Further to yesterday's reports on the John Higgins case, the Guardian reports that the News of the World have in fact given its unedited video footage to David Douglas, the WPBSA board member heading up the governing body's new anti-corruption unit.
Full story here.
The view from Sporting Intelligence here.
14 comments:
Yet another twist. This is starting to resemble a four session match.
Yesterday Higgins led 11-5. Now its 13-11.
Who will finish the winner?
It seems the News Of The World are happy to hand over the tapes as long as they are not culpable to the backlash of a court case on the part of the "victims".
If so, who would be responsible for "fitting up" John Higgins or more likely the discrediting of Pat Mooney in the first place?
All I hope is that someone is accountable, whether it be Higgins/Mooney or the person who set up this whole tawdry affair in the first place.
If Higgins is cleared of any wrongdoing then someone elase has done wrong and should be exposed.
Excuse my ignorance if this has been asked and quoted on previously, but who are 'sporting intelligence' how come they seem to think they know so much even more than others who you would expect to know more. They seem to use a lot of possiblies and maybe's etc. which doesn't seem to help or clarify things.
Anonymous 8:10
Hopefully it will be 18-11 for Higgins at the end...
Anon @ 8.27
Sporting intelligence are a clever outfit who use police like forensics and investigative techniques to establish the most likely outcome of a case.
your ignorance is excused
'sporting intelligence' are a bunch of highly impertinent, highly manipulative Higgins fans who are trying to misdlead the public ant 'teach' them how to think what they want to see them thimk
WHAT involvement do they have in the Higgins scandal?
Are they manipulated too (by Higgins or by the sinister Mooney creature)?
They receive far too much credit - people (even Dave) are very gullible.....
Unlike you I actuallly know Nick Harris and he is not as you describe him
Mr. Hendon:
EVERYBODY with at least minimum of common sense knows that Nick Harris and Sporting Intelligence as a whole is not as this poor creature above described them.
In Higgins case, they said numerous times that they are expressing their opinions, not judgments, and they have done a perfect job for all those who wanted to know more but were given no other information at all (for various reasons, legal among them, of course).
If you are not a notorious Higgins hater you have to see that.
The worst thing in this case, is that anyone who tries to find the truth, or questioned the evidence of "newspaper" NOW, immediately he is called fan of Higgins in an Internet.
Based on the information present, we understand that Nick Harris was yesterday accused by the journalists on News of the World of deliberately misinforming his readers, after mr. Harris alleged in his previous article that legal team of JH had been approached by the NOTW laweyrs. Number of special analysis proved that this accident had not been videotaped as camera had been left in Kiev. But it is strongly belived that as no one ever could name the NOTW the decent paper and mr Harris has consistently maintained that he is using only information from well-informed and highly reliable source, he can be charged only of being misinformed by his sources or misunderstanding their information.
Hi Dave,
Is this the same Nick Harris that used to work (or still does?) for the Indy?
If so, I'd back his investigative skills all the time!
Thanks, Joe
5.46 - take more water with it
A bit of cool objectivity isn't really considered fashionable anymore.
As we've seen so far:
i) Hearn criticised for saying it would be resolved in weeks rather than months; this started before even a month passed. He kept to his word as much he could - the WSA concluded their investigation before the end of the second month. Some people seem to think he should be accountable for the actions of an independent organisation though.
ii) The suggestion that Higgins should be tried for his initial defence against the evidence, rather the insistence that the evidence should provide incontrovertible proof of his guilt. In other words: prove your innocence Sonny.
iii) Character assassination of interested parties who have analysed the evidence as best as they can and published their opinion. Their motivations may be agenda driven or not; they may be impartial or not; ultimately though this doesn't matter because no-one has actual taken them to task over their findings, just a general dismissal of their analysis because it doesn't come to the conclusion that they want. It's like a jury dismissing evidence from an expert witness because the defendant looks like a crook.
If Maguire and Burnett ever do end up in front of a jury, they'll be absolutely crapping it if this is the general level of consideration they can expect the actual evidence to receive.
John Higgins was confirmed as World no 1 after the World Championship but he would not have played a match as the NO 1 because of him not being eligible for both Shanghai and the World Open he will lose that No 1 spot to probably Neil Robertson without playing a shot as no 1.
innocent or guilty of all charges.
Post a Comment