That was exactly what my (1) was trying to say.

This for two reasons, I think:

(1) There are lots of professional events where the legitimate money at stake is so low that crooks can influence the participants (players and umpires) relatively cheaply.

(2) Like a cricket or baseball game, a tennis match breaks down readily into a lot of bettable mini-events that can be spot-fixed or subjected to timing scams like this one.

It sounds like what was happening was not a matter of changing the outcome of matches. That would have drawn immediate complaints from the player(s) being disadvantaged if he had recorded points for the wrong player.

What he was probably doing was to delay the recording of some scores in the electronic system, so that his paymasters could bet on the result after it happened but before the bookies knew. In horse racing, this is called past-posting (wagering after post time).

This is not confirmed.

You cannot persuade cats to pull a sled through snow.

Both dog and cat advocates cite this fact as proof of their preferred species’s superiority.

Six hours, weather permitting. With breaks of 40 and 20 minutes dividing it into three two-hour sessions.

And how did you type this from the morgue?