Yan Bingtao and Zhao Xintong were the star names among the guilty parties (Pictures: Getty)
Two lifetime bans were handed out and eight more players won’t be playing professional snooker any time soon, but there remains a feeling that snooker’s match-fixing punishments didn’t quite go far enough.
The verdicts and bans were announced this week as 10 players were found guilty of various charges from fixing matches to betting on games, and there has been an attempt to chop the head off the snake by ousting the ring-leaders for life.
Liang Wenbo, who has emerged as snooker’s chief villain and all-round abysmal character after a conviction for assaulting a woman last year, has been banned for the rest of his days, as has Li Hang.
The two men were found to have encouraged, enticed and at times bullied younger players into getting involved in match-fixing.
World Professional Snooker and Billiards Association (WPBSA) chairman Jason Ferguson had previously said any lifetime ban was very unlikely for legal reasons, but is now delighted to see the independent disciplinary commission dish them out for the ‘despicable’ actions of Liang and Li.
The influence of the pair on younger players has been taken into account when the punishments were handed out to the other eight guilty parties, and rightly so, but perhaps some still got off a little lightly.
The players have received significant punishments, with Lu Ning banned for 5 years and 4 months, Yan Bingtao and Chen Zifan 5 years, Zhao Jianbo, Chang Bingyu, Bai Langning and Zhang Jiankang all between 2 and 3 years, and Zhao Xintong, who ‘alone among the Respondent players did not himself fix any match’ barred for 1 year and 8 months.
They were given reductions on their bans for admittance of guilt at the earliest opportunities, something Stephen Lee didn’t do when he was banned for 12 years in 2013.
Liang Wenbo did not engage with the investigation before being banned for life (Picture: Getty Images)
If the punishments were firm enough, the WPBSA does not appear to believe so themselves, with the governing body pushing the independent commission to be as strict as possible, but the finding of the hearing revealing that they did not agree.
On considering appropriate sanctions, the finding read: ‘The WPBSA submitted that we should impose a longer ban than the previous snooker cases would suggest should be the case, on the basis that the extent of wrongdoing evident in the present case demonstrates that the sanctions in previous cases had proved to be an insufficient deterrent.
‘We do not accept that submission. The present case involved a close-knit group of Respondent players (including predominantly young professionals) who spoke the same language and shared a similar culture; the relevant events occurred largely during the Covid-19 pandemic when they were not able to travel back home to mainland China and felt isolated in the UK. We do not see in the present case any evidence of a wider culture of wrongdoing in snooker.’
While that makes sense, it has to be something of a concern that the WPBSA feels there was ‘insufficient deterrent’ for match-fixers based on previous bans and the commission disagreed.
However, punishments in reality were longer than they may have been thanks to the WPBSA pushing for no part of bans being suspended, as they have been in the past.
Cao Yupeng was was hit with a six-year ban for match-fixing in 2018, but three-and-a-half years of that was suspended, meaning he was back playing on the main tour in 2021
The commission confirmed that ‘the WPBSA urged us not to adopt that approach’ this time round and that was a good move, because Cao only being banned for two-and-a-half years for fixing three matches and ‘failing to fully co-operate with the WPBSA inquiry’ was ridiculously lenient.
Many players will believe the more serious punishments this time around are still very generous to those found guilty.
Speaking to Metro.co.uk earlier this year world number 21 Dave Gilbert expressed a view that many more will hold, saying: ‘If you’ve put money on yourself to lose a frame or matches, you’re gone forever.
‘I don’t ever want to see you in the practice room, the players’ room or sat opposite playing me. I don’t want to look at you, I don’t want to shake your hand, I don’t want to wish you well if you beat me.
‘I want nothing to do with you. If you’re proven to have done that, I don’t want you near me.’
Yan Bingtao has been found to have fixed four matches, the first in August 2016 and the most recent in December 2022, but could be back on the main tour in 2028, before his 30th birthday.
His reputation may never recover, but his career may well. The former Masters champion is a superb player and could return right to the top of the game for years to come. Many would feel that very hard to accept after serial match-fixing.
Yan Bingtao won £250,000 when he won the Masters in 2021 (Picture: PA)
Zhao Xintong will be back playing a lot sooner, and given that he is the only one of the 10 not to fix a match that is correct, but his return will also be far too soon for some.
The 26-year-old may not have fixed any matches, but he placed bets on games he knew to be fixed by Yan. The WPBSA submitted that if he had not placed the bets then Yan would not have proceeded with the fixes. The commission rejected that submission, but either way it was a meaningful and active role he played.
The finding states of Zhao: ‘His involvement was limited to placing bets for Yan through Li, whereby he became liable as a party to the two match fixes. He attempted to dissuade Yan from match-fixing on both occasions with no success. He felt he had no other option but to place the bets for Yan, as Yan had requested. He has shown genuine remorse for his actions.’
‘Felt he had no other option’ is not a great excuse from Zhao. Since the verdicts, he posted on social media: ‘I have been thoroughly regretting my ignorance and silliness since being suspended a few months ago. I feel ashamed as I disappointed everybody by making a mistake. I just want to say sorry to everyone.
‘I didn’t make any profit from it, but I paid a heavy price for my foolishness.’
Zhao is a very likeable man and a joy to watch at the table so it is easy to feel sorry for him, but a ban of under two years appears generous, as the WPBSA themselves attested with their ‘significant and serious’ involvement claim, which was rejected by the commission.
Zhao Xintong is one of the finest players on the planet, but will not return to the professional tour until at least 2025 (Picture: Getty Images)
The commission found that this case did not present ‘any evidence of a wider culture of wrongdoing in snooker’ which is good news for the sport, but to think that every incident of fixing was hoovered up in this enquiry is fanciful.
