Higgins Exonerated Of Most Serious Charges
- Thread starter Scaramouche
- Start date
SC,
I guess I will have to disagree with JAM. I watched the video, and find his behavior reprehensible. I think his defense was that he was "afraid" to not discuss it with the Russian businessman, thought they might be "mafia" types, and even though he agreed to the fixing was "not serious about carrying it out."
Instead of just offering to think it over, or rejecting it outright; he AGREED to the fixing. Did he think that these men (if they are "mafia" types) will be less angry if he agrees to fixing and reneges than if he just chose to think it over? The meeting was voluntary, and the issue had been discussed even before the meeting.
I do not buy his excuses at all - very flimsy (in fact laughable), and a black eye for any sport that would let him ever play again.
Join the club! :wink:
I do understand your well-written points, which I find valid in many respects.
I said good for Higgins mainly because I'm sure he's glad that this fiasco may be coming to a conclusion. I can see where my words might have been misinterpreted as meaning I was glad Higgins may be escaping punishment for any wrongdoing(s).
It was prooven that the video was edited, and so was the audio! So what we watched had nothing to do with what happened. The newspaper in question is total bullshit and is not at his first attempt of ruining someone reputation with this kind of manipulation.
Just curious, where is the proof?
You have some elements HERE.
And consider that if Higgins is exonerated from most of the charge by a judge, it have something to do with the credibility of the accusation.
Last edited:
I think we have proof snooker is corrupt. Based on the video, the WPBSA is willing to overlook anything to have "top" players on the tables. Someone ban the WPBSA!
I understand exactly what you're saying, however, a "sting" by a tabloid is just not credible enough.
Is he dirty? Yes, and in fact admitted so and got fined. Was he entrapped under questionable circumstances by people who could profit off his indiscretion? Absolutely. Could he have been concerned about Russian gangsters? I would have been!
I view the compromise settlement as just, considering what he also went through in the tabloids. I think he deserved punishment but not to be hung for it.
Chris
Last edited:
News Of The World Proclaims Itself A Force For Good In The Community
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/snooker/8973869.stm
Following the verdict, the News of the World issued a statement defending their story, which appeared on 2 May.
"This result is a victory for News of the World investigative journalism," it read. "John Higgins has been found guilty, suspended and fined. Pat Mooney has been found guilty and banned for life.
"Today's judgement is testament to the extraordinary work of our investigations editor Mazher Mahmood. We hope that the exposure of Higgins and Mooney will act as a deterrent to any other cheats in sport and help restore the integrity of snooker."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/snooker/8973869.stm
Following the verdict, the News of the World issued a statement defending their story, which appeared on 2 May.
"This result is a victory for News of the World investigative journalism," it read. "John Higgins has been found guilty, suspended and fined. Pat Mooney has been found guilty and banned for life.
"Today's judgement is testament to the extraordinary work of our investigations editor Mazher Mahmood. We hope that the exposure of Higgins and Mooney will act as a deterrent to any other cheats in sport and help restore the integrity of snooker."
The Findings on Pat Mooney
'Mr Mooney’s conduct is, in my judgment, of a completely different order of seriousness. He was first made aware not later than 8 April 2010 by the undercover journalist posing as a businessman (“Mr D’Sousa”) of the fact that those behind him in the purported business venture were looking to make money through gambling in circumstances where frames in snooker matches were deliberately thrown. Yet, he made no disclosure at the time of this stated requirement to the Association, to Mr Higgins (whom he represented in snooker matters, who was one of his partners in the business (World Series Snooker) which Mr Mooney was representing in his discussions with Mr D'Sousa, and most significantly who was targeted by Mr D’Sousa as the player required to throw the frames) or to his other business partners in World Series Snooker, Debbie Mitchell and Adrian Stewart.
Furthermore, despite this requirement being stated, Mr Mooney not only continued his engagement with Mr D’Sousa thereafter but persuaded a materially ignorant Mr Higgins to accompany him to meet with those behind the venture in Kiev. He accepts that, in continuing that engagement and by the words spoken by him on 8 April 2010 he had led Mr D’Sousa to believe that the throwing of frames was something that could be achieved.
