T. T. (The Player), Plaintiff
V. Case No. 003 (10/04/05)
Olympic Sports, Defendant
Dispute Arbitration Panel Ruling Issued October 4, 2005
Ruling: ‘Judge’ and ‘Slash’ join the majority opinion of this panel written by ‘D2bets.’ ‘Halifax’ delivers his dissent following the majority opinion. By a 2-1 majority (plus the opinion delivered by ‘D2bets’), the Dispute Arbitration Panel rules in favor of T. T. (the “Player”), and declares that the wagers at issue with Olympic should be graded as winners.
Statement of Facts: The basic facts of this case are undisputed. On June 19, 2005, The Player placed four online wagers with Olympic Sports on the motor racing Formula One Grand Prix race held June 17-19, 2005. The bets were proposition bets on the event “Driver to Finish in Top 8 Position”. Olympic’s bet logs show the wagers as “Points Finish”. Listed with odds were the 20 individual drivers scheduled to drive in the race.
Approximately 4 hours before the race was scheduled to begin, the Player placed separate wagers on 4 individual drivers as follows: Patrick Frieschar +4000; Tiego Monteiro +2500; Narain Karthikeyan +2500; and Christijan Albers +3000. Subsequent to these wagers, the odds were periodically adjusted prior to the race as Olympic received wagers on these drivers and others. According to the Olympic bet logs, the final wagers taken on these drivers were at +1000, +800, +600 and +600 respectively shortly before the scheduled start of the race.
During the week leading up to the race, safety concerns over the Michelin tires used by 14 of the 20 drivers were made public. It was unknown whether special accomodations would be made for those drivers or what actions they might take in any instance.
At race time, the Michelin problems remained unresolved. During the parade lap, the Michelin teams ordered their drivers to pit on completion of the parade lap and the 14 Michelin cars were classified as retired on lap zero. The race then began with the 6 cars who, upon completion, were classified in positions 1 through 6 and were each awarded points based on their finishing positions 1 through 6.
Subsequent to the completion of the race, Olympic graded all wagers on the “Driver to Finish in Top 8 Position” event as “push/cancel” and refunded all wager amounts. Player objected to the grading of event, believing that his wagers on the non-Michelin drivers were winners because they finished in the Top 8 and were awarded points. After much private, and some public, discussion, Player and Olympic agreed to submit the dispute to this Dispute Arbitration Panel.
Majority Opinion: The grading of sportsbook wagers and events is based on a system of rules. Those rules, or reference to a system of rules governed and administered by a third party, are declared and set out by an individual sportsbook prior to each event. As we know, in some instances different sportsbooks have different rules and may grade identical events and wagers differently based on those rules. When a wager is placed, it is deemed to be an acceptance by both the player and the sportsbook of all applicable rules as set forth by the sportsbook. Indeed, such a system of predetermined rules benefits all parties involved by fostering predictability, uniformity and fairness while by minimizing conflict and distrust..
Where a rule dictates a particular grading of an event, the sportsbook, and this panel sitting in judgment, have no authority to go outside of the rules to declare a contrary result. The grading of an event is based on the plain text of these rules, not on any notion of common sense or the fairness of the result. Any other method of grading would serve to harm the long-term stability of the industry and would grant bookmakers the ability to follow rules only when convenient to them. Indeed, many players do not consider it fair when their O7.5 baseball runs wager is declared a “push” when the game is called a 10-7 final in the bottom of the 8th on account of rain. But it is a push, of course, because the rules say that it is.
Any discussion or application of rules must begin with a reference to those rules. Olympic’s rules in its “Sports Guide” specifically applicable to “Formula One/500cc Motorcycles” at the time the wagers were placed read as follows:
Formula One / 500cc Motorcycles
* For wagering purposes, the start of the race is defined to be when the first car/bike crosses the start/finish line when the start of the race is officially signified.
* All bets are on the driver/rider competing in the race.
