Comments on: New concerns over editing of Higgins sting video as fake website cover-up continues

By: Elena

Elena — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:52:52 +0000

Keeping in mind that suddenly appeared Plan of J.D. as opposed to the Hearn’s plan, as well as the fact that Lee Doyle is behind this plan, as well as a convenient lack of Mooney and Higgins, begs the next version …

By: Elena

Elena — Thu, 20 May 2010 11:34:28 +0000

Nick! Thank you for your work. Thank you for your answers. But I’m afraid that even if he Mahmood (this is impossible, I know, but still) say that there is a clear falsification of video, there are people who will say: “Oh, Mahmoud pressed!” Simply, there are people who like to savor the mud. They rejoice that a man with an impeccable reputation was in this story. They do not care for snooker, honesty, the fight against corruption as such. They like to peek behind its neighbors in the keyhole. These people are nothing to persuade otherwise.
AND, after all, the main thing – it do what we must do.

By: admin

admin — Wed, 19 May 2010 18:30:30 +0000

Anna: I don’t know if John Higgins is innocent or guilty. I don’t know because I haven’t seen the evidence. I have actually written only four stories on this altogether in 16 days: but I have now written a lot of comments because people keep asking me questions!!
I don’t think JH is “out of his mind”.
I don’t think JH needs “protecting” by me or anyone.
As someone who has written and investigated, extensively, betting-related corruption in sport, including in football, tennis, cricket, snooker and other sport, I think it is a serious subject, and a serious potential danger. So it needs to be tackled properly, effectively, and appropriately. Trial by media, in my view, does not help, especially when there is not even a suggestion of any actual wrong-doing, ie: anything actually fixed by JH to date.
And I said the NotW have not handed over all the relevant material, yet. My definition of “relevant” is all footage, uncut, in context, as originally shot. My understanding, from sources, is that while some information has been handed over so far, it’s not all the footage, uncut.
But of course if the News of the World can clarify, explicitly, that they have handed over all footage, audio and video, as shot, uncut, including of all meetings with Mooney, plus the last meeting with Higgins, they can do so.
In fact, if they want to confirm that, and David Douglas confirms that is the case, I’ll make it a front-page story on this website. I also make an offer to screen on this website, in full, the meeting with Higgins, if the NotW let me have the footage. And I’ll also be happy to make a full transcript of that complete footage, and post that too – however damning it is.
Let’s get it all in the open. That’s all I’m saying.
NH

By: Sonny

Sonny — Wed, 19 May 2010 18:17:41 +0000

Hi Nick

It’s good there’s someone like you taking such an interest and breaking down the NOTW allegations in such detail. This is also being discussed here: http://www.snookerisland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=933 you are welcome to join up and add your comments to the topic, after all it was based around your initial report.

cheers

Sonny

By: Anna

Anna — Wed, 19 May 2010 17:37:24 +0000

Nick, sorry, but sometimes it seems you think JH is totally out of his mind and only you can protect him and find missing evidences of his innocence. Anyway, it’s a good try! And let me repeat the Q of Elena – how do you know that NOTW didn’t provide ‘relevant material’ to David Douglas???

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 19 May 2010 16:33:02 +0000

Fair enough Nick. You are obviously a lot more knowledgeable than me on this subject and I admit you’re posts have got me thinking.

I still think Higgins has a lot of questions to answer but as you said maybe we should wait to hear what those answers are before nailing him to the cross. Anyway, thanks for the replys and extra information.

