No $50K prize for 11-year-old who made 89-foot hockey shot

Yahoo! News ^ | 8/31/2011 | Sean Leahy

[americanophile]

Earlier this month at a charity hockey event in Faribault, Minn., 11-year-old Nate Smith made an 89-foot shot from center ice to win $50,000.

The problem was that Nate's twin brother, Nick, was the one who purchased the winning raffle ticket. When the time came to attempt the shot, Nick was outside of the arena unaware he had won, so in stepped Nate to score the miraculous goal.

After the boys' father, Pat, came forward the next day and admitted to event organizers about the twins' switch, Odds on Promotions, the company that insured the event, held up awarding the prize money.

On Wednesday, the company decided against giving Nate the $50,000 and instead announced it will donate $20,000 to Minnesota youth hockey in the boys' names. The exact reasoning for not awarding the money wasn't released, but more than likely it was written into the policy that the winner of the $50,000 had to be the person who purchased the ticket.

[americanophile]

No good deed goes unpunished.

[Rumplemeyer]

Thanks Dad...

[SES1066]

I very sincerely applaud the father in this case. This is honesty and good values in action. Bravo!

[Former Fetus]

It kind of reminds me of the story of the fellow who shot the grizzly bear... sometimes you are a fool if you speak up and ruin yourself! Or, like my mother loved to say, “en boca cerrada no entran moscas” (flies don’t get into a closed mouth).

[Huck]

Fair is fair. Of course, dad never should have let the wrong kid take the shot.

[Cheetahcat]

No, The way is to give BOTH Boys half.

[Poison Pill]

The problem was that Nate's twin brother, Nick, was the one who purchased the winning raffle ticket. When the time came to attempt the shot, Nick was outside of the arena unaware he had won, so in stepped Nate to score the miraculous goal.

IOW, fraud.

[RedHerringHack]

Any excuse to get out of the contract. A weasel move. Dad should have kept his mouth shut. Lesson learned.

[americanophile]

http://www.oddsonpromotions.com/

[Ingtar]

I thought I read that the dad bought the ticket and wrote a name on it. A lot of bad will was going to be generated no matter what the insurer decided.

[Baynative]

The rightful contestant did not make the shot. So, the company had no responsibility to give the money to surrogate. They made a wise and charitable move in donating such a large amount to the youth organization.

The father also made a wise move by teaching his boys it is not okay to cheat.

[Stosh]

“...written into the policy that the winner of the $50,000 had to be the person who purchased the ticket.”

If I paid for the ticket for my 8 year old, would I have to take the shot to win the prize?

If an older kid gave away his ticket to a younger kid without any money to buy one for himself, would that kid be disqualified?

I’ve got to congratulate the dad for his integrity, and I’m glad to see that the insurance company ponied up some substantial sum of money for a charity, but I think the would have been classier still if they gave something tangible to the kid who made the shot.

[max americana]

I believe so too. Dad had to set the example for his kids and because it is a company’s winnings, it is their decision how they deem fit to award the prize...no matter how unusual the reason.

[Cheetahcat]

"The rightful contestant did not make the shot. So, the company had no responsibility to give the money to surrogate. They made a wise and charitable move in donating such a large amount to the youth organization. The father also made a wise move by teaching his boys it is not okay to cheat."

How were the rules written: Ticket holder or Purchaser?

[A'elian' nation]

I just don’t get it.

If I won a lottery ticket and gave it to you or someone else, it wouldn’t be right to cash it in ? That would be immoral?

And if I wrote my first name on the lottery ticket you couldn’t cash it in ? ? ?

So it would be ok if the father had just put his last name on the ticket and then sent up one of his sons to make the shot?

I just don’t see this as some great moral dilemma, and the insurance company is one I never want to do any business with.

[americanophile]

I wondered the same thing; it’s a minor, so he likely didn’t have his own money. They were all to happy to sell the raffle tickets and presumably knew people were buying them for their kids - they should have told people not to purchase them for their kids, or others, if they intended to be so stringent in their other requirements.

[Jvette]

Well, first off, if the rules state that then the company can legally not pay, though I think in the face of public sentiment they probably should.

Second, though some are applauding the father for speaking up, I wonder if he did so out of honesty or because the kid who actually made the shot wanted the glory?

[Puppage]

I very sincerely applaud the father in this case. This is honesty and good values in action. Bravo!

Amen!

In many other stories, people say that "the kid" doesn't have a father figure, that's why he did what he did. Well, here's a story where the father IS in the picture, and did just what a father is supposed to do.

[gjones77]

Everyone is missing the point, to give the money to them when the kids didn’t follow the rules would be rewarding lying and falsehoods, the father knew this and spoke up instead of taking the money.

They are in no way weaseling out of paying them, they are simply stating that they called for one persona and another made the shot, to have taken the money would be fraud.

Please stop hooting and hollering that the company should pay up, they should do no such thing since it would be rewarding dishonesty.