* Bets will be settled on the basis of the result as declared on the race day by the controlling authority (podium finish) irrespective of any subsequent undecided protest.
* In match-up propositions, all drivers involved in the match-up must start (cross the start/finish line) or the wager is deemed no action, and the wagers refunded.
* In match-up propositions, if one driver fails to complete the race, the other driver will be declared the winner of the match-up. Where both drivers fail to complete the race, the number of full laps completed will determine the result. If both drivers fail to complete the race on the same lap, the wager is deemed no action, all the wagers refunded.
Additionally, Olympic has a set of general rules entitled “Notes” at the conclusion of all rules which reads as follows:
Notes
* All-In Betting is a term that means once you place your bet it will stand regardless of whether your team or selection plays or not. This condition will generally apply to win the competition or win the tournament type events.
* *All futures are regarded as all-in betting - no refunds are given in the case an individual or team withdraws from such event.
* Unless otherwise specified, events must take place within two weeks of the date specified for the event. If the event is postponed beyond that time for any reason, then the contest will be declared no action and all bets will be refunded.
* The official result as declared by the sports governing body is used to decide bets on sports not mentioned in this guide.
Our analysis of grading rules begins with the presumption that an event has “action”. This presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence showing that applicable rules dictate otherwise. In this instance, it is plain that there is no such explicit rule, or reasonable interpretation of any rule, indicating that any type of Forumla One wagering event offering is “no action” when fewer than a certain number of drivers start the race. No such rule appears.
In its formal statement to this Panel, Olympic concedes that “there is no concrete rule” applicable to this situation. Olympic goes on to reveal the grading methodology process that it used in this case. We were advised that they “looked through the betting world” to see if any rules could be applied to this situation, and that the one they used to apply was horse racing. In horse racing, we were told, a race is paid out on win/place/show only when there are 8+ runners; when there are 5-7 runners, only win/place is paid; and when there are 4 or fewer runners only the “win” wagers are paid. Thus, Olympic reasoned that since there were (allegedly) only 6 runners (drivers) starting in this race that it would grade only those wagering events on the winner and the win/place (1st and 2nd place finishing position) and would grade all other wagering events as “no action”. Olympic calls this rule “very applicable” and the “fairest” way to grade this event.
I agree with Olympic that this is a very good rule for Formula One wagering grading. However, it was not, in fact, the rule and it is not within the power of this Panel, or the sportsbook, to create rules post hoc to fit a completed event. The horse racing rule referenced by Olympic is applied to horse race wagering not because it is logical and fair, but rather because Olympic’s rules, as most (or maybe all) sportsbooks do, specifically reference and incorporate into its grading the official results as declared by the applicable controlling authority/sports governing body. In the case of horse racing, the tracks declare (and pay) the “place” horse only when there are 5+ runners and the “show” horse only when there are 8+ runners. Indeed, Olympic’s specific rule applicable to Formula One demands a similar inquiry – that is, the grading is based on “the result as declared on the race day by the controlling authority (podium finish) irrespective of any subsequent undecided protest.”** The controlling authority/sports governing body of Formula One declared on race day the results of this race – the 6 drivers who completed the race were classified as finishing in the 1 through 6 positions and were each awarded the designated points for those finishing positions. No adjustment or concession was made to those finishing positions or points to compensate for the actions of the Michelin drivers. Thus, there is no justification in Olympic’s rules, either directly or by reference to other rules, which would dictate that this event be graded as “no action”. In the absence of such a rule, the wagers must stand.
It is important to note that much of both the Player’s and Olympic’s statement to this panel (as well as much of the forum chatter) related to the concept of which party might have been taking a “shot” here. I note that such discussion is wholly irrelevant to the adjudication of this case. The result of this case is equally applicable to any bettor who placed a wager on this event, regardless of his sophistication, intent or the size of the wager. To determine otherwise would be to grade similarly situated wagers based on a subjective determination of the player. This is unacceptable as the grading of this event, as others, is objective based solely on the rules and result of the event. Likewise, the reputation of Olympic (stellar as it is) is of no consequence here. The reasoning and decision would be the same and would be based on the applicable rules, regardless of the identity and reputation of the sportsbook involved. Of course, an exception to these principles may apply in situations where the player is accused of insider trading on non-public information, or of race fixing. Neither is alleged or supported by the facts of this case. Additionally, Olympic has not alleged nor are there any facts that would support the application of the “bad line” rule.
