HIGGINS WORLD CHAMPION - A BAD DAY FOR SNOOKER???

Just twelve months ago I saw a guy (watch on youtube) ask someone that if he took money for a bribe if could he "lose" the money on his Holiday home. For most the film we saw was quite revealing although the subsequent case absolved him of the major charge...

Remembering the fact that Michael Watson bankrupted the BBBC through the high court and Linford Christie threatened to the same to the athletic association if his drug test was upheld some of us weren't surprised that the wealthy Higgins got a punitive sentence......

Being American a two month ban was no surprise....Certainly looked a compromise.

Thing is 12 months later this guy is no1 and holder of the most prestigious title in the Sport......

Good day for snooker or not??? Me I think not.

Completely agree, Truss.

For me he should've been banned from the competition. If Athletes get banned from the Olympics, and Cricketers banned from playing Test Cricket, why should he be any different.

All the stuff about him being innocenent is BS. The intent was there. If he was 'scared' he shoud've got straight on the phone to the authorities and alerted them.

Problem was, if Higgins was banned Hearn was left with no major name he could rely on. Ronnie is too unreliable to build a new brand around adn Williams has the personality of a beer mat. At least with Higgins he had someone who was talented and could draw if needed.

Course he shouldnt be banned. He is the best Snooker player and deserves his status as a true legend of Snooker. He was entrapped by the NOTW and served his punishment. This is just bitter English folk talking nonsense.

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:Course he shouldnt be banned. He is the best Snooker player and deserves his status as a true legend of Snooker. He was entrapped by the NOTW and served his punishment. This is just bitter English folk talking nonsense.

Oh shut up for god sake.

Nobody is denying he is great Snooker player. Fact is he was open to being bribed and he should've been punished.

Would you like vinegar to go with that chip on your shoulder?

He was punished, he was banned from the game for 6 months.

It's not just "bitter English folk".

I happen to agree. He should have been banned from this tournament. Maybe not forever...but certainly for at least a year. He brought the game in to disrepute...that should have been a lengthier ban.

He's just earned himself a £250,000 pay day despite the allegations. He should not have been allowed to enter this years competition.

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:He was punished, he was banned from the game for 6 months.

No.... really??

The point is, in other sports you get banned from competing in the biggest competitions and this should've applied to Higgins.

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:He was punished, he was banned from the game for 6 months.

No.... really??

The point is, in other sports you get banned from competing in the biggest competitions and this should've applied to Higgins.

Why? Snooker is not other sports. Footballers get away with cheating and bad sportsmanship every week and go unpunished but if that happened in Snooker it would be punished but I dont see you crying about it in the Football section.

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:He was punished, he was banned from the game for 6 months.

No.... really??

The point is, in other sports you get banned from competing in the biggest competitions and this should've applied to Higgins.

Why? Snooker is not other sports. Footballers get away with cheating and bad sportsmanship every week and go unpunished but if that happened in Snooker it would be punished but I dont see you crying about it in the Football section.

That's completely different and a pathetic attempt to find similarities. Yes, footballers simulate things to gain advantage but they don;t take bribes to purposely lose games. And if they did, they would be banned.

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:He was punished, he was banned from the game for 6 months.

No.... really??

The point is, in other sports you get banned from competing in the biggest competitions and this should've applied to Higgins.

Why? Snooker is not other sports. Footballers get away with cheating and bad sportsmanship every week and go unpunished but if that happened in Snooker it would be punished but I dont see you crying about it in the Football section.

That's completely different and a pathetic attempt to find similarities. Yes, footballers simulate things to gain advantage but they don;t take bribes to purposely lose games. And if they did, they would be banned.

Yes its different just like Snooker is different from other sports. And besides Higgins did not take a bribe did he? He received no payment and was entrapped but was indeed punished with a ban.

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:He was punished, he was banned from the game for 6 months.

No.... really??

The point is, in other sports you get banned from competing in the biggest competitions and this should've applied to Higgins.

Why? Snooker is not other sports. Footballers get away with cheating and bad sportsmanship every week and go unpunished but if that happened in Snooker it would be punished but I dont see you crying about it in the Football section.

That's completely different and a pathetic attempt to find similarities. Yes, footballers simulate things to gain advantage but they don;t take bribes to purposely lose games. And if they did, they would be banned.