The finding stated of the now banned for life Li Hang: ‘Li was a good poker player and had a betting account which he used to help the younger players to place bets, including on snooker games. It was widely known by the Chinese snooker players that they could go to Li if they wished to place a bet on a snooker match or to get involved with match fixing.’
It’s hard to imagine this was widely known among the group of players found guilty but nowhere beyond that number, and for how long that has been widely known is not clear. Li first turned pro as long ago as 2008.
Outside of the guilty parties there were three other players in the finding that were approached to fix matches but rejected the opportunity and were not charged with any breaches.
The aforementioned Cao, Yuan Sijun and Xu Si were these three players and how their involvement came about was not made clear in the finding. Whether it was voluntary as whistle-blowers or that they had found to be approached.
Asked if they had come forward voluntarily, Ferguson said: ‘They came forward as part of the investigation.’
To the WPBSA’s credit they have pushed for severe punishment and will be desperately hoping that the bans that have been handed out are sufficient deterrent to anyone considering any fixing in future.
They have also not given up on further discipline for those involved, with Ferguson telling the Times that there could be criminal charges to come in the UK and in China.
‘We are in constant contact with the Gambling Commission and it is up to them whether they want to take it on for criminal proceedings,’ he said. ‘We will also be handing information to the authorities in China that could also result in prosecutions.’
The sport has a problem, clearly. Will this week’s punishments be enough to stop it? Everyone hopes so, the WPBSA as much as anyone. Could there have been a clearer message that this can never happen again? Yes.
I have put two parts in bold. I find it interesting that WPBSA pushed for harder punishments.
Also there is a psychological aspect to the relationship between the group of young players that isn’t mentioned in this article, but has been brought forward by Lewis Pirnie a few times in the past: the “one child policy” has now been lifted in China, but when the players in this age group were born it was still enforced and most, if not all, have no siblings. Because of that, the relationship they build with their “friends” is often more intense that what we are used to see in our corner of the world, they become like brothers to them because they have no biological brothers. Some of these young players have known each other, and practiced/played with each other since they were kids. Their friendship is very strong and very important to them, and it only became more important during the covid crisis, when they were kept away and isolated for a long period of time. I’m not looking to excuse them, but it probably explains – to an extent – why they felt compelled to support each other even knowing that what was going on was wrong.
20 thoughts on “Phil Haigh reports and reflects on the outcome of the match-fixing enquiry”
Let me add, or emphasize, a few points I found to be largely overlooked.
It has been shown, consistently, that meting out harsher punishment does not deter crime. Much rather, a higher likelihood of being caught does. The current scandal, it should be noted, has not been detected by the WPBSA, but by betting outfits notifying the WPBSA of irregular betting patterns. Shouldn’t everyone be calling upon the WPBSA to ramp up their operations in that realm? That, I find, would actually deter, and help snooker regain some stature. I haven’t seen anything in this respect.
Zhao Xintong has been confirmed not to have fixed any matches. Yet, he has been convicted of two counts of match fixing. That logic escapes me entirely. Yes, I know, WPBSA asserted Zhao hat a serious role in match fixing, but the commission rejected that. Rather, they noted that Zhao tried to dissuade Yan from match fixing. Yes, Zhao is not without blame, and the ban is probably in order. Calling for harsher punishment in his case I find hard to understand.
WPBSA lists among their “functions” “professional player support”. I’d ask, what has the WPBSA done from 2000 to 2002, when especially non-UK players were hit by isolation in conjunction with dwindling earning opportunities, in support of players? Which were their offers, if any? Of course, we’ve seen nothing like Covid in our lifetime, and the strategies to counter its effects would have to be developed on the fly during that time. Yet, as far as I know, and I have spent considerable time searching WPBSA statements on their activities related to Covid and their players’ mental health (because that’s what’s at issue here), there hasn’t been any effort detailed in these statements, not even meetings with (non-UK) “player support” high on the agenda. The WPBSA sitting on their hands for years is not a good sight. If my reading of the situation is correct (admittedly a big if), the WPBSA failed these kids, and they should acknowledge it. In my view, one single phone call by a person they trust and could confide in, inquiring how these kids are coping, might have yielded the insight that kids in dire financial circumstances and cut off from home were pressured by Liang and Li to fix matches, and this whole sordid affair would have been caught early, a fat scandal averted and the kids’ careers saved. This most basic insight that those at the bottom rungs, and most vulnerable to peer pressure, needed the most attention and care, should have occurred to those spending their lives immersed in snooker. As it turns out, those with the least resources to resist peer pressure were mostly those, except for the ring leaders, who were punished the harshest.
I’ve been reading about how well “Victoria” has been doing, caring for the young talent under her wings. I’ve scoured the 58-page document the commission released for any of that, and couldn’t find anything. Seemingly, the kids were on their own, and at the mercy of Liang and Li. It pains me to say, same goes for Mr. Ding. They, just as the WPBSA, should have done better, but, seemingly, they have not. And that is even while during the Covid restrictions the hardships befalling Chinese players, in particular, have been discussed. What on earth were they thinking was going to happen with a bunch of kids, many financially desperate, and bored out of their minds? Moreover, if Li’s possession of a betting account was widely known, how could Ms. Shi and Mr. Ding not have known about it? In light of what emerged, read this again: https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/15/victoria-shi-explains-immense-success-of-her-snooker-academy-and-why-theres-more-to-come-16225197/ That “My players are so happy because I take such great care of them”-fluff was published just days after the matches on which Yan placed bets with Zhao’s help. I remember having read that piece thinking, “What an admirable way to run a snooker academy. Britons should adopt that as a model to get their youth ready for primetime. I need not have worried about the Chinese kids in Sheffield.” Boy…
I’d also submit that snooker’s symbiotic and lucrative relationship with betting outfits should be more thoroughly looked at. I, for one, find that highly problematic, as facilitating the path toward gambling addiction is a smudge on snooker’s image, as is snooker’s advertising, which both largely funds the sport and normalizes gambling. I cannot but note that snooker’s alliance with betting somewhat undermines snooker’s regulation against betting, just as a serial sinner’s lamentation about the sins of others doesn’t carry all that much weight. It goes without saying, the WPBSA pushing for harsher punishment does not make their own problematic behavior go away.