This decision is not a finding of fault or malice on the part of Olympic. This Panel does not find that Olympic has acted maliciously or arbitrarily in this case, but only that its grading decision was erroneous. We recognize that this was a somewhat unusual situation with varying opinions (even among this panel). Nonetheless, the opinion of the majority of this Panel is clear – the event should be graded as “action” and wagers on those drivers awarded 1 through 6 finishing position points should be paid accordingly. As in past and future cases presented to this Panel, it is expected that all parties will comply with the decision of this Panel.
We also note that this case presents a strong opportunity for all books to review and tighten up rules on events similar to the one at issue. The “horse racing” rule referenced by Olympic may indeed be a rule worth consideration of adoption for future Formula One wagering.
‘Slash’ and ‘ Judge’ concur in this opinion written by “D2bets” for this Panel.
**The dissent points out that this rule parenthetically mentions “podium finish”, and as such was possibly not intended to apply to wagers other than the 1-2-3 finish. I disagree as it is a parenthetical and note that even without this rule we would still be left with the “Note” that “the official result as declared by the sports governing body is used to determine bets on sports not mentioned in this guide."
Dissenting opinion (Halifax)
[size=+0]One logical way to approach a case like this would be to look for a specific written rule that governs this situation, a rule that provides for the cancellation of all “Top 8” bets if the full field of drivers does not start the race. If a specific written rule applicable to this situation cannot be found, then one might be of the opinion that since there are no written rules governing the cancellation of these “Top 8” bets given a reduced field of drivers, then Olympic cannot rightfully cancel these bets, and the Player’s bets should be graded as winners.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o
></o>
<o></o>
I am not that generous in this regard. I am of the opinion that, while it would be ideal to have written rules governing every possible scenario that might occur, that this idealistic goal is in fact, unrealistic. Where there are no written rules governing a particularly unique or unexpected situation, a ‘common sense’ approach would have to be used. The situation with the F1 race was, in my mind, one of those “unique situations” where ‘common sense’ needed to be used. <o></o>
<o></o>
My decision to use this ‘common sense’ approach also seems to be supported by a “blanket / catch-all” rule that Olympic has. When you are placing a bet at Olympic, and you’re in the middle of the 60-second “countdown”, getting ready to confirm your bet by typing in your initials, Olympic has a rule on the screen for all to see. The rule states “Olympic Sports reserves the right to refuse any wager on reasonable grounds”. Since Olympic had no chance of winning this bet when only 6 cars ended up starting the race (see Footnote 1), I think that cancelling the “Top 8” bets was a reasonable thing to do.<o></o>
<o></o>
I try to get the best of the number every time I place a bet, but I still run the real risk of losing each and every bet that I place … and that’s the key issue in this Olympic F1 case … did the Player end up having a ‘no-risk’ bet, where there was no “gamble” involved, and the only possible outcome was a loss for Olympic? If a unique situation occurs such as this, a situation that renders the ‘gambling’ aspect of the "Top 8" bet non-existent since only 6 drivers start the race, then I believe that Olympic has the right, and the duty, to cancel the bets on this event.<o></o>
<o></o>
In attempting to determine what the appropriate action is in this situation, the closest thing that I could see that would be applicable to this case is the forfeit / walkover rule, a rule that is commonplace in other sports ... where one team doesn't show up for the match, and the other team is awarded the victory. Although there is technically a 'winner' in the match, for betting purposes all bets are void since the opposing team did not show up to play the match. The basis of that rule is that it protects the books from having to pay out winning bets on forfeited matches that were, in effect, ‘unwinnable’ for the book, since the losing team never even took the playing field. In a recent example, involving some of the Louisiana NCAA Football teams, there was some speculation (after Hurricane Katrina) that some of the teams might forfeit some of their games …. BUT … it was pointless for bettors to bet on the opposing teams, hoping for a forfeit victory, because for betting purposes, the bets would be cancelled, since the books would have had zero chance of winning those bets on the forfeited games. If you think about it, the F1 situation is very similar in theory. With the F1 race, if 9 or more drivers started the race, then at least Olympic would have a chance of winning one of the "Top 8" bets that were placed, not a very good chance, but at least a chance ... on the other hand, if 8 or fewer drivers started the race, then Olympic would have had ZERO chance of winning those bets, and should rightfully have cancelled those bets, since it was impossible for them to win (see Footnote 2). <o></o>
<o></o>
In summary, according to Olympic’s written rules, only 6 cars started the race. Given this fact, and provided that these bets were, at that point, “unwinnable” for Olympic, I believe that it was reasonable for Olympic to have cancelled all “Top 8” bets on this event.
