HappyCamper wrote:Scooper wrote:Nothing as interesting as this.
Will the players appeal?
Unlikely. Liang clearly doesn't give a toss. And the rest pled guilty. There doesn't seem to be any obvious grounds for a reduced sentences, and engaging a lawyer for an appeal would be expensive anyway.
Whilst I fully agree with the sanctions for the most serious breaches (life bans for Liang Wenbo and Li Hang),
there appears to be inconsistency in the length of sanctions imposed against the other players. I don't understand, for example, how the independent panel arrived at a decision giving Yan Bingtao and Chen Zifan identical sentences given the discrepancy in their offences.
The independent body judged, as was their remit, based upon the WPBSA Conduct Regulations.
These include the following which is cited in the WPBSA Conduct Regulations section, on page 8 of the report:
"(10) Any attempt or agreement (or intentional appearance of the same) shall be treated for purposes of these Rules as if a breach of the relevant provision(s) had been committed, whether or not such attempt or agreement (or intentional appearance of the same) in fact resulted in such breach (Part 1, section 2, rule 2.2)."
I find this clause profoundly disturbing. It implies that match-fixing and considering fixing a match but not going through with it are equally repugnant.
In my eyes there is a clear distinction.
I suspect that this clause would not survive a challenge in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
But I doubt there will be an appeal. The only players that may have a case for a reduced sentence (possibly Chen Zifan, Bai Langning and Chang Bingyu?) are among those who could not afford legal representation in the first place.