Yes its different just like Snooker is different from other sports. And besides Higgins did not take a bribe did he? He received no payment and was entrapped but was indeed punished with a ban.

The fact is, the intent was there. It's basically admitting that should the oppurtunity arise he would happily throw games for money. Should someone with those kind of morals be the figurehead of a sport and a world champion?

So if you agree to murder someone and are arrested before you finish the contract....You are absolved of any responsibility and future charge..

do me a favor....

If someone is scared why is asking how he can lose the money in the system????

I think Higgins should have been banned from the big tournaments for a year. Let him go and play in the smaller tournaments that are worth less money. I would also have stripped him of his top 16 ranking. Making him play in the qualifiers next year. The problem was apart from the video which Higgins claimed he feared for his safety there was no other evidence. So they had to charge him with bringing the game into disrepute.

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:He was punished, he was banned from the game for 6 months.

No.... really??

The point is, in other sports you get banned from competing in the biggest competitions and this should've applied to Higgins.

Why? Snooker is not other sports. Footballers get away with cheating and bad sportsmanship every week and go unpunished but if that happened in Snooker it would be punished but I dont see you crying about it in the Football section.

That's completely different and a pathetic attempt to find similarities. Yes, footballers simulate things to gain advantage but they don;t take bribes to purposely lose games. And if they did, they would be banned.

Yes its different just like Snooker is different from other sports. And besides Higgins did not take a bribe did he? He received no payment and was entrapped but was indeed punished with a ban.

The fact is, the intent was there. It's basically admitting that should the oppurtunity arise he would happily throw games for money. Should someone with those kind of morals be the figurehead of a sport and a world champion?

I dont think it takes a genuis to work out that Higgins is not a bad person. He made a mistake yes, but he has served his punishment and should be applauded for how he has came back since the ban, his form has been nothing short of amazing.

Let me just ask you this....

If the guy caught in that video was Rory mcleod who wasn't no1 and couldn't afford an expensive for the WPBSA appeal in the high court....

You think he would have escaped as unscathed???

Now gents. Stop it.

It's all just a propaganda smoke screen.

The banks put him up to it.

David Tails wrote:Now gents. Stop it.

It's all just a propaganda smoke screen.

The banks put him up to it.

I bet the Nazis were in on it as well.

Godwins Law. It's like Brannigans Law. But better.

King Beer wrote:

David Tails wrote:Now gents. Stop it.

It's all just a propaganda smoke screen.

The banks put him up to it.

I bet the Nazis were in on it as well.

Godwins Law. It's like Brannigans Law. But better.

Brannigan's Law is like Brannigan's love: hard and fast

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:Course he shouldnt be banned. He is the best Snooker player and deserves his status as a true legend of Snooker. He was entrapped by the NOTW and served his punishment. This is just bitter English folk talking nonsense.

So someone who was going to throw a match for cash should not be banned. But you think Phil Taylor should be banned because of his personal life?

Y I Man wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:Course he shouldnt be banned. He is the best Snooker player and deserves his status as a true legend of Snooker. He was entrapped by the NOTW and served his punishment. This is just bitter English folk talking nonsense.

So someone who was going to throw a match for cash should not be banned. But you think Phil Taylor should be banned because of his personal life?

Amazing isn't it.

Y I Man wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:Course he shouldnt be banned. He is the best Snooker player and deserves his status as a true legend of Snooker. He was entrapped by the NOTW and served his punishment. This is just bitter English folk talking nonsense.

So someone who was going to throw a match for cash should not be banned. But you think Phil Taylor should be banned because of his personal life?

Phil Taylor sexually abused two young women, are you saying that sexual abuse is acceptable?

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

Y I Man wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:Course he shouldnt be banned. He is the best Snooker player and deserves his status as a true legend of Snooker. He was entrapped by the NOTW and served his punishment. This is just bitter English folk talking nonsense.

So someone who was going to throw a match for cash should not be banned. But you think Phil Taylor should be banned because of his personal life?

Phil Taylor sexually abused two young women, are you saying that sexual abuse is acceptable?

Are you saying taking bribes to throw matches is acceptable? Did Phil Taylor's actions costs matches in Darts? Did he make any profit from it?

