Post a reply

Re: Jamie Jones suspended for potential match-fixing

Postby chengdufan

Jones' current ranking points are 132325. He's won over £130000 from ranking tournaments alone over the past 2 years.
By my reckoning, anyone in the top 80 can make enough from ranking tournaments alone to focus solely on snooker, never mind invitationals, exhibitions and sponsorship.

Re: Jamie Jones suspended for potential match-fixing

Postby Deewee

According to his mate on twitter (see snookerbacker's twitter account), he admitted to knowing that John was up to something and didn't come forward with the information at the time. If that's all there is to it, shouldn't be a long ban.

Re: Jamie Jones suspended for potential match-fixing

Postby SnookerFan

Deewee wrote:According to his mate on twitter (see snookerbacker's twitter account), he admitted to knowing that John was up to something and didn't come forward with the information at the time. If that's all there is to it, shouldn't be a long ban.


Hopefully that's all there is to it.

Re: Jamie Jones suspended for potential match-fixing

Postby Wildey

chengdufan wrote:Jones' current ranking points are 132325. He's won over £130000 from ranking tournaments alone over the past 2 years.
By my reckoning, anyone in the top 80 can make enough from ranking tournaments alone to focus solely on snooker, never mind invitationals, exhibitions and sponsorship.

The thing is John or someone has landed him in it.


He was mentioned at the hearing by someone and immediately hes been suspended pending ferther enuieries.


in short he didnt have to have known anything just that someone has said he did. WPBSA had to act what hes been accused of is in breach of WPBSA Rules.

Re: Jamie Jones suspended for potential match-fixing

Postby HappyCamper

SteveJJ wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:Development

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/46823109


So pretty much the same charge as Higgins? Wonder how many of those who continue to call Higgins a match fixer will now do the same to Jones despite neither being found guilty of it. (Or if not, why not?)


Not quite.

Higgins was approached about the possibility of fixing matches himself, appeared to agree to do so, then failed to report the approach. The match-fixing in the end never actually happened.

Here Jones has been proven only to have been aware of John's intention to loose to Dott, which he failed to report. So he was aware of an actual match being fixed.

Though John alleges that Jones had greater involvement in the arrangement, setting John up with the party who was looking to pay players to throw matches - but these were not proven in the opinion of the disciplinary committee.

Re: Jamie Jones suspended for potential match-fixing

Postby SteveJJ

HappyCamper wrote:
SteveJJ wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:Development

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/46823109


So pretty much the same charge as Higgins? Wonder how many of those who continue to call Higgins a match fixer will now do the same to Jones despite neither being found guilty of it. (Or if not, why not?)


Not quite.

Higgins was approached about the possibility of fixing matches himself, appeared to agree to do so, then failed to report the approach. The match-fixing in the end never actually happened.

Here Jones has been proven only to have been aware of John's intention to loose to Dott, which he failed to report. So he was aware of an actual match being fixed.

Though John alleges that Jones had greater involvement in the arrangement, setting John up with the party who was looking to pay players to throw matches - but these were not proven in the opinion of the disciplinary committee.


Thanks for the extra detail!