May 9, 2010

John Higgins Part Two – Is this really a big deal?

Filed under: snookerbacker @ 6:23 am

Erm. He didn't actually...

Ok, people will have their different takes on this I know, but to be honest I’m not sure today’s story in the News of the World is worthy of the sensationalist headline.

John (Stan Laurel) should not have done it and has displayed his now trademarked stupidity once more, but realistically the ‘insurance’ quote to me rings true.

Though the lack of hard evidence in the piece bar an unnamed call centre operator in Aintree is staggering for an article given this sense of importance.

The runner up prize money in the World Championship is more than most of us would dream of for two weeks work and I do wonder why, if this is true, John would want more on top of that, particularly as he was only placing £1000 on the final outcome.

It’s not like he was looking to put tens of thousands on and then went on and lost in suspicious circumstances. But why bother? Why in the middle of a world final does someone think, ‘right, I’m going to ring the bookies just in case I lose’ What was he thinking?

He is clearly not a very clever lad and is probably a bit too greedy in the money stakes for his own good, but I don’t believe that this is as damaging as last week. Though Pat Mooney I’m sure would disagree as he is given a bit more of the ‘You’ve been Framed’ treatment here (Scroll down to the foot of the story) and for the full report click here.

I don’t think we’ll be seeing any more of Pat (Ollie). It’s very nice of him to give Graeme Dott and Mark Selby mentions, ever the namedropper, Pat suggests that any fixes that go on involving John can happen against these two. Both have officially reported him to the WPBSA once they saw this video. Quite right too.

Unless I’ve missed it, there is still no news on John following the lead of Graeme Dott and giving him his marching orders, if I was his advisor I think I’d be recommending this as an immediate course of action.

John - Rotten to the core or just plain daft?

The article is very poor however and after the earth-shattering piece last week you wonder if they are just scraping the barrel now to try and squeeze every last drop out of the story. I’m actually quite relieved at this, I had been told that the story was going to be much worse than this.

The hand of Si-Ting Chi-Lee again no doubt.

It is littered with trivialities masquerading as news and is clearly written with the average reading age of their patrons in mind (currently 7 years and 3 months).

I’m sure this is against the rules and the governing body will I’m sure, if it is proved (big ‘IF’) have to take it into account when considering John’s future.

But until Ladbrokes actually supply a tape of the year-old conversation I’d say that this can easily be written off as idle talk, if John denied it and no tape were found then that is the end of that.

Though he still should not have done it, if he did, I’m sure it is probably quite a common thing amongst sports people.

Powered by WordPress

Website transfer complete