Post a reply

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby lhpirnie

roy142857 wrote:I don't know if a stupid question, but is there any possibility here of a police investigation? Some of this looks like fraud to me.

None whatsoever. For a start, you'd need to extradite Liang Wenbo. Incidentally, if there is any specific evidence of threats, it may have been redacted from the report for legal reasons, so we'll probably never know the details. This investigation was about players' conduct, not a criminal trial.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby RunningSide

lhpirnie wrote:
RunningSide wrote:Be surprised if Chinese government abandoned players with long bans,probably set up some coaching camp to train promising kids and keep their own game in tune.

No, CBSA will mirror the WPBSA bans, which means none of them will be allowed to do any official playing or coaching. I do know that Yan Bingtao had plans to do streaming (i.e. commentating on the Rigour streams). If that works out, they may attract a small revenue.

I accept your superior knowledge on these matters LHP and things would have to be implemented immediately, but can't see China abandoneding young super stars of snooker entirely, they will find away.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby HappyCamper

roy142857 wrote:I don't know if a stupid question, but is there any possibility here of a police investigation? Some of this looks like fraud to me.


in the uk there is an offense of cheating at gambling in the gambling act 2006, but actual cases are rare. there was the three pakistani cricketers convicted for spot fixing which resulted in custodial sentences.

it would seem unlikely here, not least since those involved are not uk citizens and are not likely to reside there in the near future. the standard of proof for a criminal matter is also higher. i doubt the police or cps would deem it worthwhile to investigate.

some of the matches were overseas, but the portuguese police or whatever are probably not any more inclined.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby mantorok

Womble wrote:
Womble wrote:My inside source (some old guy from my club who knows someone who knows apparently knows someone else) said they will not be announcing the penalties until Q School has finished. Cast iron information. You heard it here first. :chin:

Wow. My inside source (some old guy from my club who knows someone who knows apparently knows someone else) was right on the money. The results came out straight after Q School finished. And I thought he was full of rubbish. rofl


Snookerbacker?

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby stanley_

Age the players will be when ban ends and the first season they'll have a chance to qualify for:

2025/26
27 - Zhao Xintong
22 - Chang Bingyu
21 - Zhao Jianbo

2026/27
23 - Bai Langning
27 - Zhang Jiankang

2028/29
27 - Yan Bingtao
32 - Chen Zifan
34 - Lu Ning


I've also seen many comments online, since the players were first suspended, which seem to imply that all Chinese sportspeople are cheats etc. and that's a real pity. This is a group of players who have taken part in it but it shouldn't mean the other Chinese players are judged in the same way. Also think it is important that three of the Chinese players reported it and refused to get involved (particularly in the case of Cao Yupeng who seems to have learned his lesson, he may well have ended up on the permanently banned list had he got involved).

Worth noting that Xintong is the only player of the group to not actually have fixed a match as well. He seems the most likely to have a good chance of having a proper career in snooker after his ban is up.

Hugely disappointing that they all got involved in this but hopefully it sends a message to the rest of the players on tour and things improve.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby SnookerEd25

Dan-cat wrote:No mention of that 10 nil German Master’s final unless i missed it?


It was 9-0, but I don’t think that was under investigation. Odd as it may seem, it probably was a genuine (if freak) result. These sort of scores do happen from time to time and if both players were in on the collusion, surely 9-2, 9-3, or 9-4 would have been a more likely arrangement. Whitewash just looks too suspicious, and would arouse too much scrutiny I feel.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

The matches seem to be mainly low profile although there is a match from the flat draw UK Championship. Fixing a tournament final would be very risky. Looking at Yan's matches there is one from the 2016 Paul Hunter Classic which was one of the first tour events he ever played. It was a Last 16 game against Dominic Dale and he had to beat Alfie Burden, Scott Donaldson and Ali Carter all 4-3 to get that far.

Bans

Postby Dragonfly

Wenbo gone forever. Yan gone for a long enough time. I know he's still young and could perhaps resume his career. It'd be hard to look at him the same way though. Zhao will be back soon enough.

