This was just posted on twitter by Sinosports a few minutes ago
If really no more players will be suspended, it’s somehow reassuring … somehow.
The third point may explain Jason Ferguson’s somewhat cryptic quote about implicated players not necessarily being match fixers
When the first suspensions were announced it was said that three players were under suspicion for just one match. That possibly stands.
With the judgement likely to be announced before the Crucible there is not much left of their season. Especially if it doesn’t come before the World Qualifiers.
Ronnie O'Sullivan 
Wow. Snooker makes it into the German main news. I didn’t saw Ronnie making it last May. That is telling. If the suspects should be found guilty, then Shaun Murphy is demanding life bans according to ntv.
For any Germans on here: https://www.n-tv.de/sport/Massiver-Betrugsskandal-erschuettert-Snooker-Sport-article23825504.html
Yes, but as Jason Ferguson explained, a life ban is likely to be successfully challenged in court. What I read is that for some, a ban similar to Stephen Lee’s ban is considered. That’s 12 years. It’s very difficult to come back from that.
If Xintong has (ONLY) done something similar to Stuart Bingham and Joe Perry, then surely has punishment should be similar in length.
indeed. But it’s not active match fixing.
If that is the case, then I simply consider who simply bet is quite foolish
Not only betting does not ensure gain, but also adds risk of further investigations – in this critical moment.
(considering cases like Jamie Jones.
Even they are not in the same academy, they have records of hanging out!)
Jamie Jones case was different, he failed to report an approach, and, frankly, his punishment was quite harsh, as he wasn’t the one being approached, it was one of his mates, David John. If Xintong is punished for irregular betting, then his case is more similar to Stuart Bingham’s.
Monique, thanks for pointing out that.
For irregular betting, I really do wonder what platform do they use to hide their identity – double foolish if they use own identity on a regular platform – it is now just a blink of an eye to search if someone meet a certain criteria. (If the betting amount is more than those two cases or they use a illegal platform, the punishment should be heavier.)
Why did I mentioned Jamie Jones? Liang did “invite” some of players to do fixing, if investigators dare to check their messages(cellphones) or someone decide to handover their own phones for the sake of cooperation (and leaked other information of breaching rules)… the ones who refused(or simply not to) to fix still have an obligation to report to the board(if they fail to do so……).
(Personal thought)
And the second reason, if we looked the statement of WPBSA about Jamie Jones. The outcome and the suspension statement can be a very huge difference(in outsiders eyes)……
Actually, it’s not quite possible for all the rumours to be true! We need to be a little bit cautious about things we might read. For example, if some players are guilty of betting on matches only, then it’s not really part of the same ‘match-fixing’ inquiry – in reality we have several separate issues.
What may be more accurate is the timings, as hearings need to be scheduled, and this information is likely to have some substance. However, if the conclusions are more serious than they expect, or if there are legal issues that need to be addressed, then WPBSA might not want to make their announcement just before the World Championship.
What is clearly speculation is the lengths of the bans. In this climate, it would be very hard for WPBSA to issue any bans which could be viewed as ‘lenient’, such as ‘a few months’.
They need to be consistent though, otherwise it will be legally challengeable.
Yes of course, but in the past bans have been ‘suspended’ in part, by as much as 50%. The terms and conditions have changed a little, which means there is scope for a tougher deterrent, but not unreasonably so.
1.I forgot to mention in replies before, I wonder the presence of WeChat (A communicating software) in the investigation process. If it shows some influence, future offenders will do in a more secret way/ they will be a lot more aware only texting/speaker normal stuff.
2.Also I fear the emergence of underground bet dealer(now not export the risk to a legal platform) in China – if future offenders bother doing this. Where in Macau- where I live, a city in China, has trials- still in dispute- about underground bet, a legitimate VIP room(contractor of Casino) accepts underground bet… which is apparently not legal.)
3.No matter what the outcome is, I do feel the “absence/ cooperation” of prosecuting entities in both(or more) countries do have a negative effect against fixing. What do normal people think, especially in China, it is very common a fraud of 1000 pounds should go to jail(up to 3 years) whereas fixing(should do an amount much more) does not get even investigated by legal entities. (Though it is written in laws, China should also have some sort of Jurisdiction but it turns out to be nothing? Hope not any of them do bet illegally in China)
4.I have not seen Ding being criticized being not able to prevent such stuff in the academy in western media.(I also agree as in England/ western countries, managers do not have that power to affect private life. But some fans do criticize in China, as they believe the owner should treat people in the academy as if their adolescent sons-_- Come On, they are adults, they should responsible for themselves. )
For 1 and 2, if they are fool enough, they will commit the same old mistake.
Very interesting. Thank you. Victoria Shi is taking a close interest in her players’ life and struggles but she still has two of the offenders in her academy too. There are limits to what Academy owners can do.