Sutton Suspended Until Hearing

WPBSA earlier released the following statement:

Sutton reached the final round of 2014's Q-School and played in the recent UK Championship - photo courtesy of Monique Limbos.
Sutton reached the final round of 2014’s Q-School and played in the recent UK Championship – photo courtesy of Monique Limbos.

As a result of suspicious betting patterns on the match between John Sutton and Jamie Burnett at the International Championship in Barnsley on 24th September 2014, Nigel Mawer, the Chairman of the WPBSA Disciplinary Committee, launched an investigation supported by the International Centre for Sport Security (ICSS) and the Gambling Commission SBIU .

The available evidence has been considered and in accordance with the Disciplinary Rules, he has decided that there is a case for John Sutton to answer in relation to a breach of the WPBSA Members Rules, Betting Rules.

The case will be heard at a formal hearing of the WPBSA Disciplinary Committee on a date and at a venue to be confirmed.

Jason Ferguson, Chairman of the WPBSA, said: “John Sutton is not a WPBSA member or current tour card holder. He is an amateur player who gained access to some events through our open qualifying structure. He was bound by the WPBSA Rules as a condition of accepting his invitation to play in this event. Under our policy for the global governance of the sport we treat any potential breach of our betting rules very seriously and I have taken the decision to suspend John Sutton from competition. This suspension will remain in place until the conclusion of the hearing or hearings and the determination of this matter.”

The rules in question are:

WPBSA Members Rules – Section 2 Betting Rules

2.1.2          Corruption:  to fix or contrive, or to be a party to any effort to fix or contrive, the result, score, progress, conduct or any other aspect of the Tour and/or any Tournament or Match;

2.1.3          Misuse of inside information:    to use for betting purposes, or to provide to any other person for such purposes, any information relating to the Tour and/or any Tournament or Match that the ember possesses by virtue of his position within the sport and that is not in the public domain or readily accessible by the public;

No Comments

  1. Pete Farrelly

    I am not talking about this case in particular, as I don’t know the circumstances at all, but I have long been concerned about bookmakers being involved in sponsorship of sporting events of any description. Surely there could be incidents where people could have divided loyalties? I know it is tough for sports to find sponsors these days (since the tobacco companies were banned from doing so) but it does seem to leave it all open to abuse. Anyone agree, or even totally disagree?

    • I find this an absolute joke,an amateur player banned for WHAT????
      I hope Jason Ferguson and the wpbsa are comfortable doing this
      Do they compensate the person for blackening his name when found no wrong doing

  2. ‘any potential breach’ – they must be joking. Snooker will never become an Olympic sport with such an attitude. They did not prove anything but suspended the player. It is a very bad image for snooker. Why not suspend Ronnie when he lost his match on purpose while not qualifying for German masters last time? If they read the Russian speaking fans on Twitter then they would find a lot of evidence that Ronnie was losing his match on purpose. It was clearly seen from his pattern of play.

  3. I highly doubt he’s guilty , will wait and see

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.