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

Y I Man wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:Course he shouldnt be banned. He is the best Snooker player and deserves his status as a true legend of Snooker. He was entrapped by the NOTW and served his punishment. This is just bitter English folk talking nonsense.

So someone who was going to throw a match for cash should not be banned. But you think Phil Taylor should be banned because of his personal life?

Phil Taylor sexually abused two young women, are you saying that sexual abuse is acceptable?

Are you saying taking bribes to throw matches is acceptable? Did Phil Taylor's actions costs matches in Darts? Did he make any profit from it?

Sex abuse is a disgusting and cowardly crime. Its the lowest of the low. Higgins took no bribes but was punished for his actions even though the tournament concerned was not even goverened by World Snooker. Taylor sexually abused two women that fateful night, he shouldnt be allowed from a prison cell let alone near an oche.

Sexually abused two women!! I think you are misusing the term sexual abuse.....

There are different levels of abuse...

I mean he didn't lock them in a wardrobe and whip them like my Wife likes to do to me on a Saturday night...

I don't want to condone anybodies actions in this regard but sexual abuse can cover alot of crimes that are much worse than Taylor's

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

Y I Man wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:Course he shouldnt be banned. He is the best Snooker player and deserves his status as a true legend of Snooker. He was entrapped by the NOTW and served his punishment. This is just bitter English folk talking nonsense.

So someone who was going to throw a match for cash should not be banned. But you think Phil Taylor should be banned because of his personal life?

Phil Taylor sexually abused two young women, are you saying that sexual abuse is acceptable?

Are you saying taking bribes to throw matches is acceptable? Did Phil Taylor's actions costs matches in Darts? Did he make any profit from it?

Sex abuse is a disgusting and cowardly crime. Its the lowest of the low. Higgins took no bribes but was punished for his actions even though the tournament concerned was not even goverened by World Snooker. Taylor sexually abused two women that fateful night, he shouldnt be allowed from a prison cell let alone near an oche.

I think you really need to grasp the term 'sexually abused' and understand it's meaning a bit more. Maybe try reading up on what happened and then compare say the Phil Taylor sexual assault case to Josef Fritzl's sexual abuse case.

I know they are quite extreme but given the huge chip on your shoulder and love of all things conspiracy wise you could probably find some reason to link them.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Sexually abused two women!! I think you are misusing the term sexual abuse.....

There are different levels of abuse...

I mean he didn't lock them in a wardrobe and whip them like my Wife likes to do to me on a Saturday night...

I don't want to condone anybodies actions in this regard but sexual abuse can cover alot of crimes that are much worse than Taylor's

Its only a matter of time before he strikes again imo... you know what they say dont ya? Once a ex-MBE holder convicted sex offender always a ex-MBE holder convicted sex offender...

It's the MBE... it turns you from Jekyll into Hyde...

Much better to accept an OBE.

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

Y I Man wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:Course he shouldnt be banned. He is the best Snooker player and deserves his status as a true legend of Snooker. He was entrapped by the NOTW and served his punishment. This is just bitter English folk talking nonsense.

So someone who was going to throw a match for cash should not be banned. But you think Phil Taylor should be banned because of his personal life?

Phil Taylor sexually abused two young women, are you saying that sexual abuse is acceptable?

Are you saying taking bribes to throw matches is acceptable? Did Phil Taylor's actions costs matches in Darts? Did he make any profit from it?

Sex abuse is a disgusting and cowardly crime. Its the lowest of the low. Higgins took no bribes but was punished for his actions even though the tournament concerned was not even goverened by World Snooker. Taylor sexually abused two women that fateful night, he shouldnt be allowed from a prison cell let alone near an oche.

I think you really need to grasp the term 'sexually abused' and understand it's meaning a bit more. Maybe try reading up on what happened and then compare say the Phil Taylor sexual assault case to Josef Fritzl's sexual abuse case.

I know they are quite extreme but given the huge chip on your shoulder and love of all things conspiracy wise you could probably find some reason to link them.

There is no 'chip on my shoulder', its you guys who are mocking me and making me out to be a insane conspiracy theorist just because I dont trust the word of the American Goverment.

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Sexually abused two women!! I think you are misusing the term sexual abuse.....

There are different levels of abuse...