Once in Kiev, on 29 April 2010, it was made clear to Mr Mooney on several occasions (in Mr Higgins’ absence) that the subject of frame throwing had to be discussed with Mr Higgins.
Still, he said nothing to Mr Higgins until minutes before the meeting the following day.
When he did mention the subject to Mr Higgins, Mr Mooney misrepresented to him the position, stating that it was possible that the subject might not come up at all.
Furthermore, despite at the time owing fiduciary obligations to Mr Higgins as his snooker representative and to the Association itself (he was a Board Director of the Association at the time), Mr Mooney did not advise Mr Higgins to make it clear that frame throwing was out of the question, and he did not even discuss with Mr Higgins the possibility of leaving Kiev without attending the meeting. In so behaving, in my judgment, Mr Mooney was motivated by concerns as to his own position to the exclusion of all others. He had positively responded to the requirement of frame throwing in all his previous discussions and he had brought Mr Higgins to Kiev expressly to discuss this aspect of the matter. He was concerned as to the consequences for him if these assurances proved groundless.
At the meeting in Kiev on 30 April, Mr Mooney continued to represent himself as able and willing to participate in, and to procure, corrupt frame throwing. Thereafter, he neither reported the events which had occurred to the Association nor encouraged nor advised Mr Higgins to do so.
A number of points were made by and on behalf of Mr Mooney. On his behalf, Mr Phillips asserted both as a matter of law and of fact that I could not and should not find that Mr Mooney in fact intended what he represented as being his intention in his various discussions with Mr D’Sousa and in Kiev. His legal argument, which I rejected in a ruling which I delivered yesterday, was that it was not open to the Association to maintain such an argument, given its withdrawal of Charge 2. As a matter of fact, he invited me to accept Mr Mooney’s evidence that he was clear in his own mind that Mr Higgins would never deliberately throw a frame for reward and, therefore, to conclude that Mr Mooney could not in fact have intended to put the corrupt agreement asserted by the Association into effect. As to this, Mr Bourns on behalf of the Association pointed to passages in the transcripts of discussions which suggested that Mr Mooney might have had in mind to procure the throwing of frames though the activities of players other than Mr Higgins.
Mr Mooney gave evidence before me, during which he told me in terms that he did not intend to put any such corrupt agreement into effect. His explanation for his encouragement of Mr D’Sousa prior to Kiev was that he was playing along with him, humouring him, in order to get to meet those behind the venture in Kiev. He was so certain that what Mr D’Sousa was saying about the frame throwing requirement was nonsense that he had not found it necessary to inform any of the Association, Mr Higgins, Ms Mitchell or Mr Stewart of what had been said. Once in Kiev, when it rapidly became apparent to him that Mr D’Sousa had in fact been telling the truth, he was intimidated into acting as he did. He gave no explanation for the failure to report the matter to the Association thereafter.
I was unimpressed by Mr Mooney as a witness and I found much of his account highly implausible. I very strongly suspect that he intended to put the corrupt agreement alleged by the Association into effect without having decided precisely how he would do this (given that Mr Higgins would clearly not be cooperative). His motivation throughout was, I find, financial self interest, in particular having regard to the very valuable sponsorship undertakings being offered by Mr D’Sousa and his colleagues.
However, I have concluded that it is unnecessary for me to make such a factual finding, since it would have no impact on the sanctions which I have decided appropriate on the basis of factual findings that it is accepted on Mr Mooney’s behalf are open to me.
It seems to me that, on any view, in the light of the factual summary which I have set out above, even if Mr Mooney did not intend to carry out the agreement reached, he committed the most egregious betrayals of trust - both in relation to the Association, to which he owed fiduciary obligations as a Director and by reason of his great influence in the world of snooker, and to Mr Higgins whose entire career and professional future he inexplicably put at serious and wholly unjustifiable risk.
Mr Mooney resigned as a Director of the Association on 2 May 2010 and his membership of the Association (which derived from his position as a Director) was suspended (as were his privileges derived from his position as Mr Higgins’ appointed representative) on 6 May 2010.
In my judgment, both those suspensions must be made permanent. Mr Phillips on Mr Mooney’s behalf told me that his client’s involvement in the world of snooker is at an end. So it should be. That must remain the case.
I do not intend additionally to impose any financial sanction on Mr Mooney other than that he must make a contribution to the Association’s costs in the amount of £25,000. Mr Phillips has explained to me his client’s precarious financial circumstances in the light of the recent events which have unfolded. It does not seem to me in the light of that information that an Order to make payment of a fine would be proportionate.'
'Mr Mooney’s conduct is, in my judgment, of a completely different order of seriousness. He was first made aware not later than 8 April 2010 by the undercover journalist posing as a businessman (“Mr D’Sousa”) of the fact that those behind him in the purported business venture were looking to make money through gambling in circumstances where frames in snooker matches were deliberately thrown. Yet, he made no disclosure at the time of this stated requirement to the Association, to Mr Higgins (whom he represented in snooker matters, who was one of his partners in the business (World Series Snooker) which Mr Mooney was representing in his discussions with Mr D'Sousa, and most significantly who was targeted by Mr D’Sousa as the player required to throw the frames) or to his other business partners in World Series Snooker, Debbie Mitchell and Adrian Stewart.
Furthermore, despite this requirement being stated, Mr Mooney not only continued his engagement with Mr D’Sousa thereafter but persuaded a materially ignorant Mr Higgins to accompany him to meet with those behind the venture in Kiev. He accepts that, in continuing that engagement and by the words spoken by him on 8 April 2010 he had led Mr D’Sousa to believe that the throwing of frames was something that could be achieved.
Once in Kiev, on 29 April 2010, it was made clear to Mr Mooney on several occasions (in Mr Higgins’ absence) that the subject of frame throwing had to be discussed with Mr Higgins.
Still, he said nothing to Mr Higgins until minutes before the meeting the following day.
When he did mention the subject to Mr Higgins, Mr Mooney misrepresented to him the position, stating that it was possible that the subject might not come up at all.
Furthermore, despite at the time owing fiduciary obligations to Mr Higgins as his snooker representative and to the Association itself (he was a Board Director of the Association at the time), Mr Mooney did not advise Mr Higgins to make it clear that frame throwing was out of the question, and he did not even discuss with Mr Higgins the possibility of leaving Kiev without attending the meeting. In so behaving, in my judgment, Mr Mooney was motivated by concerns as to his own position to the exclusion of all others. He had positively responded to the requirement of frame throwing in all his previous discussions and he had brought Mr Higgins to Kiev expressly to discuss this aspect of the matter. He was concerned as to the consequences for him if these assurances proved groundless.
At the meeting in Kiev on 30 April, Mr Mooney continued to represent himself as able and willing to participate in, and to procure, corrupt frame throwing. Thereafter, he neither reported the events which had occurred to the Association nor encouraged nor advised Mr Higgins to do so.
A number of points were made by and on behalf of Mr Mooney. On his behalf, Mr Phillips asserted both as a matter of law and of fact that I could not and should not find that Mr Mooney in fact intended what he represented as being his intention in his various discussions with Mr D’Sousa and in Kiev. His legal argument, which I rejected in a ruling which I delivered yesterday, was that it was not open to the Association to maintain such an argument, given its withdrawal of Charge 2. As a matter of fact, he invited me to accept Mr Mooney’s evidence that he was clear in his own mind that Mr Higgins would never deliberately throw a frame for reward and, therefore, to conclude that Mr Mooney could not in fact have intended to put the corrupt agreement asserted by the Association into effect. As to this, Mr Bourns on behalf of the Association pointed to passages in the transcripts of discussions which suggested that Mr Mooney might have had in mind to procure the throwing of frames though the activities of players other than Mr Higgins.
Mr Mooney gave evidence before me, during which he told me in terms that he did not intend to put any such corrupt agreement into effect. His explanation for his encouragement of Mr D’Sousa prior to Kiev was that he was playing along with him, humouring him, in order to get to meet those behind the venture in Kiev. He was so certain that what Mr D’Sousa was saying about the frame throwing requirement was nonsense that he had not found it necessary to inform any of the Association, Mr Higgins, Ms Mitchell or Mr Stewart of what had been said. Once in Kiev, when it rapidly became apparent to him that Mr D’Sousa had in fact been telling the truth, he was intimidated into acting as he did. He gave no explanation for the failure to report the matter to the Association thereafter.
I was unimpressed by Mr Mooney as a witness and I found much of his account highly implausible. I very strongly suspect that he intended to put the corrupt agreement alleged by the Association into effect without having decided precisely how he would do this (given that Mr Higgins would clearly not be cooperative). His motivation throughout was, I find, financial self interest, in particular having regard to the very valuable sponsorship undertakings being offered by Mr D’Sousa and his colleagues.
However, I have concluded that it is unnecessary for me to make such a factual finding, since it would have no impact on the sanctions which I have decided appropriate on the basis of factual findings that it is accepted on Mr Mooney’s behalf are open to me.
It seems to me that, on any view, in the light of the factual summary which I have set out above, even if Mr Mooney did not intend to carry out the agreement reached, he committed the most egregious betrayals of trust - both in relation to the Association, to which he owed fiduciary obligations as a Director and by reason of his great influence in the world of snooker, and to Mr Higgins whose entire career and professional future he inexplicably put at serious and wholly unjustifiable risk.
Mr Mooney resigned as a Director of the Association on 2 May 2010 and his membership of the Association (which derived from his position as a Director) was suspended (as were his privileges derived from his position as Mr Higgins’ appointed representative) on 6 May 2010.
In my judgment, both those suspensions must be made permanent. Mr Phillips on Mr Mooney’s behalf told me that his client’s involvement in the world of snooker is at an end. So it should be. That must remain the case.
I do not intend additionally to impose any financial sanction on Mr Mooney other than that he must make a contribution to the Association’s costs in the amount of £25,000. Mr Phillips has explained to me his client’s precarious financial circumstances in the light of the recent events which have unfolded. It does not seem to me in the light of that information that an Order to make payment of a fine would be proportionate.'
I agree 100%.
It seems the outcome is the manager takes the fall, the star gets his pee pee slapped, the association gets to keep a money making personality and the world keeps turning till the the next dump.
Based on the judges ruling the manager was a real scumbag here but in a situation like this it is not unheard of for one guy to fall on his sword in order to preserve the earning potential of another especially when no jail time is a serious possibility. I didnt follow this closely enough to have a very good opinion but I just get a feel that it is possible in this case.
Maybe Higgins is a saint. I just don't believe it.
even sharp dressed people are hustlers and cons.....they ain't better than pool players thats for dam sure....tho they thumb their nose lol....
at least our sh*t don't get aired out on international news lol....
you know how they say no one ever got hustled that wasn't trying to hustle....
fixed videos or not....you don't get made to have eaten the cake if you wasn't eyeballing it...what was he doing getting stuck in a situation like that.....
they must have just been cool fellas and they were having some spur of the moment fish and chips....
codfish anyone,
-grey ghost-
at least our sh*t don't get aired out on international news lol....
you know how they say no one ever got hustled that wasn't trying to hustle....
fixed videos or not....you don't get made to have eaten the cake if you wasn't eyeballing it...what was he doing getting stuck in a situation like that.....
they must have just been cool fellas and they were having some spur of the moment fish and chips....
codfish anyone,
-grey ghost-
It's not a stab at you Grey, but rather confusion toward a lot of interesting opinions voiced so far in this and other threads. I just used your post as one to quote.
Higgins' only crime was not reporting these events, which he was fined for. Despite a reported fake transcript and video some still assume he's guilty no matter what, so what's the point in a court ruling either way? This is, as I suggested it would be, a farce. Guilty or not, I said, his reputation would be tarnished. So it doesn't matter he was found innocent, does it?
But that's not what confuses me, I expected that. Western cultures are quick with mob mentalities and faster still to kick someone when they're down. I don't think it's any wonder that even here in Canada we have city wide gatherings over bullying now. You can see it in this small case of a newspaper trying to sell extra circulation. Even though a player was drawn into this because the sport itself felt the need to remove doubt (and thus keep its image as clean as possible) it doesn't matter who it was or what the verdict is, people seem to need someone to bad mouth.
