【Snooker match-fixing case】The punishment for Chinese players is too heavy?

After the verdict of the Chinese player match-fixing case of the World Professional Billy and Snooker Association (WPBSA) came out, it sparked a lot of discussion. Some argue that the WPBSA Disciplinary Committee's punishment of Chinese players is targeted, double-standard, and unfair. This article is a simple analysis in conjunction with the investigation report of the Disciplinary Committee, which is purely a personal opinion.

1. Reference cases

Let's find two cases as a basis for subsequent comparisons.

1. The Stephen Lee case

Lee's match-fixing case is the most well-known to fans, with 7 match-fixing games and finally banned for 12 years.

Someone might do a simple arithmetic, divide 12 by 7, then a match-fixing should be banned for 1.7 years. So calculated, then players like Bai Langning, Chang Bingyu and others who only played one match-fixing should not be banned for more than two years, but now they are all starting from 3 years, so the penalty is heavy.

But the penalty for match-fixing cases may not be so simple to calculate, just as there is a starting price for match-fixing, there is also a starting ban period for match-fixing.

(Jamie Jones. Taken from a picture by snooker photojournalist Monica. ）

2. David John and Jamie Jones case

More than 10 years have passed since Stephen Lee's case. And this case, for judging the match-fixing case of Chinese players, I personally think it may be more informative.

In February 2019, the WPBSA announced a ban for David John, who was involved in two match-fixing, and the original ban was 7 years, which was reduced to 5 years and 7 months for voluntary confession.

This case also implicated John's friend, Jamie Jones. Initially, Jones was accused of involvement in match-fixing, but it was eventually confirmed that Jones was not involved in match-fixing (or there was no evidence that Jones was involved in match-fixing). However, through contact with David, Jones knew very well that David would play match-fixing against Dort. Under the WPBSA's Player Conduct Rules, players are obliged to report such corruption. In the end, Jones received a 1-year ban for not reporting (originally 1 year and 4 months, reduced to 1 year due to voluntary confession). Jones was relegated because of this, and many people mistakenly thought that Jones was match-fixing. Personally, I feel that Jones is a little wronged, reminiscent of a movie "Smell and Know Women".

2. Penalties for Chinese players

In the investigation report, there is a paragraph that is quite interesting. The WPBSA believes that this case shows that the previous penalties are not deterrent enough, and therefore recommends that the penalties be increased. The independent disciplinary committee that heard the case did not agree with the WPBSA's view, believing that the phenomenon in this case was not universal and special, Chinese players lived together in groups, it was easier to influence each other, and many cases occurred during the epidemic, Chinese players could not return to China, and they felt isolated in the UK. Of course, this passage is mainly aimed at those young players, excluding Liang Wenbo and Li Xing, who have been banned for life. Regarding the punishment of Liang and Li, there is an introduction in another article, without going into detail (see: [Snooker match-fixing case] Why were these two banned for life? Detailed investigation report; The article also touches on the specific plot of multiple players playing match-fixing).

At the same time, based on the early confession of the young players in the investigation of the case, the committee believes that the final suspension period should be given a 1/3 discount.

1. A player who plays a match-fixing (game manipulation).

A total of four people, Zhang Jianjian, Bai Langning, Zhao Jianbo and Chang Bingyu.

(1) Zhang Health, playing match-fixing for 4 years, betting illegally for 2 months, failing to provide information for 3 months, and being banned for 2 years and 11 months after discounting.

(2) Browning, playing match-fixing for 4 years, banned for 2 years and 8 months after breaking.

(3) Zhao Jianbo, playing match-fixing for 3 years and 6 months, the illegal betting was essentially not punished, and he was banned for 2 years and 4 months after the discount.

(4) Chang Bingyu, playing match-fixing for 3 years, and banned for 2 years after folding.

From the above ruling, it can be basically inferred that the initial ban period for match-fixing is 4 years. In the future, if Mark King is found to be match-fixing, you can see if this is the starting price. Zhao Jianbo was appropriately lightly punished because Zhao Jianbo was only 18 years old, he was easily influenced by Liang and Li, and Zhao Jianbo's financial difficulties were relatively isolated among Chinese players. Chang Bingyu was only 3 years at the shortest, considering the impact of Liang Wenbo's threat and economic difficulties.

