http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs...-won-t-pay-granny-olympics-bet-113426341.html Rip - off merchants. Please boycott them.
Also pretty stupid - the bad publicity will cost them a lot more than honouring a £1000 payout would have done " expect an apology and payout pretty sharpish and some junior to get the blame for an "honest" mistake
Looks like they'll be paying up. Too late now to stop the bad publicity however. https://twitter.com/Betfred/status/238687949699567616
They are within their rights not to pay her, although the bad publicity will cost them more than the payout
Just out of curiosity why are they within their rights - what piece of information is the original article missing
The odds of 200/1 were individual odds, the odds on him in a team event would have been dramatically lower, the person who struck the bet obviously bet on the kid getting an individual medal and is just clutching at straws hoping to grab a few quid. BetFred should just pay out to save on adverse publicity but i can understand why they didnt also, i guarentee it gets paid out eventually though.
To be fair I think she has placed the bet thinking if he wins a medal, the team event issue probably never crossed her mind. They should have stipulated an individual medal, simple as that, schoolboy error on their part when taking the bet. And GB weren't exactly favourites for any gymnastic medals so not sure the odds would have been remarkably different anyway. She has a winning slip, the individual she presented it to obviously thought he could get out of it, the only right is that they should pay out.
seeing as the GB gymnastics have NEVER won a medal of any sort in any OLYMPICS, 200/1 doesn't seem that long odds.
what about this then, Kevin Davies is 33/1 to be top goalscorer in the championship, i know this because i looked on oddschecker before i when to the betting shop, wile sat in the betting shop writing out the betting slip, i say to the woman behind the counter what price is Craig Davies to be top scorer in the championship love, she looks can't find it so phones up, then says 100/1, 5 minutes later i take my slip to her with the words, £20win Kevin Davies to be top goalscorer in the championship 2012/13, and she puts 100/1 on the slip, if he is the top goalscorer do you think they'll be paying me out at 33s when my slip says 100/1 not a fecking chance it'll be 2 grand, there mistake not mine
Bookies are not contractually obliged to pay you anything, so if there is any wriggle room they will use it. The only reason this woman will get her grand is because she is the kid's nan, which has got the press interested. If it was you or me, we'd get nowt.
Are you sure about that - that used to be the case but didnt the Gaming act change that and make betting contracts a legally enforcible contract
Except for Louis Smith getting a silver at Beijing. Given that only around 16 teams qualified for the Olympic then 200/1 is far out of line. 50/1 might be the longest odds you would get.
Oops! I forgot that. Actually it was a bronze as he got 'bumped down' from silver. I take your point though and also the 'odds' with 16 teams only. However, as bookmakers, they should know the odds and also make clear exactly the terms and conditions of the bet. In this case it did not specify, nor could an average person who does not regularly bet be expected to query the odds offered. They should pay out
I think we won a medal (mens) in 1908 and the womens team definitely won a bronze in 1928, I can remember them saying when the British woman was doing the uneven bars final.
Legally enforceable? So how did the cheating welching c.nut get out of this then? "BETFRED.COM, based in Gibraltar, will not pay out on the bets placed by Barney Curley’s relatives aspart of the Newmarket trainer’s £4 million coup last May. This comes despite the fact that Betfred’s UK betting shops have paid out and that, following an investigation, the BHA concluded that no rules of racing had been breached. Betfred, who on Friday were declared the new owners of the Tote, declined to comment, stating: “It is with our lawyers.” On June 1, Betfred.com’s lawyers informed the five account holders, four of whom are related to Curley, that bets showing a profit of more than £823,000 would be voided under the company’s rule 10, which states: “Any person or group of persons acting in an attempt to defraud Betfred.com will have their bets voided.” The decision followed a letter dated May 27 from the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority which accused Curley of deception, the account holders of fraud, and the BHA of misapplying its own rules. Andrew Montague, a Northern Ireland-based solicitor acting for the claimants, said: “We have already instructed our Gibraltar agents, Triay & Triay lawyers, to proceed with an application to the Supreme Court of Gibraltar for a judicial review of the GRA’s handling of the case, which has been inter alia, ultra vires, unlawful, irrational and procedurally and substantively unfair. “The investigation by the GRA is flawed and has been conducted from the outset in a biased way and has chosen to ignore the findings of both the BHA and Ibas[Independent Betting Adjudication Service].” The case, which has soured relations between the BHA and GRA, has wider ramifications because it demonstrates that UK-based punters betting with offshore bookmakers may find their bets are treated differently."
Barney had it off and won a few quid, The BHA and IBAS found nothing wrong, if the 'coup' would have failed would Bald Fred have said ' hard lines Barney, here's your money back' ? He's a welching c.nut.