<o></o>
Having said that, I will mention that my decision was not an overwhelming endorsement of Olympic’s actions, but rather, a marginal one … there were many mistakes on their part … their linesman was (literally) out to lunch when all this was taking place, and deserves a great deal of the blame for things escalating to this point … Olympic’s attempt to blame (and subsequently ban) the bettors, who bet this proposition several hours before the race started, was very weak, especially when most of the blame should have been channeled towards the linesman … and I have also given Olympic (via their spokesperson) the benefit of the doubt, that the information that he provided me regarding their rules was, in fact, the truth, when this information really should have been written into the rules on their website.
<o></o>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<o></o>
<o></o>
Footnote 1: According to Olympic’s written rules, only 6 cars started the race.
<o></o>
Many of the European books had it in their written rules that the race officially started on the Parade / Formation Lap. This is probably the main reason that they were obliged to pay out on winning wagers for this race.<o></o>
Olympic, on the other hand, had a different rule. Their rule stated: " For wagering purposes, the start of the race is defined to be when the first car/bike crosses the start/finish line when the start of the race is officially signified. "<o></o>
After reading that rule, the next logical step was to refer to the official F1 website to determine when the race "started". From reading the F1 website … http://www.formula1.com/insight/rulesandregs/13/510.html
… I am reasonably satisfied (and for that matter, the three other Panel members are also reasonably satisfied) that the race did NOT start on the formation lap:
"Once all cars have safely taken up their grid positions at the end of the formation lap five red lights will appear in sequence at one-second intervals. These red lights are then extinguished to signal the start of the race."<o></o>
As such, for betting purposes at Olympic, only 6 cars started the race.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
<o></o>
Footnote 2: Given that only 6 cars started the race, Olympic had no chance of winning these “Top 8” bets, and the Player had no chance of losing these bets.<o></o>
<o></o>
In my opinion, in order for Olympic to be justified in canceling these “Top 8” bets, Olympic had to have had zero chance of winning these bets. In other words, the “Top 8” bets became “cancellable” if, and only if, the ‘gambling’ aspect of these bets was effectively eliminated when only 6 cars started the race.<o></o>
In order to determine if the ‘gambling’ aspect was effectively eliminated when only 6 cars started, given the lack of specific written rules, I have, in a couple of cases, given the Olympic spokesperson the benefit of the doubt, in as much as I took his word at face value when he explained how Olympic have handled these types of bets in the past.<o></o>
In order to ascertain that Olympic had no chance of winning these bets, the following two things had to be true:<o></o>
1. The “Drivers to finish in the Top 8 positions” bet at Olympic MUST pay out on the top 8 drivers in the race, even if there are less than 8 drivers that actually finish race.