Part of it is most likely retaliation against snooker itself because people view it as "above" the other games. Massive pots to be won, players making a good living, great coverage (if you live in Europe), it's not rushed. No wonder the world of pool rallies anytime it looks like snooker might not be as good as it seems. We have pool players who work day-jobs or have to sell themselves in order to make a living. That has to be a hard pill to swallow; I'm free to admit that.
Do I think snooker is better than other billiard and pocket-billiard games? No. Each has its audience and appeal. I certainly align myself more with snooker even though I play 8 and 9 ball more often. But I certainly don't feel I play less of a game when I play any one cue sport over another.
Even worse though, snooker gets its international media and pool doesn't. But honestly, how do you think billiard players feel outside of Europe? Do you think they would jeer and laugh at a pool player getting entrapped in a betting scandal? It's not an easy life for them either.
I can appreciate why people are jealous of snooker. But instead of treating it as some fringe element that's too cerebral and gentile why not treat it as a sibling? Why outcast one version over another? I have a big distaste for shot clocks and the anti-safety play of 9-ball but I still watch it. I don't snub my nose at it because it's not my game of choice. I support it however I can because it's more important that outsiders are aware of it than my personal feelings.
When did it become acceptable for Joe-Schmoe to hustle his AC guy (which is match fixing) but it's not ok for a manager to attempt the same thing even if his player did not agree to it? Why do you celebrate one person who's self-admittedly guilty and condemn another who's been proven innocent?
I think this is just a case of, "my poo don't stink!" I've seen extremely distasteful behavior in pool that's celebrated. I've players who would have been barred from matches anywhere else worshiped in pool. And I see that behavior adored here on AzB too. But double-standard this all you like, this negative attitude just drives another nail in cue sports as a whole.
Just for once, try looking at our sport, in all it's variations, from outside. Look at it from the view point of someone who doesn't know anything about it. Then when you start bashing various leagues and celebrating the "hustle" you might start to see why people don't want to play anymore. And those snobby Brits, well they'll still be going out to play a game, or sneak their kids in to play. And some of those kids will make more money in a season than a pool player will make in a lifetime. Ever wonder why?
Willie,
Just curious, do you think you have been around people who have fixed matches before, or dumped matches, or lied about fixing or dumping?.
Just curious, do you think you have been around people who have fixed matches before, or dumped matches, or lied about fixing or dumping?.
TAP TAP TAP...
People come on here and by their language would be some sort of Altar Boy yet they hang around with or associate with people who do the very same thing only on a much smaller scale.
People come on here and by their language would be some sort of Altar Boy yet they hang around with or associate with people who do the very same thing only on a much smaller scale.
Ghost-man,
Actually, on the video, the player does explicitly agree to fix the match. I was not aware that the player was "proven innocent" as you propose. I thought he was fined and suspended???? I thought it was the mildness of the punishment we were debating, not whether he was guilty.
Wow, I didn't realize so many of you were in the room when all this took place.
Phil, the camera was in the room and the audio given doesn't match the video; it was obviously tampered with to give the impression of what the newspaper wanted the truth to be.
And Will, I'm disgusted in general at the double-standards people apply to different cue sports and then whining about the state they're in. What Higgins was found guilty of was giving the impression of accepting a bribe and not having reported the incident. To be fined $150,000 is a big penalty.
All I'm really saying is that people who have the attitude of it being ok to hustle and cheat others out of money are in no position to dictate, judge, or even speak about the morality or judgment of others. But that is what a double standard is for. And having that tunnel vision of being allowed to steal from other people but not realize it shuts off the sport to newcomers is why, on this side of the pond, pool is in dire straights.
And Will, I'm disgusted in general at the double-standards people apply to different cue sports and then whining about the state they're in. What Higgins was found guilty of was giving the impression of accepting a bribe and not having reported the incident. To be fined $150,000 is a big penalty.
All I'm really saying is that people who have the attitude of it being ok to hustle and cheat others out of money are in no position to dictate, judge, or even speak about the morality or judgment of others. But that is what a double standard is for. And having that tunnel vision of being allowed to steal from other people but not realize it shuts off the sport to newcomers is why, on this side of the pond, pool is in dire straights.