The Commission reported not to have found evidence for further wrongdoing – but they did find troubling evidence. Several other folks seem to have been approached to fix matches (for instance §62), but none reported it, apparently. Does anyone believe the current group of convicts is all there is? Also, as they reported how the profits of one match-fixing was split, they mentioned one of Liang’s friends (§42), apparently instrumental in bringing the fix to fruition, and amply paid. Who are these friends, and what are they doing now? More specifically, to whom, other than Liang, have they been offering their services? Finally, Lu was watching a match and realized it was probably fixed (§43). That was confirmed. If a fixed match is so easily detected (I couldn’t do that, obviously, but snooker experts apparently can), why weren’t similarly suspect cases routinely reported to the WPBSA? That’s to say, if folks with the required skills are too apathetic or too cowardly to speak up on their suspicion, the match-fixers have an all-too easy job slipping past the regulations.
All told, the players, even the young ones, shouldn’t be looked at as blameless. Yet, there is more blame to go around, more failure to be acknowledged, and I find a little more empathy for those in desperate straits should be in order, even from those who, comfortable in their circumstances, find those not so endowed unworthy of same. There is probably a lot more beyond my sight that needs to be considered. I find, letting this crisis go to waste without major adjustments to prevent a recurrence would be a catastrophic mistake. The basic income is probably a good step, but more needs to come, likely in the form of support and whistleblower protection so that the WPBSA gets to know about suspicious activity before things go seriously awry. When irregular betting patterns are detectable, it’s already too late. The howls for harsher punishment are likely to be very unhelpful.
I agree with most you write above, in particular when it comes to snooker reliance on betting for its sponsorship. It’s extremely unhealthy, and even hypocrite. Regarding detection of match fixing, there is quite a large group of people on social media who monitor all this closely, often ring the alarm bells, and don’t hesitate to put WST or Jason Ferguson in the loop. It’s not clear to me to what extent the governing body pays attention. Maybe they do, but, of course, without solid proof they can’t do much – at least in the moment. That said there is a camera on every table allowing for match monitoring.
Victoria Shi does a sterling job, but she won’t interfere with the life of her players without serious reasons. Most are adults – young adults but adults – and she’s not their mother anyway. I’m very sure that just as teenagers are very good at hiding things from their parents, these players didn’t bring their problems at the academies. And even if she had suspicions, without solid facts, what could she do?
Regarding players support, the governing body put the 20000 pounds guaranteed income into place. I’m certain that this only became possible because of Barry Hearn’s “retirement”. He’s a ruthless man and would see this as “rewarding mediocrity”. I’m afraid it came too late for some. And, even retired, he still has influence. Matchroom is the majority shareholder of World Snooker.
WPBSA also offers counselling services but 1. they can’t force them on their players 2. there is the language barrier as I’m not sure they have psychologists or social workers who are fluent enough in Mandarin or Cantonese for this type of work.
It’s important to remember that this document is not a Law Report, and that the hearing was not a Criminal trial. The WPBSA don’t have the power to make arrests, extradite suspects, take statements on oath, or charge people with Contempt of Court. It was a hearing to establish breaches in the Professional Code of Conduct and justify the bans. They have to operate within the law, which limits the lengths of bans for example.
So yes, there will be questions which will remain unanswered. Who were Liang’s accomplaces? That’s outside the remit of WPBSA’s inquiry, but they have stated that evidence has been passed to police, in UK and China. Will anything come of this? I doubt it.
Zhao Xintong was found to have “been involved in fixing matches”. He placed bets on behalf of Yan Bingtao, knowing that Yan was going to lose the matches deliberately. That’s different from “fixing matches”, which all of the others did. Note that one reason for Yan’s fixing was to feed a gambling habit, without his wife knowing. If Yan’s wife was unaware, we can hardly expect Victoria to know about it. In terms of the two academies, the Ding Junhui Academy comes out a lot worse, but do bear in mind that Ding himself has very little day-to-day involvement – there is a management team, largely inherited from the STAR Academy. In this I agree with Monique: it’s a bit like when a policeman knocks on your door to tell you that your teenager has been busted for drug use.
You comment about §62: yes, there are details which appear to have been redacted. Let me just say that if WPBSA set up a confidential (even anonymous) helpline, what do you think that means? It means that whistle-blowers get protected.
So calls for more ‘transparency’ or harsher penalties will be ignored by WPBSA, as they must. They don’t have the power to do any more than they have done. It’s vital for them (and snooker) that they don’t end up being sued themselves for unlawful actions or words.
I am a great supporter of Jason Ferguson – I think we are lucky to have someone with his wide range of experience. He did a great job in 2020 but I think two things he said were unfortunate. Regarding the players who were stranded in China during the lockdown, he said “we will do something for you”, and then before the World Championship he said “any player who does not return will be their choice”. Due to circumstances outside his control, he wasn’t able to deliver on those (only players from East China had any chance to travel back). I’m sure many of the Chinese players felt a little abandoned by the WPBSA, and excluded and trapped when in the UK. I’d been practically a one-man campaign for Chinese players to be interviewed by the media after matches (see below). They don’t have access to benefits or work in the UK, so if they are struggling financially (there’s no prize money for losers), they end up borrowing money from the likes of Liang Wenbo and Li Hang…
Thank you for this Lewis, I can only 100% agree and you probably know more about the Chinese young players than any other European fan I ever came across. I like Jason Ferguson very much. I know him personally and he is a genuinely good person. Some brand him weak. He isn’t. He loves his sport with a passion, he listens to the players, he works extremely hard mostly away from the spotlights. Of course he’s not perfect … he’s not superman but he’s a proper man and doesn’t deserve the contempt some express on social media. His wife, Jing, is Chinese. He probably understands the Chinese players better than anyone else on the board. And that includes Ding when he was on the board. Of course Ding is Chinese, and he once was a debutant, but he’s been a national treasure ever since he won the 2005 China Open, beating Stephen Hendry in the final and the 2005 UK Championship, beating Steve Davis in the final. That’s 28 years in the spotlight and nothing like the life of the low ranked Chinese players.
Thanks for your thoughtful replies.
Let me just round this up, clarifying where I stand.
I agree with Phil Haig: “The sport has a problem, clearly.”
There is probably not a lot that can be done about what Mark King is alleged to have done, as there are likely no early signs to detect the goings-on. [We don’t know yet.]
But… If you admit players as young as 16, and as vulnerable, into the main tour, you better have the resources in place to protect them in that cutthroat environment. All else would be the height of irresponsibility.
Monique, if memory serves, just days ago groused about what Bai Yulu would be facing had she entered the tour. I agree. Wholeheartedly. The problem, however, is much broader than that.
In my ideal world, someone of considerable stature (not just someone on twitter) would have alerted the WPBSA about some things involving Chinese players in Sheffield (something fishy about a match, a kid going from bad to worse…). The WPBSA would have looked at this and alerted Ms. Shi and Mr. Ding about what they have found. Ms. Shi and Mr. Ding would then have sat down with their players and have a serious talk with each of them. “You have a spectacular talent. I’d like to guide you toward the highest heights you could possibly achieve in Snooker. But, as people have noticed, there is something going on, and I need to find out. Rest assured, I will support you through all of this, but if it turns out you have lied to me today, just once, you will have to look for another venue to practice. So, how are you doing? Is your life secure? Are your living expenses for the next weeks and months secure? Have you been threatened? Have you been approached? Are you aware of anything untoward that would bring our academy, or snooker, into disrepute? Think carefully, and don’t lie to me…”
One of the desperate, financially precarious ones would have cracked, and, with one thread preyed loose, and some more pulling, the whole thing might have been laid bare. The kids were not hardened criminals, but bored and unhappy, deeply worried youth. Next, Ms. Shi and Mr. Ding, avoiding a cesspool of fraud and deceit at their hands, would have loaded their players into a train and traveled with them to the WPBSA and reported on Liang’s and Li’s gambling, pressure and bullying, securing an early official detection. The WPBSA would have been seen standing strong protecting the vulnerable among their ranks, and throwing out misfits before they could do much by way of damage.
I am not interested in personalities in general, or in Mr. Ferguson in particular. What I expect is the WPBSA to sit down, examine their role – or the role they should have played but did not – and devote significant resources to, in particular, protecting the vulnerable and bringing the problem we all see closer to a resolution. I see no such plans by the WPBSA.
Otherwise, parents advising their kids on a future in professional snooker might just look at this scandal, and turn around, cutting off the sport from what might be its future. And Mr. Liang, together with his friends, much wiser now about how to avoid detection, might at this very time organize a much more professional match rigging and betting organization from China, targeting mostly vulnerable, financially desperate but still unprotected kids.
Thanks for those very interesting thoughts. Unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world. Just two more things. 1. Mr Hearn got rid of the “age limit” that prevented players younger than 16 to become professionals. There have been players as young as 14 turning professionals and, in some cases, I feel the experience has destroyed them. “If you are good enough, you are old enough.”? No, I don’t think so. You can be technically good enough and not have the emotional maturity to cope with the pressure of the professional tour, and that’s even more true if you are away from your family in an alien country and culture. IMO they should at least “restore” this age limit asap. 2. the whole “file” has been passed to the police, both in the UK and in China. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it. I expect China to show the strongest reaction. I have heard that a former professional, Liu Song, who became a snooker commentator in China, ended up in jail after using his position as a commentator to promote betting, which is illegal in the country. In the UK WST has been in bed with the bookies for far too long and I don’t expect such reaction. Only last week Judd Trump came on twitter, inviting fans to bet on his matches using his new sponsor’s channel…
Fortunately no one was coerced or harmed. (but I wonder if the player comes from an unstable country… Murphy, you cannot say that, as you have wife and kids!)
Fortunately no underground bookie is found.(But according to past news, rich and businessman, at least , have their private bets(like pokers). If they use some traditional methods to communicate and not reflected to legal bookies in UK, the fixed matches can hardly be traced.)
And the most important, the amount which Yan and Zhao is still unknown. So I have to assume the amount is too big to be disclosed. (Should be no guilty plea at least for these two if they did not disclose the amount… ) I am quite amazed at the harsh twitter responses, I wonder how long would that be in prison/banned from the job if some amount is gained through theft/fixing in other sports in UK.
(and China’s jurisdiction over the matter, it can be up 3 years in jail.)
Suspension of ban, if I remember correctly(back in Cao’s case), it should be done with extra information which the tours consider important/ has not found… So completely nonsense when Zhao’s lawyer requested that.
Thank you for that. It’s interesting and comforting to read that Zhao has been working with the support services offered by WPBSA to address his issues. I do hope to see him again, a changed and stronger person in the future.
Without further information, I can only “believe” what the statement says…
Phil Haigh’s piece is well-conceived, as is David Caufield’s. But it is important to be aware that the 58-page report is only a summary of the events and the situation that led to them. There are many details which have been redacted from it, and which we will never be told, primarily for legal reasons, but also to protect some witnesses (e.g. whisleblowers). Those wanting ‘total transparency’ will no doubt be infuriated, but we all now have to accept the bans that have been decided.