By: admin

admin — Wed, 19 May 2010 16:06:40 +0000

Paul,
1) The meeting was in Kiev, not Moscow.
2) He is apparently talking on the tape about how it is possible to lose a frame. We don’t know the context. He may have been asked the question: “If someone wanted to lose a frame to a local kid, how would they do it?” But we don’t know what he was asked.
3) How do you know he is talking about ways to “hide” money? It is presented as that. That doesn’t mean it is that. (The NotW front page headline the other week said Higgins had bet on himself to lose. In fact even the story itself said there was NO bet.)
On the available evidence – and from hints in the first week’s coverage – Higgins could have been exploring a tax-avoidance measure. We don’t know without context.
4) You repeat, again, “four frames over a year”. Nowhere is this explicitly stated what these frames are, when, or what is expected of who.
Your 3 questions:
1) I don’t need to “deny” anything because I am a reporter trying to assess whether what the NotW presented is actually as it seems. From the video, it looks like the reporters are offering money for something, but quite what is unclear. If we look solely at the evidence, it seems some kind of sponsorship deal is being discussed in the first passage where “200, 300″ is mentioned (no talk of frames at all in that extract, just contradictory statements from the NotW men about whether it needs to go via their books). Then frames are mentioned later, but with no context.
2) Accepts what offer? Go and look at the video, in detail, and find any bit where Higgins says “yeah” or nods or agrees to anything specific, APART from the very end, out of context, when it says:
MM: So, four frames, one per, yep?
JH: Yeah (nods).
What does that MEAN? If the NotW had ANYTHING specific, why are they not publishing it? If they have a single sentence, anywhere, on tape or on film that says, or suggests, “You’ll lose a frame at this event”, why not publish it? Because it doesn’t exist, I’d suggest.
Mooney may well have promised all sorts of things when Higgins wasn’t there. The NotW have already trashed Mooney as a liar and unreliable in relation to Selby and Dott. How can they consistently claim he was being truthful in relation to Higgins? They can’t, unless they have Higgins on tape. They DO have Higgins on tape, but saying / agreeing nothing specific whatsoever.
3) Of course Higgins should have reported this the moment he got back. As I wrote from the start, in my view that’s the biggest single question mark against him. He needs to explain that, and a lot more.

As I’ve also written from the start: if he’s guilty of match-fixing or agreeing to fix matches, and there is clear evidence, charge him, prove the charges and punish him.

But he should be given the chance to defend himself.
You and many others have already found him guilty, based on incomplete and possibly badly flawed evidence.

In the grand scheme of things, this case is relatively trivial (to those people not involved); “trivial” in as much as nobody is suggesting any offence, of any kind; no police, no gambling commission. This would be laughed out of court if you tried to prosecute Higgins for anything on the evidence shown so far.

And yet, in the past, a NotW sting has actually led to innocent people spending many months in prison because of fabrications later thrown out of court. Read this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/why-i-am-out-to-nail-mazher-mahmood-474264.html

Higgins may be guilty. If so, the inquiry should establish that. If it does, let him be punished.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 19 May 2010 15:33:15 +0000

Nick perhaps I’m not explaining my points very well here but I am aware that this was a sting and I am aware that initially this meeting was set up with regards to legitimate snooker promotion.

My point is that during the meeting in Moscow Higgins is on tape talking about how easy it is to lose a frame and he is also talking about the best way to hide the money that he is being offered to lose four frames over the course of the year.

Three questions for you.
1/ Are you denying that he was offered money to lose frames?
And 2/ Are you denying that he accepted this offer and talks about the best way to hide the money?
3/ Is there anything at all on the video that you think should have made Higgins report to Barry Hearn?

By: Elena

Elena — Wed, 19 May 2010 15:10:03 +0000

This can all be cleared up, easily, and quickly, by the NotW providing David Douglas with all the relevant material. They have not done so, yet.
Nick, how do you know? They said they would provide all the evidence of Douglas, and many people realized that all the evidence available.

By: Doug Gordon

Doug Gordon — Wed, 19 May 2010 14:52:26 +0000

I’m sorry Doug but are you seriously comparing letting a club player in an exhibition match win a couple of frames to Higgins secretly agreeing to throw four frames over a certain period of time for a reward of up to €300,000? Come on buddy, get real. If you cannot see anything morally wrong with what Higgins has agreed to do here you are seriously suffering from a dose of headinsanditis.

Paul – I just checked my ears and there is a complete absence of sand.
So you tell me how anyone who pays out 300 Grand and then wants to make a profit, can lay out sufficient money at significant odds to achieve that goal.
I am sure that someone from the betting industry whose knowledge of such matters exceeds mine could let you know if this is achievable in matches of no consequence.
I don’t know with what he is being charged and I have no idea if he is guilty or otherwise.