Hopefully that's the end of it now.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby Iranu

The fact that Cao declined and reported the approach kind of shows why Murphy’s “automatic life bans for match fixing” is not necessarily the best approach.

Cao coming back having learnt his lesson and presumably helping this case has had more benefit than him not being on the tour for life.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby HappyCamper

LC wrote:So did xintong bet on matches knowing they where fixed?


zhao admitted to placing bets on behalf of yan in matches which yan was fixing.

he separately had an history of personal betting on snooker matches, but there was no indication in the report that these were on matches known to be fixed.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby SnookerFan

Iranu wrote:The fact that Cao declined and reported the approach kind of shows why Murphy’s “automatic life bans for match fixing” is not necessarily the best approach.

Cao coming back having learnt his lesson and presumably helping this case has had more benefit than him not being on the tour for life.


I think Murphy's opinion was based on the idea that all of the Chinese players were being accused of the same thing. Ie. deliberately colluding with shady mafia dons, taking large sums of money and intentionally losing matches on purpose for the bribe.

I'm not massively suggesting that people in that situation shouldn't receive bans flat out, but I think it was maybe ill-advised for Murphy to say that, without actually knowing the full details of what the ten players were being accused of individually. There's a difference between deliberate match-fixing, and just not reporting an advance.

Murphy does have the habit of looking at life in black and white, and will often give out opinions without all the facts. Though he probably means well, and thinks giving his opinion helps the sport look like it has a zero-tolerance approach, this is a situation which really, isn't about him.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby SnookerFan

HappyCamper wrote:
LC wrote:So did xintong bet on matches knowing they where fixed?


zhao admitted to placing bets on behalf of yan in matches which yan was fixing.

he separately had an history of personal betting on snooker matches, but there was no indication in the report that these were on matches known to be fixed.


I do think the whole betting on snooker matches thing, even if their matches that aren't fixed, is pretty stupid. How do people not know that it's against the rules by now?

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby HappyCamper

SnookerFan wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:
LC wrote:So did xintong bet on matches knowing they where fixed?


zhao admitted to placing bets on behalf of yan in matches which yan was fixing.

he separately had an history of personal betting on snooker matches, but there was no indication in the report that these were on matches known to be fixed.


I do think the whole betting on snooker matches thing, even if their matches that aren't fixed, is pretty stupid. How do people not know that it's against the rules by now?


they probably do know, and either rationalise that they won't get caught. or are just behaving compulsively due to a form of addiction.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby mantorok

Having read through some of the report I must admit I didn't realise how much gambling was embedded into their culture, gambling was a major past-time for them, and I guess if it's such a normal regularity for you then you could easily lose sight of how serious these kinds of acts are in sport.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby SteveJJ

Iranu wrote:The fact that Cao declined and reported the approach kind of shows why Murphy’s “automatic life bans for match fixing” is not necessarily the best approach.

Cao coming back having learnt his lesson and presumably helping this case has had more benefit than him not being on the tour for life.


Also reads that Cao's wife was a good influence on him too. Shows what having good support networks can do, something which a lot of the banned players didn't have

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby SteveJJ

Do World Snooker have more of a duty of care than shown up to this point?

How do they make sure new pro's understand the rules? Do they take it on trust that players read and understand the rules and code of conduct before signing the players contract?

It reads that the pandemic exacerbated their loneliness and financial troubles, which the WST can't account for, but what sort of support mechanisms could be put in place, especially for overseas players based in UK?

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby McManusFan

SteveJJ wrote:Do World Snooker have more of a duty of care than shown up to this point?

How do they make sure new pro's understand the rules? Do they take it on trust that players read and understand the rules and code of conduct before signing the players contract?

It reads that the pandemic exacerbated their loneliness and financial troubles, which the WST can't account for, but what sort of support mechanisms could be put in place, especially for overseas players based in UK?