It was an unsatisfactory culture that developed with the Chinese players, which should have been anticipated and avoided. The report mentions how players were borrowing money from each other, often because of financial need, but also in order to feed a gambling habit. It was not so much a ‘brotherhood’ but a ‘ghetto’, and this was well-known. Not enough was done to assimilate the players, which would have at least shined a searchlight on what was going on. I’ve already mentioned many times about the no-interview policy (I was convinced following the Autumn Championship League in 2020, where 6 group winners from China were not interviewed, but all other 26 players were). Fortunately that situation has been addressed somewhat in the most recent season. But if some players are treated differently to other players, this leads to a sense of marginalisation and resulting grievance. They felt unwelcome: in Britain and on the World Snooker tour. It’s no coincidence that no overseas player has yet reached their full potential.
Everyone knew about Li Hang’s gambling. He spent hours and hours playing poker in casinos. There’s an obvious progression that can develop: gambling on cards, gambling on sport, gambling on snooker, gambling on one’s own matches… Anyone who gambles can never be fully trusted – once out of control an addiction can wreck anyone’s judgement and integrity, and nobody who gambles can guarantee that’s not going to happen to them. It’s a dangerous thing. What’s ironic that many of the people on social media calling for extreme (and likely unlawful) bans are themselves compulsive gamblers who feel aggrieved; if it weren’t for gambling none of this would have happened.
It’s also the case that WPBSA, WST, players (such as Shaun Murphy and Dave Gilbert) will naturally have to take a hard-line attitude. It’s just not politically acceptable for them to appear ‘soft’. It doesn’t mean much, as the lawyers will set limits. Somebody found a case (in tennis) which set a precedent for life bans in cases of coercion. For the others if some bans seem too lenient, it’s probably because we haven’t seen the full picture, and we never will. If any of the players do return, I doubt whether any of them would re-offend, although Zhao Xintong could do with a strong mentor to guide him for lots of reasons. The deterrent seemed to work for Cao Yupeng (although I’m hearing that he is considering his own future as a snooker players). But let’s remember that, terrible though match-fixing is, nobody has actually been killed, although many careers have been ruined. Snooker’s reputation can recover, but there had better not be any more scandals like this.
Dave Hendon has recorded a podcast episode specifically about the match fixing report.
Well worth a listen for his view
I’m afraid such things as “in their culture” and pointing at their “brotherhood” will not improve the general attitude towards Chinese players. 😦
Why is that Csilla? About the brotherhood I mean… it’s nothing to do with their nationality. It’s a consequence of a social situation. Kids need bonds with other kids and when they can’t find them in the family they will find them outside the family.
I understand your argument and of course, people need friends, but it can also sound like they are a closed group, not open to others and thus remaining alien, especially from a Eurocentric POV. They support each other, which is nice, but if it makes them partners in crime, it is worrisome
It was often said here how the Chinese players should be interviewed and known by the public but I don’t think this this emphasis on their “brotherhood” will come across well, and will hamper treating them as individuals.
You forget that most of this happened during covid. They had limited choices when it comes to socialising. And also, some of them were sharing a living place to limit the costs. And for the youngest ones … most have only very basic command of the english language when arriving in the UK. It would certainly be a mirror situation if British youngsters were forced to go and live in China. They would try to stick together and support each other wouldn’t you think? And they would probably never manage to learn mandarin Chinese … most of them can’t even learn another European language.
WPBSA pushed for harder punishments, not know if it is like concept of gang… organized crimes has a higher minimum penalty in some countries. wanna say more have to sleep.
I feel that we should take into consideration the fact that many players feel the need to live in England to be able to participate on a World tour. I know it’s an oft said statement but the English bias has to stop.
Nobody should be virtually forced into leaving their family and friends, even if they do meet up and live with other players in the same situation, just to be able to compete.
No excuses for cheating mind, but it must be a factor.
It certainly is Michael.
Agreed. Look at how even top players from Australia and Canada have struggled to establish themselves in the UK (… and Kirk Stevens going off the rails with loneliness after migration).
Ronnie O'Sullivan 
Let me add, or emphasize, a few points I found to be largely overlooked.
It has been shown, consistently, that meting out harsher punishment does not deter crime. Much rather, a higher likelihood of being caught does. The current scandal, it should be noted, has not been detected by the WPBSA, but by betting outfits notifying the WPBSA of irregular betting patterns. Shouldn’t everyone be calling upon the WPBSA to ramp up their operations in that realm? That, I find, would actually deter, and help snooker regain some stature. I haven’t seen anything in this respect.
Zhao Xintong has been confirmed not to have fixed any matches. Yet, he has been convicted of two counts of match fixing. That logic escapes me entirely. Yes, I know, WPBSA asserted Zhao hat a serious role in match fixing, but the commission rejected that. Rather, they noted that Zhao tried to dissuade Yan from match fixing. Yes, Zhao is not without blame, and the ban is probably in order. Calling for harsher punishment in his case I find hard to understand.
WPBSA lists among their “functions” “professional player support”. I’d ask, what has the WPBSA done from 2000 to 2002, when especially non-UK players were hit by isolation in conjunction with dwindling earning opportunities, in support of players? Which were their offers, if any? Of course, we’ve seen nothing like Covid in our lifetime, and the strategies to counter its effects would have to be developed on the fly during that time. Yet, as far as I know, and I have spent considerable time searching WPBSA statements on their activities related to Covid and their players’ mental health (because that’s what’s at issue here), there hasn’t been any effort detailed in these statements, not even meetings with (non-UK) “player support” high on the agenda. The WPBSA sitting on their hands for years is not a good sight. If my reading of the situation is correct (admittedly a big if), the WPBSA failed these kids, and they should acknowledge it. In my view, one single phone call by a person they trust and could confide in, inquiring how these kids are coping, might have yielded the insight that kids in dire financial circumstances and cut off from home were pressured by Liang and Li to fix matches, and this whole sordid affair would have been caught early, a fat scandal averted and the kids’ careers saved. This most basic insight that those at the bottom rungs, and most vulnerable to peer pressure, needed the most attention and care, should have occurred to those spending their lives immersed in snooker. As it turns out, those with the least resources to resist peer pressure were mostly those, except for the ring leaders, who were punished the harshest.