Otherwise, if this was not the case, then even if only 6 drivers started the race, if one of the 6 drivers did not finish the race due to mechanical problems, the “Top 8” bet on this driver would lose, and the Player would actually stand the risk of losing his money. The Olympic spokesman stated that “as far as I’m aware, even if only 7 drivers finished the race, the top 8 are paid out, so whomever is classified in 8<SUP>th</SUP> spot would be paid out”.
2. All “Top 8” bets on a particular driver are refunded if that particular driver does not start the race.
This MUST be the case. Otherwise, I would rule in favour of the Player. In order to see why this MUST be the case, let’s look at a hypothetical situation …
“Suppose that none of the news of the concerns of the Michelin drivers had been public, for whatever reason, before the race. Nobody knew that the Michelin drivers might choose not to start the race. And suppose that all of the wagers made at Olympic happened to be on the 14 various Michelin drivers to finish in the "Top 8". Then, the same thing happens … the Michelin drivers pull out before the start of the race, only the 6 non-Michelin drivers start the race, and Olympic is sitting with several thousand dollars worth of “Top 8” bets on the Michelin drivers that did not start the race.”<o></o>
Given the above hypothetical, if Olympic does not cancel all the “Top 8” bets on the Michelin drivers, then they are, in effect, able to “take a shot” … they can choose to keep all the bets if they are on the Michelin drivers that pulled out (like in the hypothetical example), or they can choose to cancel all the bets on the 6 drivers that elected to race (like they did in the real-life case).
In order for Olympic to justify cancelling the Player's wagers, they had to have had a policy in place of cancelling ALL “Top 8” bets on drivers that did not start. The Olympic spokesman stated that “the race is a week event, hence all bets are made with the assumption of the Drivers Starting, and the Non- Starters being refunded”. There is also a specific rule in the F1 section at Olympic, that I believe supports Olympic’s contention that they cancel all “Top 8” bets on drivers that do not start. This is the rule: “All bets are on the driver/rider competing in the race.” To me, since the rule states that all bets are on the driver competing in the race, then it seems to me that if a driver does NOT compete in the race, then the bet is “off” (in other words, the bet is cancelled).<o></o>
<!-- Edit --><!-- Edit -->[/size]
V. Case No. 003 (10/04/05)
Olympic Sports, Defendant
Dispute Arbitration Panel Ruling Issued October 4, 2005
Ruling: ‘Judge’ and ‘Slash’ join the majority opinion of this panel written by ‘D2bets.’ ‘Halifax’ delivers his dissent following the majority opinion. By a 2-1 majority (plus the opinion delivered by ‘D2bets’), the Dispute Arbitration Panel rules in favor of T. T. (the “Player”), and declares that the wagers at issue with Olympic should be graded as winners.
Statement of Facts: The basic facts of this case are undisputed. On June 19, 2005, The Player placed four online wagers with Olympic Sports on the motor racing Formula One Grand Prix race held June 17-19, 2005. The bets were proposition bets on the event “Driver to Finish in Top 8 Position”. Olympic’s bet logs show the wagers as “Points Finish”. Listed with odds were the 20 individual drivers scheduled to drive in the race.
Approximately 4 hours before the race was scheduled to begin, the Player placed separate wagers on 4 individual drivers as follows: Patrick Frieschar +4000; Tiego Monteiro +2500; Narain Karthikeyan +2500; and Christijan Albers +3000. Subsequent to these wagers, the odds were periodically adjusted prior to the race as Olympic received wagers on these drivers and others. According to the Olympic bet logs, the final wagers taken on these drivers were at +1000, +800, +600 and +600 respectively shortly before the scheduled start of the race.
During the week leading up to the race, safety concerns over the Michelin tires used by 14 of the 20 drivers were made public. It was unknown whether special accomodations would be made for those drivers or what actions they might take in any instance.
At race time, the Michelin problems remained unresolved. During the parade lap, the Michelin teams ordered their drivers to pit on completion of the parade lap and the 14 Michelin cars were classified as retired on lap zero. The race then began with the 6 cars who, upon completion, were classified in positions 1 through 6 and were each awarded points based on their finishing positions 1 through 6.
