The allegations of spot-fixing that have dominated cricket in recent weeks have brought worldwide attention and widespread praise to the British newspaper behind the exposé, the News of the World. On Wednesday of this week though a previous front-page sporting scandal that the newspaper broke failed to live up to its headline billing. 

In May 2010, the News of the World published video footage purporting to show then world snooker champion John Higgins accepting 300,000 Euro in Kiev in exchange for fixing the results of specific frames. Higgins was immediately suspended pending an inquiry while his sport's administrators vowed to clean the game of what they called its ‘sickness'. 

At his tribunal hearing this week, Higgins was acquitted of any match-fixing allegations but found guilty of bringing snooker into disrepute for not reporting the illegal approach made to him. 

Higgins' manager, Pat Mooney, bore the brunt of the inquiry's ire as he was considered to have known the circumstances of the meeting, something he did not pass on to his client. Presiding counsel, Ian Mill QC, is quoted in a WPBSA statement claiming Higgins' agent, "committed the most egregious betrayals of trust - both in relation to the Association...and to Mr Higgins whose entire career and professional future he inexplicably put at serious and wholly unjustifiable risk." 

The inquiry accepted Higgins' defence that he went along with the discussion because he felt in physical danger due to the hostile environment in which the meeting took place. 

Higgins did not escape entirely without censure. The WPBSA found him guilty of "intentionally giving the impression to others that they were agreeing to act in breach of the betting rules" and for "failing to disclose promptly to the Association full details of an approach or invitation to act in breach of the betting rules." His punishment is a backdated six-month suspension, substantial, but nothing compared to the lifetime ban and possible criminal prosecution he would have received if found guilty. 

Now, here's how the News of the World responded to the decision: 

"This result is a victory for News of the World investigative journalism. John Higgins has been found guilty, suspended and fined. Pat Mooney has been found guilty and banned for life. Today's judgement is testament to the extraordinary work of our investigations editor Mazher Mahmood. We hope that the exposure of Higgins and Mooney will act as a deterrent to any other cheats in sport and help restore the integrity of snooker." 

Integrity of snooker - where's the integrity of journalism in all this? 

The WPBSA announcement includes the lines, "Having studied all of the evidence in its entirety, the WPBSA and Sports Resolutions accept that there has been no dishonesty on the part of John Higgins and accordingly the WPBSA has withdrawn the allegations of match fixing against him." If that is the News of the World's definition of guilty I would hate to know what someone had to do to prove their innocence. 

The public shaming and subsequent acquittal of a world champion highlights the dangers of trial-by-media and the verdict could not come at a more opportune moment. 

The fate of at least three Pakistan cricketers has been sealed in the minds of many - mine included - based on the evidence collected by Mazher Mahmood, the same News of the World journalist who led the investigation into John Higgins. As with Higgins, these players deserve a fair trial and should be judged on the outcome of such a hearing, not on the aggregate of nods and winks accumulated by the UK's most sensational tabloid newspaper. 

It is clear that both snooker and cricket (and presumably all other sports at some level) have problems with spot-fixing and match-fixing. If there was no problem, neither of the News of the World's stings could have been executed to such an extent. However, if the purpose of these investigations is to uphold sporting integrity, judgement should be left until the allegations have been conclusively proven. The line between an investigation in the public interest and circulation-boosting entrapment is fine and the Higgins case shows how damaging it can be if the public is cast as judge and jury before time. 

Let us hope ongoing and future allegations of sporting misdemeanours can be judged soberly by those professionally charged with doing so. If these are brought to light by investigative journalism, praise should be lavished on the investigation at the conclusion of a fair trial. Until then, however shameful the circumstantial evidence and sensational headlines appear, the presumption of innocence deserves to rule.

(Jonathan Howcroft is a freelance sportswriter and BPL contributor.)