When a ban is not really a ban

[StuartD]

Well it has passed very quietly in the end but Elliot Saltmans ban has now been served and he is again free to play on tour although his ranking has not allowed him to play in this weeks China open event.

Overall as a result of his tour ranking ( he was one of the last qualifiers to make it from tour school) he has actually only missed ONE event, the Sicilian Open. Hardly really a ban at all. Will the tour be happy with the punishment handed out now?

Puts it in perspective on why he didn’t appeal and risk a possible longer ban.

 

[thecraw]

His ban has been served, let sleeping dogs lie!

If it was clear cut he'd have been banned for life.

 

[Tommo21]

His ban has been served, let sleeping dogs lie!

If it was clear cut he'd have been banned for life.

I like it Crawford....let sleeping dogs lie, then put in a wee teaser by giving us some doubt if it was clear cut or not.

 

[Imurg]

It must have been clear cut enough for the Tour to ban him in the first place.

 

[StuartD]

It must have been clear cut enough for the Tour to ban him in the first place.

I kind of agree with Crawford. I really think the Tour knew what they were doing all along.

Handing out a three month sends out a strong message but with the tournaments getting played in that period Saltman was not going to play much anyway so the reality was it was a little slap on the wrists for the player in the end.