1989 Masters snooker: Terry Griffiths v Silvino Francisco

Come the end of the 1989 Benson and Hedges Masters, newspapers were heralding the rise and rise of Stephen Hendry. His growing reputation in snooker was enhanced after winning the tournament at his first attempt. As the 20-year-old held the trophy aloft at Wembley, the sport looked like it was in safe hands for years to come.

Snooker certainly could have done with a bit of positive press at the end of that tournament. The week had been dominated by a story that had dragged the name of the sport through the mud. In fact, even a year after the event, the tremors were still being felt by those involved.

On the face of it, Terry Griffiths beating Silvino Francisco 5-1 in the opening round of the Masters seemed unremarkable. The year before, Griffiths had reached the World Championship final, and seeded fifth for the tournament, the Welshman was expected to progress against the South African, who openly admitted that his form was on the slide.

But unbeknown to the general public, bookmakers soon became suspicious over betting patterns before the first round match. The sheer volume of bets placed on a 5-1 Griffiths win, in London, Liverpool and Ireland, resulted in one leading bookmaker contacting the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) and suspending betting.

It is not hard to see why bookmakers were concerned. One customer reportedly placed six separate £90 bets at different shops in North London on a 5-1 result at odds of 7/2. “That can’t be a coincidence,” Ladbrokes’ Ron Pollard stated. Pollard also revealed one particular bet that alerted him to a possible issue.

A £500 bet wagered at odds of 4/1 in London concerned Pollard. “I didn't see why anyone should take our odds. They could have got 6/1 at William Hills or Mecca. Some punters were even prepared to take as low as 5/2. I decided they must be trying to get money on wherever they could.”

Pollard was not the only bookmaker with a tale to tell. A Mecca spokesman explained that even after the odds had been slashed from 6/1 to 100/30, people were still piling on. William Hill’s Graham Sharp noted: “Normally you get people betting £10 on such a result. We had up to £800 being staked.”

Belfast bookmaker Adrian Eastwood even contacted the WPBSA, telling them that the score would be 5-1, and asking the organisation to monitor the match. Pollard also tried to speak to the WPBSA, making a phone call at 1.15pm, 45 minutes before the start of the match. When his call was not returned, Pollard decided to suspend betting at 1.23pm.

Although Ladbrokes faced a £50,000 pay out, and a £10,000 loss overall, Pollard insisted that the monetary concern was not that important. “What matters is that a sport which is nationally controlled and shown extensively on television is becoming the subject of some doubt because of an apparent lack of authority.”

With the story making the front and back pages, naturally attention turned to the two players involved. Griffiths labelled the allegations as “utterly rubbish,” but for the loser, clearing his name was far from straight forward.

Involved in previous investigations into match fixing – 1986 Masters against Tony Knowles, 1987 Masters against Dennis Taylor, and the 1987 Mercantile Credit Classic against nephew Peter – no charges were ever upheld against Silvino Francisco. But the last thing Francisco needed was to be linked to another scandal.

“At times like this I just want to jack it all in,” Francisco admitted. “I stand to lose far more from being involved in a betting coup than I would gain. I'd be booted out of the game and probably be booted out of the country.”

“I haven’t been playing well for some time,” he added. “But it’s crazy for anyone to suggest that I was trying to manipulate the score line. We have a code to uphold and I would never do anything to harm fellow professionals. I always try and play to my best.”

Francisco had a defender in BBC commentator Jack Karnehm, who had covered the match: “Anyone who knows those two players knew that they were fighting for every point.” Nevertheless, some bookmakers refused to pay out until a full WPBSA inquiry had taken place.

The WPBSA handed over the investigation to the Betting Office Licensees Association, and within a month the dramatic news broke that Scotland Yard had been called in to help with the case. “There is no evidence to link either or the players with the pattern of betting which has caused concern,” WPBSA Chairman John Virgo stated. “But the matter does merit further investigation to clear the players of any impropriety.”

Fast forward to January 23, 1990. Francisco was arrested by police and questioned for 12 hours, in relation to allegations about a betting coup involving both the 1986 and 1989 Masters matches against Knowles and Griffiths respectively. Released on bail, Francisco’s solicitor Tony Browne spoke for his client.

“We would wish to stress that he has done absolutely nothing wrong,” Browne informed the media. “He has committed no offence of any description.” Francisco’s wife, Denise, protested the innocence of her spouse, thanking people for their support during a difficult time for the family.

There was a collective sigh of relief in the Francisco household when in May 1990, Silvino was cleared of any wrongdoing. The Crown Prosecution Service stated that there was “insufficient evidence to show any offence had been committed by anyone named in the police report,” bringing to an end a saga that snooker could have lived without.

“I am very relieved that it is all over,” Francisco said. “But I am also very angry that it has taken as long as it has. I said I was innocent all along and I feel completely vindicated.” Francisco could at least try and get on with his career now, although with his ranking dropping and his form vanishing, his days at the top table of snooker were nearly over.

His life started to spiral out of control. Separating from Denise, Francisco was declared bankrupt in August 1996, and worse was to follow. Jailed for three years in 1997 for smuggling cannabis worth £155,000 into Dover, it seemed that Francisco and trouble were never far away from each other.

Betting scandals have sadly remained in the sport. Although cleared of match fixing, Peter Francisco received a five-year ban in 1995 for bringing the game into disrepute, and Stephen Lee earned a 12-year ban for his role in influencing the outcome of seven matches in 2008 and 2009.

Punters who wanted to back a dead cert should have looked no further than Hendry. The 1980s may have ended in controversy as far as snooker was involved, but for the years to come at least the sport could boast a champion to be proud of.