I mean he didn't lock them in a wardrobe and whip them like my Wife likes to do to me on a Saturday night...

I don't want to condone anybodies actions in this regard but sexual abuse can cover alot of crimes that are much worse than Taylor's

Its only a matter of time before he strikes again imo... you know what they say dont ya? Once a ex-MBE holder convicted sex offender always a ex-MBE holder convicted sex offender...

You're absolutely right. The last 12 years he's just been biding his time and stalking his prey.

King Beer wrote:

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Sexually abused two women!! I think you are misusing the term sexual abuse.....

There are different levels of abuse...

I mean he didn't lock them in a wardrobe and whip them like my Wife likes to do to me on a Saturday night...

I don't want to condone anybodies actions in this regard but sexual abuse can cover alot of crimes that are much worse than Taylor's

Its only a matter of time before he strikes again imo... you know what they say dont ya? Once a ex-MBE holder convicted sex offender always a ex-MBE holder convicted sex offender...

You're absolutely right. The last 12 years he's just been biding his time and stalking his prey.

McFeel did grope the walk-on girls just a few weeks ago, there was word of police involvment but nothing has come of it.

What's wrong with groping Women.......

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Sexually abused two women!! I think you are misusing the term sexual abuse.....

There are different levels of abuse...

I mean he didn't lock them in a wardrobe and whip them like my Wife likes to do to me on a Saturday night...

I don't want to condone anybodies actions in this regard but sexual abuse can cover alot of crimes that are much worse than Taylor's

Its only a matter of time before he strikes again imo... you know what they say dont ya? Once a ex-MBE holder convicted sex offender always a ex-MBE holder convicted sex offender...

It's just a matter of time before Higgins is offered more money for throwing matches...only this time he will not be getting stung by the bank inspired propaganda machine of NOTW. He will accept and get away with it in my opinion. You know what they say...once a poorly disguised cheat, always a poorly disguised cheat.

See what I did there?

The guy was caught with his fingers in the cookie jar. He should NOT have been allowed to compete at this level.

Or eat cookies again

Unless they're a lower level of cookie Hobo, then he can have at them.

I think Higgins should have been banned from ranking tournaments for 2 years, stripped of his ranking and then forced to work his way up once he'd served his ban.

Awesome Higgins Wins Fourth World Crown! Snooker in great shape...Roll on next season!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let me just ask you this....

If the guy caught in that video was Rory mcleod who wasn't no1 and couldn't afford an expensive for the WPBSA appeal in the high court....

You think he would have escaped as unscathed???

If John Higgins was Quentin Hann he would have been banned for 8 years..

What's the difference between Higgin's case and Hann's case. Both got stung by a paper, agreeing to take bribes.

I hate the way its one rule for people like Higgin's and different for hann, mcleod etc..

Higgin's should be the last person to do it as well. He made #5 mil in prise money plus a lot more in endorsements.. Pure greed..

I was rooting for Trump in the final it must be said Higgins knew exactly what he was doing when meeting them men.

Wasn't Higgins cleared? He went along with it because he feared for the safety of his family


Well done John great acheivement 4th world title so soon aftr your dad died & the news of the world tried to stitch you up

Can't believe some of the comments I'm reading here. Yes, Higgins did come across as awful and as guilty as a puppy next to a pile of the brown stuff on the EDITED video which the News of the World released in order to make him look guilty - but there lies the crux of the argument. Nobody on here has seen the unedited video in its entirety. Perhaps the bit left out were just as incriminating. But on the other hand, for all we know, the rest of the video could have shown Higgins pleading with his manager to get him out of there while the other party left the room. We simply don't know, and to suggest that anyone on here can give a one hundred percent accurate description of the video is ridiculous.

We do not, in any way shape or form, have access to any other evidence which was presented to the tribunal, so again to suggest that we know better than the peers who found him not guilty is laughable. It's very easy to take the cynical view and say "Oh, it's only because he's one of the top players in snooker history that he got away with it relatively lightly", but that is nothing but guess work with little or no evidence to back it up. You can point to the case of Quinten Haan all you like, but ultimately none of us know the proper ins and outs of that case either, nor how it compares specifically to Higgins'.