I’ve been reading about how well “Victoria” has been doing, caring for the young talent under her wings. I’ve scoured the 58-page document the commission released for any of that, and couldn’t find anything. Seemingly, the kids were on their own, and at the mercy of Liang and Li. It pains me to say, same goes for Mr. Ding. They, just as the WPBSA, should have done better, but, seemingly, they have not. And that is even while during the Covid restrictions the hardships befalling Chinese players, in particular, have been discussed. What on earth were they thinking was going to happen with a bunch of kids, many financially desperate, and bored out of their minds? Moreover, if Li’s possession of a betting account was widely known, how could Ms. Shi and Mr. Ding not have known about it? In light of what emerged, read this again:
https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/15/victoria-shi-explains-immense-success-of-her-snooker-academy-and-why-theres-more-to-come-16225197/ That “My players are so happy because I take such great care of them”-fluff was published just days after the matches on which Yan placed bets with Zhao’s help. I remember having read that piece thinking, “What an admirable way to run a snooker academy. Britons should adopt that as a model to get their youth ready for primetime. I need not have worried about the Chinese kids in Sheffield.” Boy…
I’d also submit that snooker’s symbiotic and lucrative relationship with betting outfits should be more thoroughly looked at. I, for one, find that highly problematic, as facilitating the path toward gambling addiction is a smudge on snooker’s image, as is snooker’s advertising, which both largely funds the sport and normalizes gambling. I cannot but note that snooker’s alliance with betting somewhat undermines snooker’s regulation against betting, just as a serial sinner’s lamentation about the sins of others doesn’t carry all that much weight. It goes without saying, the WPBSA pushing for harsher punishment does not make their own problematic behavior go away.
The Commission reported not to have found evidence for further wrongdoing – but they did find troubling evidence. Several other folks seem to have been approached to fix matches (for instance §62), but none reported it, apparently. Does anyone believe the current group of convicts is all there is? Also, as they reported how the profits of one match-fixing was split, they mentioned one of Liang’s friends (§42), apparently instrumental in bringing the fix to fruition, and amply paid. Who are these friends, and what are they doing now? More specifically, to whom, other than Liang, have they been offering their services? Finally, Lu was watching a match and realized it was probably fixed (§43). That was confirmed. If a fixed match is so easily detected (I couldn’t do that, obviously, but snooker experts apparently can), why weren’t similarly suspect cases routinely reported to the WPBSA? That’s to say, if folks with the required skills are too apathetic or too cowardly to speak up on their suspicion, the match-fixers have an all-too easy job slipping past the regulations.
All told, the players, even the young ones, shouldn’t be looked at as blameless. Yet, there is more blame to go around, more failure to be acknowledged, and I find a little more empathy for those in desperate straits should be in order, even from those who, comfortable in their circumstances, find those not so endowed unworthy of same. There is probably a lot more beyond my sight that needs to be considered. I find, letting this crisis go to waste without major adjustments to prevent a recurrence would be a catastrophic mistake. The basic income is probably a good step, but more needs to come, likely in the form of support and whistleblower protection so that the WPBSA gets to know about suspicious activity before things go seriously awry. When irregular betting patterns are detectable, it’s already too late. The howls for harsher punishment are likely to be very unhelpful.
I agree with most you write above, in particular when it comes to snooker reliance on betting for its sponsorship. It’s extremely unhealthy, and even hypocrite. Regarding detection of match fixing, there is quite a large group of people on social media who monitor all this closely, often ring the alarm bells, and don’t hesitate to put WST or Jason Ferguson in the loop. It’s not clear to me to what extent the governing body pays attention. Maybe they do, but, of course, without solid proof they can’t do much – at least in the moment. That said there is a camera on every table allowing for match monitoring.
Victoria Shi does a sterling job, but she won’t interfere with the life of her players without serious reasons. Most are adults – young adults but adults – and she’s not their mother anyway. I’m very sure that just as teenagers are very good at hiding things from their parents, these players didn’t bring their problems at the academies. And even if she had suspicions, without solid facts, what could she do?
Regarding players support, the governing body put the 20000 pounds guaranteed income into place. I’m certain that this only became possible because of Barry Hearn’s “retirement”. He’s a ruthless man and would see this as “rewarding mediocrity”. I’m afraid it came too late for some. And, even retired, he still has influence. Matchroom is the majority shareholder of World Snooker.
WPBSA also offers counselling services but 1. they can’t force them on their players 2. there is the language barrier as I’m not sure they have psychologists or social workers who are fluent enough in Mandarin or Cantonese for this type of work.
It’s important to remember that this document is not a Law Report, and that the hearing was not a Criminal trial. The WPBSA don’t have the power to make arrests, extradite suspects, take statements on oath, or charge people with Contempt of Court. It was a hearing to establish breaches in the Professional Code of Conduct and justify the bans. They have to operate within the law, which limits the lengths of bans for example.
So yes, there will be questions which will remain unanswered. Who were Liang’s accomplaces? That’s outside the remit of WPBSA’s inquiry, but they have stated that evidence has been passed to police, in UK and China. Will anything come of this? I doubt it.
