The WPBSA is to investigate a story in the Daily Star on Sunday which alleges an associate of Jimmy White made money betting on him to lose matches.

John Callaghan, who regularly travels the circuit with White, is reported by the newspaper to have made more than £5,000 betting against him.

However, the Star also makes clear he also bet on White to lose matches he went on to win and do not make any allegations against the former UK and Masters champion.

It appears Callaghan is a regular gambler, betting on many players, including White. The Star reports he lost as many bets as he won.

But the WPBSA said: “The WPBSA takes very ­seriously any allegations of betting irregularities in ­relation to snooker. 

“Where any such information is received we will carefully ­examine the circumstance and liaise with the betting industry and Gambling Commission to decide whether an investigation is merited.”

There has been a culture of betting in snooker ever since there’s been snooker. It has not been uncommon for friends and managers to bet on or against their players, usually in all innocence.

But clearly those within the snooker world have to be very careful to avoid the impression of collusion or corruption.

Betting on your own player, particularly to lose, is therefore not a good idea.


Ray said...

If it's true, who needs enemies with "friends" like this? With a million and one other things to bet on these days would you bet on your mate to lose? If you would then it follows that you would be desperate for his opponent to win! Give me strength ......

kildare cueman said...

Only a fool backs someone because they are their friend. You back whoever you think will win not who you want to win. Ignorant opinions like the one above (12.07) provide the inspiration for these non stories.

Anonymous said...

Yeah exactly, if you've been out on the raz with Jimmy the night before and know he probably won't be at his best, why not take advantage? The Gambling Commission was set up to identify genuine cases of corruption, but is just turning into a big stick that the bookies can yield everytime they lose a few quid. It's obvious what is going on in this case, and the WSA shouldn't be indulging this nonsense, it makes the sport look dirtier than it is. It seems that match-fixing is being reported every other week now. There is not much Jimmy can do if his associates choose to bet on his matches, and by the same token WSA regulations don't apply to them. It's pretty obvious Jimmy isn't on the take; he could make that money playing a couple of exhibitions in London over a weekend.

Witz78 said...

Dissapointed you even gave this non-story a mention.

Must be a slow news day at the Daily Star and in the world of snooker blogging.....

Dave H said...

I highlighted it to give it some context. Also, the WPBSA investigation makes it a story.

Anonymous said...

White is not said in the article to have done anything but elsewhere in the past this man John has been widely described as his 'PA' and 'nephew' the Internet archive of snooker newspaper articles is replete with references of this type. There are so many that his quote in the Star that he is a friend who has helped White now and then does not persuade. So it concerns me that White's nephew/PA is betting on him notwithstanding the quote. This is in the context of White's self proclaimed million pound plus career gambling losses, admission in past that he bet on snooker and likelihood that he and his nephew would talk about something that was at least in the past of great interest to him otherwise he wouldn't have blown a million on it.

Mignon said...

WPBSA didn't mention anything on the subject and I wouldn't put my money (!...) on The Daily Star's (printed) word.

Disappointed, Dave.

Totally agree with Witz78. My thoughts exactly.

wild said...

Dave has to report on stories as they appear weather they non events or not you cant expect him to have any credibility if he did not mention what the Daily Star said.that doesn't mean it true.

and as for Witz if this was Higgins he would be jumping all over it like a rash so don't act like the Moral guardian because your full of it.

Gini said...

@kildare cueman

Backing someone because they are your mate is not the same as not betting against them. To put money on someone because you like them probably isn't a winning formula, I agree. But to bet that they will lose must make at least part of you wish they will. I for one wouldn't put myself in such a position where a friend is concerned (and I certainly wouldn't want them to know that I have so little faith in them).

That's not to suggest that John Callaghan - or Jimmy - has done anything illegal. I share Ray's sentiments though.

kildare cueman said...

Gini, serious gamblers, as Callahan appears to be, treat bets as a commodity like the stock exchange. For example, if you are offered 2-1 heads in a coin toss, its a maximum bet, even though you might lose, over time you will show a profit as eventually head will come up near enough half the time.

Its the same in snooker. If Jimmy's mate thinks Jimmys opponent is a 4-6 shot and the bookies are going evens, then thats near enough maximum bet.

Alternatively he might have 2 grand on Jimmy to qualify for a venue at 3-1, then in the final qualifying round finds Jimmy is odds on so has another couple of grand on his opponent, guaranteeing a profit. Jimmy then plays rubbish and loses and the bookie that laid the second bet screams fix, alerting the tabloids and the clueless to speculate on a fix that never was.

Gamblers are not sentimental. I've seen Celtic diehards have huge bets on Rangers because the price is good(although probably not any more).

If the papers are going to jump on the bandwagon every time a dodgy looking bet occurs, snooker will end up with some serious coverage.