Well, he has been banned from snooker for 8 years for match fixing, I hope the IPT follow suit and see that he is not good for the game.
Quinten Hann banned for 8 years
- Thread starter Buckster_uk
- Start date
O
onepocketchump
Guest
I very much doubt that the IPT will ban someone based on another association's actions. Furthermore I doubt very much that the allegations have been proven to be true. How could they? It's literally one side against the other. The only way is if the snooker association has Quinten admitting to it.
John
John
O
onepocketchump
Guest
watchez said:
Are you in favor of banning Quinten from the IPT because of the allegations from the snooker association?
John
OJ won in criminal court, but lost in civil court.
Anyways, I hope they don't ban him just because another association did, innocent until proven guilty right? But I feel they should watch him closely and maybe do away with all of the little "spiffs" that they have been doing that take away from the principal of the game.
Anyways, I hope they don't ban him just because another association did, innocent until proven guilty right? But I feel they should watch him closely and maybe do away with all of the little "spiffs" that they have been doing that take away from the principal of the game.
you will never know the real facts because he refuses to speak about it im 1 of 3 people he talked to before going to the meeting/sting and he was sure it was a setup and has told all of us not to speak about the details there was a reason he went there but he said he wants to forget about snooker and england forever he even got offered £10,000 by another tabloid paper to do a story and said no he never took any money or ever lost a match so why should he be baned in the USA i have spoke to him about why he did not attend the hearing and he said he decided more than 12 months ago to quit snooker to concentrate on his bussiness back in Australia and now the ipt if it follows through and the other reason he never went to the hearing was that legal representation was another £15,000 on top of £5,000 he already spent he said it would be a waste of money when he never intended to play again and it is no secret he hates playing on the snooker tour but kept at it for the money but now the money is a third of what it used to be 2 years ago he is a good bloke and has been rail roaded in england you know what the papers are like here and he has had 4 people sell stories on him for money he lived in london for 2 years recently and me and my mates went to a few tournaments with him (plus nightclubs) including the world championship last year where he lost his cue he was already quitting way before that all through 04 and 05 season his cue stayed at his snooker club in wembley and he went in to practise maybe 10 to 20 times so he definatly does not care about his snooker that is what really pisses everyone off on the tour and the fact he tells people he does not like them he is a little bit mad but get him away from snooker players and he is a great laugh but because of the media over here every one thinks he is an asshole ill bet you have never meet him so maybe you should be aware of some of the facts before you start saying they should ban him too
onepocketchump said:
No but I am in favor of banning a player being caught cheating on the IPT tour or qualifier.
All major sports have a players union to protect the rights of the players & stand up for them if accused. Pool has nothing, KT is the pool god & he should make an example out of one or a few to put the fear of god in the rest.
Last edited:
O
onepocketchump
Guest
watchez said:
Ditto. I believe that the peer pressure will work in the favor of honesty as well.
I very much doubt that KT will be quick to punish when he sets up the situation. Especially, as he himself put it, he had ethics issues in the past.
I am sure that it was quickly made clear that such behavior won't be tolerated. Hence the sign.
John
O
onepocketchump
Guest
sniper said:
KT probably doesn't give a shit as he is someone who feels he has been unfairly railroaded by a authoritarian agency. He probably has the common sense not to unfairly ban someone based on someone else's "proof". I am sure that KT will have the common sense to realise that IF there was some kind of incontrevertible proof then Quinten would know that the spotlight would be on him in the IPT and there would be no need to make a spectacle of it until and unless Quinten were to do anything untoward in the IPT.
John
reformed said:
Please use Periods Commas and Paragraphs. I don't think too many people read your post, at least not in full.
It would be unfair if the IPT banned him as well. He didn't break any rules on the IPT because he isn't even on the tour. Furthermore I don't believe there was ever any proof, only an allegation.
edit: my mistake, he is on tour. But he still hasn't broken any IPT rules on the tour.
Last edited:
The point that Hann has not broken any IPT rules is not teriibly important. Neither has Saddam Hussein, but I doubt he'd be a good addition to the IPT.
Back in my banking days, I interviewed a candidate who had been terminated from his previous job for cause. I did not disqualify this candidate from consideration for the job, but had my human resources department do additional research into the circumstances of that termination, for I needed to know whether I needed to be concerned that if hired, the candidate would be likely to put my organization at risk or disgrace it. In business, this is called "doing you due diligence", and it is standard procedure in the hiring process. I ended up hiring the fellow.
I'd suggest that the IPT should perform due diligence with respect to Hann's background, for the same reason other business enterprises do. As others have suggested, unless there is firm evidence of Hann's impropriety, no action against him would be reasonable.
Back in my banking days, I interviewed a candidate who had been terminated from his previous job for cause. I did not disqualify this candidate from consideration for the job, but had my human resources department do additional research into the circumstances of that termination, for I needed to know whether I needed to be concerned that if hired, the candidate would be likely to put my organization at risk or disgrace it. In business, this is called "doing you due diligence", and it is standard procedure in the hiring process. I ended up hiring the fellow.
I'd suggest that the IPT should perform due diligence with respect to Hann's background, for the same reason other business enterprises do. As others have suggested, unless there is firm evidence of Hann's impropriety, no action against him would be reasonable.
Gabber said:
Where can we see this?