Absolutely. Hopefully WST/WPBSA take this as a wakeup call that they need to support their players, particularly the young international ones. However, the way they tried to pursue an even harsher ban for Zhao makes me wonder if they intend to go all stick and no carrot.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby lhpirnie

SteveJJ wrote:Do World Snooker have more of a duty of care than shown up to this point?

How do they make sure new pro's understand the rules? Do they take it on trust that players read and understand the rules and code of conduct before signing the players contract?

It reads that the pandemic exacerbated their loneliness and financial troubles, which the WST can't account for, but what sort of support mechanisms could be put in place, especially for overseas players based in UK?

It's WPBSA who had a duty of care, not so much WST.

No 17-year old successfully qualifies for the professional tour thinking: "Great! I now have the chance to fix matches and make a fortune gambling on them!". Something went wrong whilst they were here in the UK, nodoubt a massive sense of disillusionment.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby Iranu

SnookerFan wrote:
Iranu wrote:The fact that Cao declined and reported the approach kind of shows why Murphy’s “automatic life bans for match fixing” is not necessarily the best approach.

Cao coming back having learnt his lesson and presumably helping this case has had more benefit than him not being on the tour for life.


I think Murphy's opinion was based on the idea that all of the Chinese players were being accused of the same thing. Ie. deliberately colluding with shady mafia dons, taking large sums of money and intentionally losing matches on purpose for the bribe.

I'm not massively suggesting that people in that situation shouldn't receive bans flat out, but I think it was maybe ill-advised for Murphy to say that, without actually knowing the full details of what the ten players were being accused of individually. There's a difference between deliberate match-fixing, and just not reporting an advance.

Murphy does have the habit of looking at life in black and white, and will often give out opinions without all the facts. Though he probably means well, and thinks giving his opinion helps the sport look like it has a zero-tolerance approach, this is a situation which really, isn't about him.

Nah he was saying about Cao after the fact that he should have been banned for life and that any player who breaches the rules should be banned for life.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby SnookerFan

Iranu wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
Iranu wrote:The fact that Cao declined and reported the approach kind of shows why Murphy’s “automatic life bans for match fixing” is not necessarily the best approach.

Cao coming back having learnt his lesson and presumably helping this case has had more benefit than him not being on the tour for life.


I think Murphy's opinion was based on the idea that all of the Chinese players were being accused of the same thing. Ie. deliberately colluding with shady mafia dons, taking large sums of money and intentionally losing matches on purpose for the bribe.

I'm not massively suggesting that people in that situation shouldn't receive bans flat out, but I think it was maybe ill-advised for Murphy to say that, without actually knowing the full details of what the ten players were being accused of individually. There's a difference between deliberate match-fixing, and just not reporting an advance.

Murphy does have the habit of looking at life in black and white, and will often give out opinions without all the facts. Though he probably means well, and thinks giving his opinion helps the sport look like it has a zero-tolerance approach, this is a situation which really, isn't about him.

Nah he was saying about Cao after the fact that he should have been banned for life and that any player who breaches the rules should be banned for life.


Must have misremembered.

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby Wildey

Iranu wrote:The fact that Cao declined and reported the approach kind of shows why Murphy’s “automatic life bans for match fixing” is not necessarily the best approach.

Cao coming back having learnt his lesson and presumably helping this case has had more benefit than him not being on the tour for life.

:goodpost:

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby Wildey

Wildey wrote:
Iranu wrote:The fact that Cao declined and reported the approach kind of shows why Murphy’s “automatic life bans for match fixing” is not necessarily the best approach.

Cao coming back having learnt his lesson and presumably helping this case has had more benefit than him not being on the tour for life.

:goodpost:

I Used to be in the same camp as Murphy But there are different scenarios that needs to be looked at a blanket policy just wouldn't work in the real world

Re: Ten players banned over match-fixing allegations

Postby SnookerFan

Wildey wrote:I Used to be in the same camp as Murphy But there are different scenarios that needs to be looked at a blanket policy just wouldn't work in the real world


That is essentially true.

Though, obviously there also needs to be some regulations in place to make sure rulings are fair, cases do need to be judged on a case by case basis.