Zhao Xintong was found to have “been involved in fixing matches”. He placed bets on behalf of Yan Bingtao, knowing that Yan was going to lose the matches deliberately. That’s different from “fixing matches”, which all of the others did. Note that one reason for Yan’s fixing was to feed a gambling habit, without his wife knowing. If Yan’s wife was unaware, we can hardly expect Victoria to know about it. In terms of the two academies, the Ding Junhui Academy comes out a lot worse, but do bear in mind that Ding himself has very little day-to-day involvement – there is a management team, largely inherited from the STAR Academy. In this I agree with Monique: it’s a bit like when a policeman knocks on your door to tell you that your teenager has been busted for drug use.
You comment about §62: yes, there are details which appear to have been redacted. Let me just say that if WPBSA set up a confidential (even anonymous) helpline, what do you think that means? It means that whistle-blowers get protected.
So calls for more ‘transparency’ or harsher penalties will be ignored by WPBSA, as they must. They don’t have the power to do any more than they have done. It’s vital for them (and snooker) that they don’t end up being sued themselves for unlawful actions or words.
I am a great supporter of Jason Ferguson – I think we are lucky to have someone with his wide range of experience. He did a great job in 2020 but I think two things he said were unfortunate. Regarding the players who were stranded in China during the lockdown, he said “we will do something for you”, and then before the World Championship he said “any player who does not return will be their choice”. Due to circumstances outside his control, he wasn’t able to deliver on those (only players from East China had any chance to travel back). I’m sure many of the Chinese players felt a little abandoned by the WPBSA, and excluded and trapped when in the UK. I’d been practically a one-man campaign for Chinese players to be interviewed by the media after matches (see below). They don’t have access to benefits or work in the UK, so if they are struggling financially (there’s no prize money for losers), they end up borrowing money from the likes of Liang Wenbo and Li Hang…
Thank you for this Lewis, I can only 100% agree and you probably know more about the Chinese young players than any other European fan I ever came across. I like Jason Ferguson very much. I know him personally and he is a genuinely good person. Some brand him weak. He isn’t. He loves his sport with a passion, he listens to the players, he works extremely hard mostly away from the spotlights. Of course he’s not perfect … he’s not superman but he’s a proper man and doesn’t deserve the contempt some express on social media. His wife, Jing, is Chinese. He probably understands the Chinese players better than anyone else on the board. And that includes Ding when he was on the board. Of course Ding is Chinese, and he once was a debutant, but he’s been a national treasure ever since he won the 2005 China Open, beating Stephen Hendry in the final and the 2005 UK Championship, beating Steve Davis in the final. That’s 28 years in the spotlight and nothing like the life of the low ranked Chinese players.
Thanks for your thoughtful replies.
Let me just round this up, clarifying where I stand.
I agree with Phil Haig: “The sport has a problem, clearly.”
There is probably not a lot that can be done about what Mark King is alleged to have done, as there are likely no early signs to detect the goings-on. [We don’t know yet.]
But… If you admit players as young as 16, and as vulnerable, into the main tour, you better have the resources in place to protect them in that cutthroat environment. All else would be the height of irresponsibility.
Monique, if memory serves, just days ago groused about what Bai Yulu would be facing had she entered the tour. I agree. Wholeheartedly. The problem, however, is much broader than that.
In my ideal world, someone of considerable stature (not just someone on twitter) would have alerted the WPBSA about some things involving Chinese players in Sheffield (something fishy about a match, a kid going from bad to worse…). The WPBSA would have looked at this and alerted Ms. Shi and Mr. Ding about what they have found. Ms. Shi and Mr. Ding would then have sat down with their players and have a serious talk with each of them. “You have a spectacular talent. I’d like to guide you toward the highest heights you could possibly achieve in Snooker. But, as people have noticed, there is something going on, and I need to find out. Rest assured, I will support you through all of this, but if it turns out you have lied to me today, just once, you will have to look for another venue to practice. So, how are you doing? Is your life secure? Are your living expenses for the next weeks and months secure? Have you been threatened? Have you been approached? Are you aware of anything untoward that would bring our academy, or snooker, into disrepute? Think carefully, and don’t lie to me…”
One of the desperate, financially precarious ones would have cracked, and, with one thread preyed loose, and some more pulling, the whole thing might have been laid bare. The kids were not hardened criminals, but bored and unhappy, deeply worried youth. Next, Ms. Shi and Mr. Ding, avoiding a cesspool of fraud and deceit at their hands, would have loaded their players into a train and traveled with them to the WPBSA and reported on Liang’s and Li’s gambling, pressure and bullying, securing an early official detection. The WPBSA would have been seen standing strong protecting the vulnerable among their ranks, and throwing out misfits before they could do much by way of damage.
I am not interested in personalities in general, or in Mr. Ferguson in particular. What I expect is the WPBSA to sit down, examine their role – or the role they should have played but did not – and devote significant resources to, in particular, protecting the vulnerable and bringing the problem we all see closer to a resolution. I see no such plans by the WPBSA.
Otherwise, parents advising their kids on a future in professional snooker might just look at this scandal, and turn around, cutting off the sport from what might be its future. And Mr. Liang, together with his friends, much wiser now about how to avoid detection, might at this very time organize a much more professional match rigging and betting organization from China, targeting mostly vulnerable, financially desperate but still unprotected kids.
Thanks for those very interesting thoughts. Unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world. Just two more things. 1. Mr Hearn got rid of the “age limit” that prevented players younger than 16 to become professionals. There have been players as young as 14 turning professionals and, in some cases, I feel the experience has destroyed them. “If you are good enough, you are old enough.”? No, I don’t think so. You can be technically good enough and not have the emotional maturity to cope with the pressure of the professional tour, and that’s even more true if you are away from your family in an alien country and culture. IMO they should at least “restore” this age limit asap. 2. the whole “file” has been passed to the police, both in the UK and in China. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it. I expect China to show the strongest reaction. I have heard that a former professional, Liu Song, who became a snooker commentator in China, ended up in jail after using his position as a commentator to promote betting, which is illegal in the country. In the UK WST has been in bed with the bookies for far too long and I don’t expect such reaction. Only last week Judd Trump came on twitter, inviting fans to bet on his matches using his new sponsor’s channel…
Fortunately no one was coerced or harmed. (but I wonder if the player comes from an unstable country… Murphy, you cannot say that, as you have wife and kids!)