All we do know, for sure and without any personal opinion getting in the way, is that an independent tribunal has examined all the evidence at hand and found him not guilty of intended to throw matches or frames. The WPSBA statement said "Having studied all of the evidence in its entirety, the WPBSA and Sports Resolutions accept that there has been no dishonesty on the part of John Higgins and accordingly the WPBSA has withdrawn the allegations of match fixing against him."

That is the bottom line. Any other theories being thrown around are simply opinion. It is foolish and arrogant for anyone on here to think they are in a better position to judge what happened than those who came to this conclusion. Do I think that Higgins intended to throw matches or frames for money? Personally, yes, I think he probably did. But that's irrelevant. His peers thought otherwise, and they had a lot more evidence to base their opinion on than I have.

He was found not guilty in relation to match fixing, simple as that.

88Chris05 wrote:Can't believe some of the comments I'm reading here. Yes, Higgins did come across as awful and as guilty as a puppy next to a pile of the brown stuff on the EDITED video which the News of the World released in order to make him look guilty - but there lies the crux of the argument. Nobody on here has seen the unedited video in its entirety. Perhaps the bit left out were just as incriminating. But on the other hand, for all we know, the rest of the video could have shown Higgins pleading with his manager to get him out of there while the other party left the room. We simply don't know, and to suggest that anyone on here can give a one hundred percent accurate description of the video is ridiculous.

We do not, in any way shape or form, have access to any other evidence which was presented to the tribunal, so again to suggest that we know better than the peers who found him not guilty is laughable. It's very easy to take the cynical view and say "Oh, it's only because he's one of the top players in snooker history that he got away with it relatively lightly", but that is nothing but guess work with little or no evidence to back it up. You can point to the case of Quinten Haan all you like, but ultimately none of us know the proper ins and outs of that case either, nor how it compares specifically to Higgins'.

All we do know, for sure and without any personal opinion getting in the way, is that an independent tribunal has examined all the evidence at hand and found him not guilty of intended to throw matches or frames. The WPSBA statement said "Having studied all of the evidence in its entirety, the WPBSA and Sports Resolutions accept that there has been no dishonesty on the part of John Higgins and accordingly the WPBSA has withdrawn the allegations of match fixing against him."

That is the bottom line. Any other theories being thrown around are simply opinion. It is foolish and arrogant for anyone on here to think they are in a better position to judge what happened than those who came to this conclusion. Do I think that Higgins intended to throw matches or frames for money? Personally, yes, I think he probably did. But that's irrelevant. His peers thought otherwise, and they had a lot more evidence to base their opinion on than I have.

He was found not guilty in relation to match fixing, simple as that.

exactly, the only people who saw the full unedited video were the indepndant tribunal who found Higgins not guilty.

Funny how it was never released to completely prove his innocence though.

King Beer wrote:Funny how it was never released to completely prove his innocence though.

Conspiracy?! Get my tin hat!

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

King Beer wrote:Funny how it was never released to completely prove his innocence though.

Conspiracy?! Get my tin hat!

Quick, batten down the hatches and board up the windows!!!

I'm going to go to my local Santander at lunch time and ask them if he's innocent or not.

That will surely settle the argument.

David Tails wrote:I'm going to go to my local Santander at lunch time and ask them if he's innocent or not.

That will surely settle the argument.

oh touche sir.

Busy P:What tha Fuuu?!! wrote:

David Tails wrote:I'm going to go to my local Santander at lunch time and ask them if he's innocent or not.

That will surely settle the argument.

oh touche sir.

Mrs B works for a bank, i can find otu anything you wanna know.

.. but then you'd have to kill them

Liam_Main4 wrote:I was rooting for Trump in the final it must be said Higgins knew exactly what he was doing when meeting them men.

It must not be said you have sen an edited video. The tribunial seen a full version and found him not guily. He was charges and suspended with bringing the game into disrepute.

I think that there is some miss-understanding here. Higgins was caught on tape (granted it was an edited tape) agreeing to lose frames. Now, this was not an official tournement or one sanctioned by the governing body, so there really was'nt anything they could do except for ban him for bringing the game into disrepute which is what they did.

I am not in a position to judge the full story as i was not there and have never been privy to the information that the Independant tribunal had.

I just prefer to watch one of the greatest players ever to pick up a cue, best of his era without a doubt and deserved winner of the World Titel.