Post a reply

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby kolompar

Back in March Bingham said:
"I did not know I was not allowed to bet on other players' matches, I thought it was just my own I could not bet on, and I have never done that.

"I have nothing to hide on the matter and have cooperated fully with the investigation and I now await the outcome."

http://stuartbingham.uk.com/news-events/54-betting

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby LC

Wildey wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:TWITTER ATTACK!

Ronnie O'Sullivan‏Verified @ronnieo147
Bit harsh that mate I think what they done to steve lee was a liberty.. mans gotta feed his family.. I say give steve lee his tour card back


Could someone tell ronnie to buck off please hes blocked me obviously he doesent like people to give him too much honesty just likes to give it out

Haha you hate ROS with passion and he’s probably worked that out so blocked you

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Pink Ball

Wildey wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:TWITTER ATTACK!

Ronnie O'Sullivan‏Verified @ronnieo147
Bit harsh that mate I think what they done to steve lee was a liberty.. mans gotta feed his family.. I say give steve lee his tour card back


Could someone tell ronnie to buck off please hes blocked me obviously he doesent like people to give him too much honesty just likes to give it out

Haha

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby snooky147

BBC News last night in an interview with Nigel Mawer who said that they wanted a longer sentence but the QC they appointed set out the punishment he got. Personally the absolute minimum he should have got was a full ban until the start of next season.
The QC was far too lenient.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby TheSaviour

That´s pretty heavy stuff he has been on.

"He placed bets on snooker matches that he was playing in using his manager’s account. There were 36 matches between 2003 and 2015 to a value of £4,636."

For example..
He can feel a very lucky to escape with a relatively mild punishments. He could well had been banned for life. And such a competitor he is! I can´t know how many good years he still has to go. Could guess that at least 10.

And Joe Perry too. Oh dear. I still has such a high hopes on Joe considering the UK Championships and the Worlds. I don´t what will happen to him. Such a great player.
Last edited by TheSaviour on 27 Oct 2017, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby SnookerFan

This brings in to new light Mark Allen's previous comments.

Bingham bet him a decent bottle of wine that he'd beat him in a competition. Bingham lost, and Mark Allen took the bottle. Therefore, Mark Allen was technically correct. Bingham had no bottle....

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby SnookerFan

Badsnookerplayer wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:http://www.snookerbacker.com/2017/10/26/new-light-on-bingham-case/

:chin:

Definitely a different perspective. I can see why the bet with'Phil' might have been seen as OK by Bingham


Yeah, but still hard to feel sympathy.

It's not like that's the only 'bet' Bingham had.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby snooker_loopy

Stuart Bingham is lucky he didn't get a much longer ban. According to the BBC:

"He placed bets on snooker matches that he was playing in using his manager's account. There were 36 matches between 2003 and 2015 to a value of £4,636."


Surely that is a complete no-no? Deliberate breaking of rules and deception. He should have got a 'several years' ban. It's a shame this has happened because he always seemed a decent bloke and his World Championship win had a fairy tale quality, but this betting fiasco tarnishes his career. He joins the likes of John Higgins, Stephen Lee etc in the 'dodgy snooker players' club!

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby gallantrabbit

Read Stuart`s statement. He gives a fairly solid explanation although I`d have left out one or two of the moans.
He was a silly boy, period. But he ain`t bent. Might explain a drop in form over the last few months. Hope he gets it back and plays well on his return.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Alex0paul

Ayrshirebhoy wrote:I remember John parrot once explaining on live tv how players ‘insure’ their highest break by betting against themselves and this was common practice. Changed days indeed.


Joe Swail did it in 2000 at the WC

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Badsnookerplayer

gallantrabbit wrote:Read Stuart`s statement. He gives a fairly solid explanation although I`d have left out one or two of the moans.
He was a silly boy, period. But he ain`t bent. Might explain a drop in form over the last few months. Hope he gets it back and plays well on his return.

Agree totally

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby kolompar

So why did Bingham's friend place bets on him to lose? WPBSA say the guy's excuse was they are very close friends, he regularly accompanies Bingham to tournaments and he wanted him to win so much that he put bets on him to lose.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby snooker_loopy

"I categorically deny that this was the case. I have never bet on a match in which I was playing." wrote:


If he has proof he never bet on himself he would have legal grounds to challenge the ban, appeal the ruling?

He seems to be playing the victim card a bit:

"The world number 10 has also questioned whether enough is being done to protect players from the influence of betting companies, saying he has been "exposed to all forms of gambling since I was a teenager". He added: "Most tournaments are sponsored by betting companies. If I was not having wagers with opponents on matches then there were gaming machines in all the clubs.""


Just heard on the news - new gambling rules to stop the amount of money used in gambling machines.

"The maximum stake on fixed odds betting terminals will be reduced from £100 to between £50 and £2, the Government announced on Tuesday - a move designed to protect vulnerable gamblers,"


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 28646.html

I'm guessing this is the sort of thing the likes of Bingham and Mark King were addicted to when they weren't practising snooker! It's possible Bingham has an addictive personality but that's no excuse for breaking snooker rules.

In light of this incident perhaps Rob Walker will rename Stuart 'Ballroom' Bingham as

Stuart 'Betman' Bingham!

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Cloud Strife

snooker_loopy wrote:
"I categorically deny that this was the case. I have never bet on a match in which I was playing." wrote:


If he has proof he never bet on himself he would have legal grounds to challenge the ban, appeal the ruling?

He seems to be playing the victim card a bit:

"The world number 10 has also questioned whether enough is being done to protect players from the influence of betting companies, saying he has been "exposed to all forms of gambling since I was a teenager". He added: "Most tournaments are sponsored by betting companies. If I was not having wagers with opponents on matches then there were gaming machines in all the clubs.""


Just heard on the news - new gambling rules to stop the amount of money used in gambling machines.

"The maximum stake on fixed odds betting terminals will be reduced from £100 to between £50 and £2, the Government announced on Tuesday - a move designed to protect vulnerable gamblers,"


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 28646.html

I'm guessing this is the sort of thing the likes of Bingham and Mark King were addicted to when they weren't practising snooker! It's possible Bingham has an addictive personality but that's no excuse for breaking snooker rules.

In light of this incident perhaps Rob Walker will rename Stuart 'Ballroom' Bingham as

Stuart 'Betman' Bingham!


He says he didn't bet on his own matches. I presume he has provided statements from his betting accounts to corroborate this. Beyond this I'm not sure what else he could possibly do to prove otherwise.

This is what I hate about these sorts of hearings, they are a law unto themselves. Unlike a proper court the burden of proof is always on the defendant, and in this instance it seems they have decided, despite the lack of evidence, that Bingham has bet on his own matches and this should now be accepted as gospel. Ridiculous.

And Bingham explains quite well why he won't be appealing. Even during the appeal process his ban would still be in place and he'd risk missing out on the remainder of the season including the World Championship. Don't blame him one bit for wanting to move on from this.

All that said, Bingham did break betting rules and quite rightly should be punished. It was idiotic which he now realizes.

I'm one of those who got on his back initially when this story broke and details were released, however after reading Bingham's statement I thought he came across well and I am now much more sympathetic towards his plight.

Re: Details on the Stuart Bingham betting enquiry

Postby Deewee

kolompar wrote:So why did Bingham's friend place bets on him to lose? WPBSA say the guy's excuse was they are very close friends, he regularly accompanies Bingham to tournaments and he wanted him to win so much that he put bets on him to lose.

Where are you getting the bets on him to lose? I don't see any suggestion of that