Stuart Bingham banned

Ultimate Seduction

Bingham banned for 3 months with 3 suspended for suspicious betting on snooker, including betting on his own matches. What an idiot, he's going to miss the biggest tournaments.
How many more of these guys are corupt I wonder

Seems harsh when Lee got a 12 year ban

MillField

Big surprise. If the reports are accurate, he placed bets on matches that he was playing in himself. How is that different to what Stephen Lee done? And how has he got away with only 3 months of a ban? Snooker protecting a former world champion for it's image?

AnneFrank

He should be banned for life, John higgins too

testtech05

Im not very familiar with the finer details of this but seems farcical given the ban Lee (rightly) got?

bajer101

Lee bet on himself to lose and fixed matches, whereas Bingham bet on himself to win and didn't fix or throw matches.

Spudman_20000

Details here on the bets made:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/snooker/41732548

Looking at the bets, there's nothing too suspicious there really and for relatively small amounts too.

Don't think there's any evidence that it's on the level of what Lee was up to i.e. match fixing.

bajer101

AnneFrank wrote: »

He should be banned for life, John higgins too

You have no idea what you are talking about. Read up on the facts of the cases. Lee is the only one who fixed matches and rightly got lengthy ban.

testtech05

bajer101 wrote: »

Lee bet on himself to lose and fixed matches, whereas Bingham bet on himself to win and didn't fix or throw matches.

Ah OK that explains it a bit better. The article I read on it was very unclear as to how he was betting on his matches and I thought the link to him betting using someone else's account to be very suspicious. Guess I got 2+2=5.

Ultimate Seduction

No problem if it's just backing himself to win, but any kind of handicap betting ect would be very suspicious. Still no consistency though, 3 months very soft.Higgings should never be aloud play again, how long was his ban??

AnneFrank

bajer101 wrote: »

You have no idea what you are talking about. Read up on the facts of the cases. Lee is the only one who fixed matches and rightly got lengthy ban.

Actually, yes i do.

bajer101

AnneFrank wrote: »

Actually, yes i do.

No you don't. Claiming that Stuart Bingham should be banned for life shows your ignorance. He only bet on himself or different matches. If you did know what you were talking about you would possibly have asked why there was a dissimilar sentence from Alfie Burden's case. Or what was the one aspect of the case where Stuart bet against himself that was interesting, but perfectly understandable.

But no, you jumped in and said he should be banned for life along with John Higgins. You haven't a clue.

In explanation of the above, Alfie got a fully suspended ban because he immediately admitted that he was betting on matches. Stuart didn't immediately own up, hence the heavier ban of not having it all suspended.

He was also investigated for betting against himself wrt betting when he was the current high break holder in a tournament. This was very common back in the day. You stand to get the high break prize so bet that someone else will get it as a form of insurance. Banned now, as is all betting.

AnneFrank

bajer101 wrote: »

No you don't. Claiming that Stuart Bingham should be banned for life shows your ignorance. He only bet on himself or different matches. If you did know what you were talking about you would possibly have asked why there was a dissimilar sentence from Alfie Burden's case. Or what was the one aspect of the case where Stuart bet against himself that was interesting, but perfectly understandable.

But no, you jumped in and said he should be banned for life along with John Higgins. You haven't a clue.

In explanation of the above, Alfie got a fully suspended ban because he immediately admitted that he was betting on matches. Stuart didn't immediately own up, hence the heavier ban of not having it all suspended.

He was also investigated for betting against himself wrt betting when he was the current high break holder in a tournament. This was very common back in the day. You stand to get the high break prize so bet that someone else will get it as a form of insurance. Banned now, as is all betting.

Did he break the rules ?
Did he bring the game into disrepute ?
Yes, he should be banned for life, sorry if that opinion obviously upsets you,
i'm not interested in comparing cases it's irrelevent. Play fair and by the rules, or don't play.

ArmaniJeanss

AnneFrank wrote: »

Did he break the rules ?
Did he bring the game into disrepute ?
Yes, he should be banned for life, sorry if that opinion obviously upsets you,

So if a player audibly says 'bollox' after missing a pot then they should be banned for life for a) breaking a rule and b) bringing the game into disrepute.
That's the logical extension of what you are saying.

bajer101

AnneFrank wrote: »

Did he break the rules ?
Did he bring the game into disrepute ?
Yes, he should be banned for life, sorry if that opinion obviously upsets you,
i'm not interested in comparing cases it's irrelevent. Play fair and by the rules, or don't play.

Anyone who thinks that a player in any sport should be banned for life for a minor infraction is an idiot.

I would invite and welcome you to discuss any and all facts of the cases mentioned.

Ultimate Seduction

I think a year would have sent out a clear message, but also be fair.