Posted on 09/01/2011 8:26:01 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sports.yahoo.com ...
On the part of the company? Yep, sure sounds like it.
Explain to me just how this was cheating. The father paid for the ticket, what difference did it make which kid took the shot? There was no cheating involved, they paid their money and took the shot and made it and he made it fair and square, no cheating was involved. Only the most twisted minds could consider this cheating. The only cheating that went on here was by the insurance company.
Bullshit, the company made an offer they weren’t willing to stand behind.
They only ‘gave’ 20k instead of the 50k promised. If it’s not about the money they would have donated all of it.
As for the kids, they should have paid the kids what they won. A honourable company would have done so, instead of welshing.
$50,000.00
I wonder if the kid had missed whether they would have ensured that the ‘right’ kid took the shot. Bueller, Bueller?
The "participant".
Who knows. The rules of the contest are not and cannot be known from this article. See #37.
Again, I sincerely doubt the company would have cared about getting the right kid had the kid missed.
From the article-"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.
The writer here seems to be speculating on rules that may or may not exist.
Doesn’t surprise me.
No, they avoided a $50,000 liability and spent $20,000 on tax deductable public relations. See my post #20.
It's quite possible they did and the father was instructed not to reveal it.
The insurance company had to take a stand on the contest rules because if they hadn't then they would have set a precedence that could impact future similar contests........
At least you admit that there is a right kid and a wrong kid.
The father was right and honest to explain what happened, but the company could have handled it better.
The company could have saved itself a lot of bad will if they had just told the father “hey, thanks for the honesty but lets keep this between ourselves”
This is just my opinion and one (possibly better) solution for everyone involved
All I know is what I would have done as a business owner.
That would be paying the family 50k. Think of all the *good* publicity.
Now I get known for being an indian giver.
I agree. I had posted a reply but the entire message was cut off.
It should read:
Thanks Dad...the right thing is always the right thing.
That sux. Minnesooooota nice loses except in God’s eyes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.