Fortunately no underground bookie is found.(But according to past news, rich and businessman, at least , have their private bets(like pokers). If they use some traditional methods to communicate and not reflected to legal bookies in UK, the fixed matches can hardly be traced.)
And the most important, the amount which Yan and Zhao is still unknown. So I have to assume the amount is too big to be disclosed. (Should be no guilty plea at least for these two if they did not disclose the amount… ) I am quite amazed at the harsh twitter responses, I wonder how long would that be in prison/banned from the job if some amount is gained through theft/fixing in other sports in UK.
(and China’s jurisdiction over the matter, it can be up 3 years in jail.)
Suspension of ban, if I remember correctly(back in Cao’s case), it should be done with extra information which the tours consider important/ has not found… So completely nonsense when Zhao’s lawyer requested that.
Interesting statement from Zhao
Thank you for that. It’s interesting and comforting to read that Zhao has been working with the support services offered by WPBSA to address his issues. I do hope to see him again, a changed and stronger person in the future.
Without further information, I can only “believe” what the statement says…
Phil Haigh’s piece is well-conceived, as is David Caufield’s. But it is important to be aware that the 58-page report is only a summary of the events and the situation that led to them. There are many details which have been redacted from it, and which we will never be told, primarily for legal reasons, but also to protect some witnesses (e.g. whisleblowers). Those wanting ‘total transparency’ will no doubt be infuriated, but we all now have to accept the bans that have been decided.
It was an unsatisfactory culture that developed with the Chinese players, which should have been anticipated and avoided. The report mentions how players were borrowing money from each other, often because of financial need, but also in order to feed a gambling habit. It was not so much a ‘brotherhood’ but a ‘ghetto’, and this was well-known. Not enough was done to assimilate the players, which would have at least shined a searchlight on what was going on. I’ve already mentioned many times about the no-interview policy (I was convinced following the Autumn Championship League in 2020, where 6 group winners from China were not interviewed, but all other 26 players were). Fortunately that situation has been addressed somewhat in the most recent season. But if some players are treated differently to other players, this leads to a sense of marginalisation and resulting grievance. They felt unwelcome: in Britain and on the World Snooker tour. It’s no coincidence that no overseas player has yet reached their full potential.
Everyone knew about Li Hang’s gambling. He spent hours and hours playing poker in casinos. There’s an obvious progression that can develop: gambling on cards, gambling on sport, gambling on snooker, gambling on one’s own matches… Anyone who gambles can never be fully trusted – once out of control an addiction can wreck anyone’s judgement and integrity, and nobody who gambles can guarantee that’s not going to happen to them. It’s a dangerous thing. What’s ironic that many of the people on social media calling for extreme (and likely unlawful) bans are themselves compulsive gamblers who feel aggrieved; if it weren’t for gambling none of this would have happened.
It’s also the case that WPBSA, WST, players (such as Shaun Murphy and Dave Gilbert) will naturally have to take a hard-line attitude. It’s just not politically acceptable for them to appear ‘soft’. It doesn’t mean much, as the lawyers will set limits. Somebody found a case (in tennis) which set a precedent for life bans in cases of coercion. For the others if some bans seem too lenient, it’s probably because we haven’t seen the full picture, and we never will. If any of the players do return, I doubt whether any of them would re-offend, although Zhao Xintong could do with a strong mentor to guide him for lots of reasons. The deterrent seemed to work for Cao Yupeng (although I’m hearing that he is considering his own future as a snooker players). But let’s remember that, terrible though match-fixing is, nobody has actually been killed, although many careers have been ruined. Snooker’s reputation can recover, but there had better not be any more scandals like this.
Dave Hendon has recorded a podcast episode specifically about the match fixing report.
Well worth a listen for his view
I’m afraid such things as “in their culture” and pointing at their “brotherhood” will not improve the general attitude towards Chinese players. 😦
Why is that Csilla? About the brotherhood I mean… it’s nothing to do with their nationality. It’s a consequence of a social situation. Kids need bonds with other kids and when they can’t find them in the family they will find them outside the family.
I understand your argument and of course, people need friends, but it can also sound like they are a closed group, not open to others and thus remaining alien, especially from a Eurocentric POV. They support each other, which is nice, but if it makes them partners in crime, it is worrisome
It was often said here how the Chinese players should be interviewed and known by the public but I don’t think this this emphasis on their “brotherhood” will come across well, and will hamper treating them as individuals.
You forget that most of this happened during covid. They had limited choices when it comes to socialising. And also, some of them were sharing a living place to limit the costs. And for the youngest ones … most have only very basic command of the english language when arriving in the UK. It would certainly be a mirror situation if British youngsters were forced to go and live in China. They would try to stick together and support each other wouldn’t you think? And they would probably never manage to learn mandarin Chinese … most of them can’t even learn another European language.
WPBSA pushed for harder punishments, not know if it is like concept of gang… organized crimes has a higher minimum penalty in some countries. wanna say more have to sleep.
I feel that we should take into consideration the fact that many players feel the need to live in England to be able to participate on a World tour. I know it’s an oft said statement but the English bias has to stop.
Nobody should be virtually forced into leaving their family and friends, even if they do meet up and live with other players in the same situation, just to be able to compete.
No excuses for cheating mind, but it must be a factor.
It certainly is Michael.
Agreed. Look at how even top players from Australia and Canada have struggled to establish themselves in the UK (… and Kirk Stevens going off the rails with loneliness after migration).