Subsequent to the completion of the race, Olympic graded all wagers on the “Driver to Finish in Top 8 Position” event as “push/cancel” and refunded all wager amounts. Player objected to the grading of event, believing that his wagers on the non-Michelin drivers were winners because they finished in the Top 8 and were awarded points. After much private, and some public, discussion, Player and Olympic agreed to submit the dispute to this Dispute Arbitration Panel.
Majority Opinion: The grading of sportsbook wagers and events is based on a system of rules. Those rules, or reference to a system of rules governed and administered by a third party, are declared and set out by an individual sportsbook prior to each event. As we know, in some instances different sportsbooks have different rules and may grade identical events and wagers differently based on those rules. When a wager is placed, it is deemed to be an acceptance by both the player and the sportsbook of all applicable rules as set forth by the sportsbook. Indeed, such a system of predetermined rules benefits all parties involved by fostering predictability, uniformity and fairness while by minimizing conflict and distrust..
Where a rule dictates a particular grading of an event, the sportsbook, and this panel sitting in judgment, have no authority to go outside of the rules to declare a contrary result. The grading of an event is based on the plain text of these rules, not on any notion of common sense or the fairness of the result. Any other method of grading would serve to harm the long-term stability of the industry and would grant bookmakers the ability to follow rules only when convenient to them. Indeed, many players do not consider it fair when their O7.5 baseball runs wager is declared a “push” when the game is called a 10-7 final in the bottom of the 8th on account of rain. But it is a push, of course, because the rules say that it is.
Any discussion or application of rules must begin with a reference to those rules. Olympic’s rules in its “Sports Guide” specifically applicable to “Formula One/500cc Motorcycles” at the time the wagers were placed read as follows:
Formula One / 500cc Motorcycles
* For wagering purposes, the start of the race is defined to be when the first car/bike crosses the start/finish line when the start of the race is officially signified.
* All bets are on the driver/rider competing in the race.
* Bets will be settled on the basis of the result as declared on the race day by the controlling authority (podium finish) irrespective of any subsequent undecided protest.
* In match-up propositions, all drivers involved in the match-up must start (cross the start/finish line) or the wager is deemed no action, and the wagers refunded.
* In match-up propositions, if one driver fails to complete the race, the other driver will be declared the winner of the match-up. Where both drivers fail to complete the race, the number of full laps completed will determine the result. If both drivers fail to complete the race on the same lap, the wager is deemed no action, all the wagers refunded.
Additionally, Olympic has a set of general rules entitled “Notes” at the conclusion of all rules which reads as follows:
Notes
* All-In Betting is a term that means once you place your bet it will stand regardless of whether your team or selection plays or not. This condition will generally apply to win the competition or win the tournament type events.
* *All futures are regarded as all-in betting - no refunds are given in the case an individual or team withdraws from such event.
* Unless otherwise specified, events must take place within two weeks of the date specified for the event. If the event is postponed beyond that time for any reason, then the contest will be declared no action and all bets will be refunded.
* The official result as declared by the sports governing body is used to decide bets on sports not mentioned in this guide.
Our analysis of grading rules begins with the presumption that an event has “action”. This presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence showing that applicable rules dictate otherwise. In this instance, it is plain that there is no such explicit rule, or reasonable interpretation of any rule, indicating that any type of Forumla One wagering event offering is “no action” when fewer than a certain number of drivers start the race. No such rule appears.
In its formal statement to this Panel, Olympic concedes that “there is no concrete rule” applicable to this situation. Olympic goes on to reveal the grading methodology process that it used in this case. We were advised that they “looked through the betting world” to see if any rules could be applied to this situation, and that the one they used to apply was horse racing. In horse racing, we were told, a race is paid out on win/place/show only when there are 8+ runners; when there are 5-7 runners, only win/place is paid; and when there are 4 or fewer runners only the “win” wagers are paid. Thus, Olympic reasoned that since there were (allegedly) only 6 runners (drivers) starting in this race that it would grade only those wagering events on the winner and the win/place (1st and 2nd place finishing position) and would grade all other wagering events as “no action”. Olympic calls this rule “very applicable” and the “fairest” way to grade this event.
