On Sunday, legend Steve Davis was in the Star exclusively revealing how it's not uncommon for players to bet against themselves with the bookmakers.
Why? Because it gives them consolation funds if they're beaten.
While the sympathetic pundit may claim the players are giving no other choice with such a sparse calendar for the pros to make money on, I still think it's utterly wrong.
Sure, I'm not naive enough to think it has never happened in the game's history.
I respect that it's far less of a sin than actual match fixing.
But Davis' claims, that betting on yourself losing is common in snooker, came to me as a surprise.
Maybe this is just my youth intervening and stopping me judging players with such a cynical eye, but if so many are doing it, surely this suggests many players don't think they're doing anything wrong. This worries me.
People will argue that the players still want to win matches, because the money they can win through this is still far greater.
But my question arises when a player trails a match. At what point do they start accepting their consolation winning gambling slip over using all their might to turn the match around.
And, where does it stop?
Is it acceptable for players to earn 10 per cent of what they would for winning. Or 20, 30, 40, 50 per cent?
I just don't know. I believe it's just the slippery slope towards making money off getting beat.
In my eyes, however you look at it, behaviour like this is still meddling with the outcome of a game.
In sport, there should be no consolation for defeat. It should mean so much to win, that losing is unbearable. There's never a crumb of comfort for me when my Sunday morning football team gets beaten.
If I was a professional snooker player, there would be no cushion for getting knocked out at the Crucible. None at all.
That's what I think, for what it's worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment