The WPBSA has revealed the results of its disciplinary hearings for the 2008/09 season.

These had previously been kept secret but will now be announced as in other sports after a meeting between WPBSA representatives and members of the Snooker Writers Association.

The results were as follows:

Frame concessions (2nd incident)
Dave Harold - fine £150
Mark Williams - fine £150
Ronnie O'Sullivan - fine £150
Lee Spick - £150 suspended for 12 months; £1,000 costs
Stephen Maguire - fine £150
Robert Milkins - fine £150
David Roe - fine £150
Jin Long - fine £150

Frame concessions (3rd incident)
Jin Long - no finding of breach

Other matters:
Declan Hughes - conduct at Prestatyn - fine of £500; £250 suspended for 12 months against future good conduct; £1,000 costs
Jimmy Michie - You Tube video - fine of £1,000; £1,000 costs

Two players that qualified for the 2008/2009 Tour had outstanding disciplinary matters dating back to 2005. These matters were revisited and the outcome of each hearing was as follows:

Declan Hughes - unacceptable behaviour - no penalty ordered on this occasion - reminder given as to future conduct
Kuldesh Johal - non attendance - no penalty ordered on this occasion - reminder given as to future conduct

The frame concessions are usually for when a player gives up when there is more than enough left on to win. I’m not sure why Lee Spick’s fine was suspended or how he could run up £1,000 in costs.

Jimmy Michie appeared in a Youtube video in which he was seen snorting a white powder. His punishment comes under the catch-all ‘bringing the game into disrepute’ category.

What’s apparent is that snooker does not have a big problem when it comes to the behaviour of the players, which makes the decision in recent years to keep all disciplinary findings covered up all the more absurd.

It is however good news that matters will be conducted in a more open fashion from now on.


Chris said...

Firstly, I am very pleased that WPBSA are releasing their disciplinary news. This is good news because it isn't all a 'secret' as before. In a perfect game, you could say that you shouldn't concede when your opponent is at the table and when you can still win with the points on the table, but if a ball is left over the pocket and your opponent is obviously going to pot it to win then I think you can concede, nothing wrong with that. Though incidents like conceding with 10 reds left should be punished.

Secondly, I think this is a very good blog, if not the best snooker blog. But people like the above poster ruin it due to inappropriate language. Please respect people that love snooker and post appropriately by not using the language that you are using, one day the comment feature will be disabled and it will ruin it for people that use it properly.

Thank you

Anonymous said...

was it talcum powder?

Anonymous said...

What's all the costs for it's not like it was a court case.

GTBJ said...

With reference to Jimmy Michie's
fine from the You Tube video-
"punishment comes under the catch-all ‘bringing the game into disrepute’ category."
I completely agree with the action of a penalty, but why isn't there something more specific in relation to player conduct in public during their free time? I don't understand how personal poor judgement tarnshes an entire Sport under the definition of "disrepute"(Damage to or loss of reputation.)-Meredith aka BrooklynCueless

Anonymous said...

No mention of any match fixing enquiries? Are they keeping these findings secret?

Anonymous said...

I think this is ridiculous, what people do off table in their own time is there problem, especially with the amount of money you earn in snooker. Do they do the same with other sports?

Anonymous said...

Obviously world snooker's strict drug testing regime would have caught the likes of Michie had there been anything in this story ... that's if world snooker had a strict drug testing regime.