I agree with Olympic that this is a very good rule for Formula One wagering grading. However, it was not, in fact, the rule and it is not within the power of this Panel, or the sportsbook, to create rules post hoc to fit a completed event. The horse racing rule referenced by Olympic is applied to horse race wagering not because it is logical and fair, but rather because Olympic’s rules, as most (or maybe all) sportsbooks do, specifically reference and incorporate into its grading the official results as declared by the applicable controlling authority/sports governing body. In the case of horse racing, the tracks declare (and pay) the “place” horse only when there are 5+ runners and the “show” horse only when there are 8+ runners. Indeed, Olympic’s specific rule applicable to Formula One demands a similar inquiry – that is, the grading is based on “the result as declared on the race day by the controlling authority (podium finish) irrespective of any subsequent undecided protest.”** The controlling authority/sports governing body of Formula One declared on race day the results of this race – the 6 drivers who completed the race were classified as finishing in the 1 through 6 positions and were each awarded the designated points for those finishing positions. No adjustment or concession was made to those finishing positions or points to compensate for the actions of the Michelin drivers. Thus, there is no justification in Olympic’s rules, either directly or by reference to other rules, which would dictate that this event be graded as “no action”. In the absence of such a rule, the wagers must stand.
It is important to note that much of both the Player’s and Olympic’s statement to this panel (as well as much of the forum chatter) related to the concept of which party might have been taking a “shot” here. I note that such discussion is wholly irrelevant to the adjudication of this case. The result of this case is equally applicable to any bettor who placed a wager on this event, regardless of his sophistication, intent or the size of the wager. To determine otherwise would be to grade similarly situated wagers based on a subjective determination of the player. This is unacceptable as the grading of this event, as others, is objective based solely on the rules and result of the event. Likewise, the reputation of Olympic (stellar as it is) is of no consequence here. The reasoning and decision would be the same and would be based on the applicable rules, regardless of the identity and reputation of the sportsbook involved. Of course, an exception to these principles may apply in situations where the player is accused of insider trading on non-public information, or of race fixing. Neither is alleged or supported by the facts of this case. Additionally, Olympic has not alleged nor are there any facts that would support the application of the “bad line” rule.
This decision is not a finding of fault or malice on the part of Olympic. This Panel does not find that Olympic has acted maliciously or arbitrarily in this case, but only that its grading decision was erroneous. We recognize that this was a somewhat unusual situation with varying opinions (even among this panel). Nonetheless, the opinion of the majority of this Panel is clear – the event should be graded as “action” and wagers on those drivers awarded 1 through 6 finishing position points should be paid accordingly. As in past and future cases presented to this Panel, it is expected that all parties will comply with the decision of this Panel.
We also note that this case presents a strong opportunity for all books to review and tighten up rules on events similar to the one at issue. The “horse racing” rule referenced by Olympic may indeed be a rule worth consideration of adoption for future Formula One wagering.
‘Slash’ and ‘ Judge’ concur in this opinion written by “D2bets” for this Panel.
**The dissent points out that this rule parenthetically mentions “podium finish”, and as such was possibly not intended to apply to wagers other than the 1-2-3 finish. I disagree as it is a parenthetical and note that even without this rule we would still be left with the “Note” that “the official result as declared by the sports governing body is used to determine bets on sports not mentioned in this guide."
