This month, Nate Smith, 11, had a dream come true for a little boy. He made an 89-foot shot at a charity hockey event in Fairbault, Minnesota for a $50,000 prize. He had taken his twin brother Nick’s place when Nick went outside shortly before his name was called. Now the company, Odds on Promotion, is saying that he cannot receive the prize because it was not his ticket.
The company will make a $20,000 contribution to charity in his name instead. Why not $50,000? Moreover, since the boys have identical DNA signature, couldn’t this be viewed from a socio-biological standpoint as a gray area?
The father, Pat Smith, did the honest thing the next day and said that it was actually the other twins’ ticket and that sent the company lawyers to work. The rules say that it must be the ticket of the person participating — an understandable rule since you could enlist a ringer. However, this was his twin brother who had stepped out of the stadium.
What do you think?
Source: ABC
I agree with Mike. I have bookmarked that company on my “special list” (starts with “s” and rhymes with “it”). We will never consider using them for any of our company’s promotions.
The article posted by Darwin52 quotes the company as saying they are “unable” to pay the award. That is some of that famous barnyard product. Of course they can, just like they could choose to pay out a few thousand to a charity and still not pay the whole amount. They get a substantial tax break and still get to keep at least ten thousand. They are generous in their own eyes.
If I were the company publicist, I would need CPR right about now. If you wanted to make yourself look cheap and petty, no better way could have been found. Had they done the right thing, they would have had a nice ceremony with a giant check and presented it to both boys and their father for being such good citizens.
Minnesota Youth Hockey to Benefit from 11 Year Old’s Miracle Shot
Posted on September 1, 2011 by Kristen Hansen
RENO, Nev., August 29, 2011 – Odds On Promotions, the Reno, Nev. based promotions company that insured the hockey shot made by 11‐year‐old Nate Smith in place of his identical twin brother Nick, will make a $20,000.00 donation in the name of Nate and Nick Smith to youth hockey in the State of Minnesota. The fundraising promotion, sponsored by Bashers/Topview Grill and GrandStay Residential Suites, took place at the annual “Shattuck vs. the World” charity hockey game in Faribault, Minn. on August 11. Due to contractual breaches and legal implications, the company is unable to pay the claim as submitted.
“We greatly respect the eventual honesty of the Smith family,” Mark Gilmartin, President of Odds On Promotions, said. “Although we’re unable to the pay the claim on Nate’s incredible shot, we are confident our donation will help foster a positive environment for present and future youth hockey in Minnesota.”
“We are grateful to Odds On Promotions for making a donation in our sons’ names to these two very worthy organizations. This reinforces our belief that at the end of the day, we, as a family, made the right decision and demonstrates to our sons that, in the end, honesty is the best policy,” stated Pat Smith.
The $20,000.00 donation will benefit the Owatonna Youth Hockey Association in which Nick and Nate Smith compete and the Faribault Youth Hockey Association, the original beneficiary of the promotion.CALL US
888.827.2249
775.828.4671
EMAIL US
Gaming Division
Media Division
Sports Division
General Inquiries
FAX US
FAX: 775.828.6013
MAIL US
6195 Ridgeview Court
Suite D
Reno, NV 89519
http://www.oddsonpromotions.com/page/contact
You may still contact them if you feel that this is an incorrect result.
Next time anyone wants to hire a company to promote anything I think they should cross Odds on Promotion off their list.
“The rules say that it must be the ticket of the person participating — an understandable rule since you could enlist a ringer.”
*******************************
For rational persons, when the reason for the rule disappears, the rule disappears. Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the blind obedience of the fool. Odds on Promotion can disregard their lawyer’s advice and do what’s right.
As for the $20,000.00 donation in the winning child’s name: Cui quidem bono? Who gets the charitable deduction by the way?
Give the kid the money he won.
“The ins. company will make two $20,000 contributions to charity in each (?) boy’s name.”
But who gets to take the charitable tax deduction…?
I think the obvious take-away lesson for the boys is that honesty feels really good but honesty does not pay. They should learn this as early as possible in their lives. If the father had kept his pie-hole shut, those boys would have college funds. Instead of college funds, they have lost of good feelings that may last a week or two!
mahtso:
“it is not unreasonable to assume that if one twin was rewarded with $50k for pretending to be someone he is not, then he would be more likely to engage in similar (bad) behavior in the future.”
right you are. All actions have consequences.
Seems to me the insurance company is correct. And did the right thing.
the one kid is not the other kid, DNA not withstanding. They are separate beings with separate consciousness.
The father did the right thing by telling the insurance company of the switch. The father acted ethically and that was a great lesson for his children, probably worth far more than $50,000 to them.
If I had been the company executive, I would have paid out since the odds of anyone achieving that are slim and none. But donating $20,000 to local charity was a pretty good compromise and the company should be applauded for doing something they did not have to do.
I find it fascinating that anyone would support fraud, no matter how petty it may seem. There are somethings in life worth more than money and your personal ethics/code of conduct is one of them.
Good on the father for telling the truth. His children will grow up to be good men because of who he is.
The twin kid made the shot…pay up.
Another report (not ABC) was showing that the donation to charity would be $40K (20 for each boy) and that the family was fine with that. To say that the sponsor of the contest should pay the kids is to say that it should pony up $50 K of its own money b/c the insurance company will not pay the boy.
I agree with Ms. Levy that if this had been an adult who lied (or cheated the more appropriate term), then most people would not be sympathetic. Not to diminish the element of skill involved here, it is not unreasonable to assume that if one twin was rewarded with $50k for pretending to be someone he is not, then he would be more likely to engage in similar (bad) behavior in the future.
Although it might have been nice for the insurance company to pay the boy I don’t see how there is a moral obligation here because the company did nothing wrong in abiding by the rules of the contest. As always, I am willing to be enlightened.
“and that sent the company *lawyers* to work…”
Exit Shakespeare, sadly grimacing, stage left.
I will be the lone voice of dissent. If it had been adults I am not sure the outcry of “foul” would be so strong. To my mind if Dad had come forward before the shot there is no issue but waiting tells me maybe there was a reason not to come forward immediately. I do not see a con here by the ins coompany. By all rights they could have paid out nothing.
Visuals and backstory from family helps:
Yeah, the lesson is: “next time keep yer mouth shut!” These guys win on a technicality. It would be different if they had a ringer take the shot but it was just another kid. The odds of even an NHL player making that shot are astronomical so the “insurance company” (which is all those guys are) made a bad bet. The charged a premium based on those odds & when they got on the short end of a freak event want to pretend the odds of this one 11 YO making it were any different from any other 11YO youth hockey player.
I agree with OS. Further, this is one of the stupidest examples of management in recent weeks. The company stages a promotional event and then reneges. While they may be technically in the right, they have destroyed the good will the promotion was meant of engender.
What a heartbreaker! Yes, they have to abide by the rules, but the $20,000 contribution to charity makes it seem that they never wanted to pay out the $50,000 prize at any outcome. At least the father was honest and taught his sons a very valuable (if not costly) lesson.
This reminds me of those TV commercials where the adult cons the child and the voice-over says that even kids know the difference.
Notice I did not say liability…just escaping paying…Moral and legal are not necessarily the same…
Legally, the company is probably right on the technicality, but morally they are bankrupt. If they were looking for favorable publicity out of this stunt, they blew it big time. It exposed their true colors.
So are these tickets assigned seating at the stadium/arena….this seems like a convient rationalization for escaping paying….