiev on 30 April, literally as he was just going in there. So when you look at what the evidence said and what charges that could support, then we go where the evidence takes us, it’s as simple as that. Now when you look at the judgement that Mr Mill, who’s a very eminent QC, made at the end of the case, he quite clearly states that having looked at all of the evidence – and Mr Mill had access to all of the tapes, all of the video tapes, all the audio tapes from the News of the World, he had the statements from myself, Mazher Mahmood who made a full statement, John himself, Pat Mooney, everything – he said that he was in no doubt that the WPBSA were right, on the evidence, to charge John with what we charged him with. We will charge people with the offences we believe they committed, and what the evidence shows. We won’t charge people on what we believe other people might be saying about them. |
|
By:
mind the gap
|
|
By:
this guy has got what others with more natural ability don't possess..sangfroid under pressure and cojones de acer
|
|
By:
Just before Baz took over snooker........
Victor Chandler reported a string of bets coming in from Scotland for crooked John to lose 5-1 |
|
By:
"this guy has got what others with more natural ability don't possess..sangfroid under pressure and cojones de acer"
It's a Leicester thing. Showaddywaddy had it in bucketfuls. |
|
By:
QUESTION 6: People who don’t necessarily understand the scope of your investigation, the layman who just saw the NotW video on the website and the headlines, will probably have doubts forever about John Higgins. Can you elaborate just quite how detailed your investigation was – the scope of what you checked – so that you believed Higgins’ version of events?
DAVID DOUGLAS: Because I was allowed to look at ALL of the evidence. Whatever you think of the News of the World, they were helpful [to me]. I was given a room at News International to go through all of the material, all the audio tapes, all the video tapes, all the different angles, everything, start to finish, unedited. I had to go through all of that. And in addition to that, Mazher Mahmood made a full statement about everything that happened. But also when I asked them for things like receipts, copies of invoices, hotel bills, they provided all of that. So there’s a whole load of evidence around this, and what I also had which isn’t in the public domain was Pat Mooney’s statement, and John Higgins’ statement, and when you look at those, it’s very easy to see what happened. To be fair to Pat Mooney, he said ‘Hands up, I didn’t tell John about this until we were just about to go in.’ Clearly there was no collusion between them. They have fallen out. The entire thing, the whole thing [relationship] is fractured. Pat, to give him his due, said John knew nothing about this. And then, because I’ve listened to all the audio tapes, it’s not about 30 April in Kiev, [I know] it’s about Edinburgh on 8 April, it’s about Kiev on 29 April, and you hear conversations going on specifically out of the hearing of John Higgins, so he’s not to brought into this, because they know, fundamentally, they knew he was honest. And therefore when it comes to the final [meeting] you realise John was going in as a rabbit in the headlights. And therefore I’m absolutely confident, absolutely confident, backed up by Mr Mill, that that was the right interpretation. |
|
By:
COVER UP
|
|
By:
was reading another blog about the higgins inquiry in which they found he wasn't bent but rather naive
smn posted ..yeah there was a lot of naivete in the inquiry but none from higgins  |
|
By:
That's about the size of it JB
|
|
By:
Did Jan see something move?
|
|
By:
ITS OK mARK, YOU TOUCHED THAT ONE
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
only higgins AND canaletto really know what went down
 |
|
By:
oh no not this fkin sh1t again
 |
|
By:
like ronnie v higgins years ago
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
hit the red after touching the green and that's ok walofs
|
|
By:
It was a foul wonder. he hit the reds so how is it a miss?
ffs Jan knows what he is doing unlike the mugs on here. |