News, opinion and insight from the green baize
I don't like Ebdon(mainly for his part in the Altium and Everton matters)but I don't believe he is involved in anything dodgy here.He would have too much to lose while the gain would be small.Obviously stories like this are bad for snooker so let's hope the matter is cleared sooner rather than later.
I have never been Ebdon's biggest fan but he has always had a burning will to win so I couldn't see ever deliberately throwing a matchAlso his position as an ambassador for the game in the middle east means he would have more to lose then most
Can't believe that Ebdon would do anything dodgy like this, he would be last on the list I think. Hopefully that will be proved to be the case.
In terms of this story, I feel too much is made of the 'large amounts of money'. Putting £100 on a correct score in a frame is admittedly unusual, but what of all the hundreds and thousands of punters' money that goes ary? You don't see the bookmakers complaining about the validity of a match where they're books are well balanced.Had it not occured to people that, as the form book will indicate, Ebdon has been known to struggle in shorter matches, and against an unexposed player on the upgrade, a 5-0 defeat was not an unreasonable prediction. Betting syndicates operate, and have done for decades. Whatever their motives, it seems likely that the match was played on merit and that anything untoward concerned the gamblers and not the players about whom the consensus seems to be that they are 'clean'.Talking out of your pocket from the bookmakers point of view neglects the volumes of money that failed coups generate for the layers, and the Gambling Commission should examine their motives for investigating this match. I for one would suggest it would be the appeasement of the bookmakers rather than the protection of snooker's integrity.
I dont gamble but if I did long odds on Ebdon losing 5-0 in this tie would of been appealing to me seeing his previous start of season record and record against chinese players he practices with.As others have said it is beyond reason for Ebdon to have been involved in arranging this result- It does however seeem reasonable that a number of punters so the tempting possibility of a good bet in which the odds were overly generous.
I think people are being a bit naive here to be fair.Look at the facts. Ebdon is one of the most experienced players in the game; Wenbo is a big prospect but has a long way to go. It was entirely reasonable to fancy that Wenbo might win, but not to reach the conclusion that he would win 5-0.We could accept that one or two people might go for such a result, but so many people? For so much money? It seems an awful lot to be asked to believe.In response to some of the comments here:"He would have too much to lose while the gain would be small"Obviously if you do something like this you believe you're going to get away with it, in which case there's nothing to lose. And the money being talked about in this report is by no means small."You don't see the bookmakers complaining about the validity of a match where their books are well balanced"Well of course not. What kind of a betting coup would leave the bookmakers as the winners?"It is beyond reason for Ebdon to have been involved in arranging this result"Why? Other players have done so in the past? Why is Ebdon different?In conclusion, just to clarify that I'm not saying something untoward has definitely happened.What I am saying is that the whole thing has a suspicious look about it and needs to be investigated properly, not simply dismissed naively in the way some of my fellow readers of this blog appear to be doing.
Whatever the truth, it must be properly and INDEPENDENTLY investigate. Remember Ebdon is on the board of World Snooker and should be kept at arms length from the enquiry. Given it took almost a year to absolve Matt Selt from a similar situation, I suspect the process will be dragged out until people have forgotten about it.
In response to the message left at 12.37am, "You don't see the bookmakers complaining about the validity of a match where their books are well balanced"Well of course not. What kind of a betting coup would leave the bookmakers as the winners?The point I was making is that the Gambling Commission, in contact with bookmakers will only be made aware of suspicious matches where big bets have not stung the layers. Plenty matches may appear suspicious to the bookies via betting patterns, certain 'monitored' customers' interest, but failed to be reported due to the balancing of the book or something going wrong with the money. Essentially, suspected malpractice will only be reported in certain instances, and this is not good for a body which should investigate every instance of irregular betting/matchplay.
in response to Mike, the suspected malpractice in the matt Selt incident(which prima facie appeared evident) WAS reported at the time. it is the responsibility of the governing body to co-operate in these cases. They DID NOT in the Selt case, preferring to cover it up, as they have done on numerous occasions in the past when bookmakers have complained. I would bet a pound to a penny that they will attempt to do the same with Ebdon on the board, whatever the veracity of the allegations
There have been some discussion about it on The Snooker Forum. www.thesnookerforum.com
Post a Comment