2. Chen Zifan who played 3 match-fixing (manipulation matches).

One was completed, and two were temporarily cancelled after the plan was made.

The Committee is of the view that the match-fixing program, which was eventually cancelled, should not result in a substantial reduction in penalties, but will give due consideration. The original ban was scheduled to be 7 years and 6 months, but the ban was reduced for 5 years.

3. Lu Ning and Yan Bingtao who played 4 match-fixing (manipulation matches).

(1) Lu Ning

Luning played four match-fixing, three of which were in the 2014/15 season, but interestingly, only the fifth match against Linees Jr. on the European Tour on 13 December 2014 was explicitly mentioned, and the other two did not mention the specific number of matches, saying only that Luning admitted the allegations. The fourth match is the European Masters qualifying match against Milkins on July 23, 2022.

Judging from the report, Lu Ning's match-fixing seems to be fighting alone, and Liang Wenbo invited Lu Ning to play match-fixing, but Lu Ning refused. The report also mentions, "We think Lu Ning is an impressive witness and we can rely on his testimony." ”

Penalty result: 7 years for match-fixing, 6 months for illegal bets, 6 months for deleting information, 5 years and 4 months of ban.

(2) Yan Bingtao

Yan Bingtao's 4 match-fixing:

August 29, 2016, Paul Hunt Classic, against Dominic Dale;

March 3, 2022, Wharton Open, against Wharton;

March 11, 2022, Turkish Masters, against Linees Jr.;

September 29, 2022, British Open, against Jordan Brown.

Penalty result: 7 years of match-fixing, 6 months of illegal betting, 5 years of suspension after discounting.

5. Zhao Xintong who didn't play match-fixing

Among the 10, Zhao Xintong had the lightest punishment because Zhao Xintong did not play match-fixing. But Zhao was involved in another player manipulating two snooker matches. So how did Zhao Xintong participate?

In two match-fixing matches by Yan Bingtao (against Wharton and Linees Jr.), Zhao Xintong asked Yan Bingtao to help place bets. In the previous reference case, it was mentioned that Jones was fined for more than a year without reporting, and Zhao Xintong knew that Yan Bingtao played match-fixing, not only did not report, but also helped bet, so the committee considered that the nature was serious and must be punished, and each penalty was suspended for one year, although Zhao Xintong did not profit from it.

Penalty result: 2 years of match-fixing, 6 months of illegal betting, 1 year and 8 months of ban.

There are two mentions in the report that Zhao Xintong and Yan Bingtao are good friends who have known each other for a long time. Zhao Xintong also twice advised Yan Bingtao not to play match-fixing, but in the end he couldn't erase his face, and he was pitted by close friends.

Be careful when making friends! Of course, in essence, they are still confused, and they do not distinguish between right and wrong.

【Conclusion】

Comparing reference cases, whether the punishment of Chinese players by the WBPSA Disciplinary Committee is light or severe, everyone can judge for themselves.

In fact, it is not necessary to make comparisons. Match-fixing should have been severely punished, just as students cannot cheat on exams, which is the bottom line that cannot be touched. If you can't go up in the game and can't support yourself with the prize money, then go do something else.

Finally, again, although Zhao Xintong's punishment is the lightest, the ban period will not end until September 1, 2024. At this time, after the end of the 2023/24 season, Zhao Xintong has been relegated, and the Q School after that cannot catch up, which means that Zhao Xintong will not be able to play in the 2024/25 season. In this way, if Zhao Xintong wants to return to the profession, he can get the 2025/26 season at the earliest. However, from September 1, 2024, Zhao Xintong can participate in some domestic competitions to prepare for returning to the profession.

Eat a long and wise mind, sink your heart, the road of professionalism can go for a long time.

[For more snooker information and statistics, please pay attention to the WeChat public account: Cross Snooker. 】