Dissenting opinion (Halifax)
[size=+0]One logical way to approach a case like this would be to look for a specific written rule that governs this situation, a rule that provides for the cancellation of all “Top 8” bets if the full field of drivers does not start the race. If a specific written rule applicable to this situation cannot be found, then one might be of the opinion that since there are no written rules governing the cancellation of these “Top 8” bets given a reduced field of drivers, then Olympic cannot rightfully cancel these bets, and the Player’s bets should be graded as winners.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o><o
></o>I am not that generous in this regard. I am of the opinion that, while it would be ideal to have written rules governing every possible scenario that might occur, that this idealistic goal is in fact, unrealistic. Where there are no written rules governing a particularly unique or unexpected situation, a ‘common sense’ approach would have to be used. The situation with the F1 race was, in my mind, one of those “unique situations” where ‘common sense’ needed to be used. <o
></o><o
></o>My decision to use this ‘common sense’ approach also seems to be supported by a “blanket / catch-all” rule that Olympic has. When you are placing a bet at Olympic, and you’re in the middle of the 60-second “countdown”, getting ready to confirm your bet by typing in your initials, Olympic has a rule on the screen for all to see. The rule states “Olympic Sports reserves the right to refuse any wager on reasonable grounds”. Since Olympic had no chance of winning this bet when only 6 cars ended up starting the race (see Footnote 1), I think that cancelling the “Top 8” bets was a reasonable thing to do.<o
></o><o
></o>I try to get the best of the number every time I place a bet, but I still run the real risk of losing each and every bet that I place … and that’s the key issue in this Olympic F1 case … did the Player end up having a ‘no-risk’ bet, where there was no “gamble” involved, and the only possible outcome was a loss for Olympic? If a unique situation occurs such as this, a situation that renders the ‘gambling’ aspect of the "Top 8" bet non-existent since only 6 drivers start the race, then I believe that Olympic has the right, and the duty, to cancel the bets on this event.<o
></o><o
></o>In attempting to determine what the appropriate action is in this situation, the closest thing that I could see that would be applicable to this case is the forfeit / walkover rule, a rule that is commonplace in other sports ... where one team doesn't show up for the match, and the other team is awarded the victory. Although there is technically a 'winner' in the match, for betting purposes all bets are void since the opposing team did not show up to play the match. The basis of that rule is that it protects the books from having to pay out winning bets on forfeited matches that were, in effect, ‘unwinnable’ for the book, since the losing team never even took the playing field. In a recent example, involving some of the Louisiana NCAA Football teams, there was some speculation (after Hurricane Katrina) that some of the teams might forfeit some of their games …. BUT … it was pointless for bettors to bet on the opposing teams, hoping for a forfeit victory, because for betting purposes, the bets would be cancelled, since the books would have had zero chance of winning those bets on the forfeited games. If you think about it, the F1 situation is very similar in theory. With the F1 race, if 9 or more drivers started the race, then at least Olympic would have a chance of winning one of the "Top 8" bets that were placed, not a very good chance, but at least a chance ... on the other hand, if 8 or fewer drivers started the race, then Olympic would have had ZERO chance of winning those bets, and should rightfully have cancelled those bets, since it was impossible for them to win (see Footnote 2). <o
></o><o
></o>In summary, according to Olympic’s written rules, only 6 cars started the race. Given this fact, and provided that these bets were, at that point, “unwinnable” for Olympic, I believe that it was reasonable for Olympic to have cancelled all “Top 8” bets on this event.
<o
></o>Having said that, I will mention that my decision was not an overwhelming endorsement of Olympic’s actions, but rather, a marginal one … there were many mistakes on their part … their linesman was (literally) out to lunch when all this was taking place, and deserves a great deal of the blame for things escalating to this point … Olympic’s attempt to blame (and subsequently ban) the bettors, who bet this proposition several hours before the race started, was very weak, especially when most of the blame should have been channeled towards the linesman … and I have also given Olympic (via their spokesperson) the benefit of the doubt, that the information that he provided me regarding their rules was, in fact, the truth, when this information really should have been written into the rules on their website.
<o
></o>---------------------------------------------------------------------<o
></o><o
></o>Footnote 1: According to Olympic’s written rules, only 6 cars started the race.
<o
></o>Many of the European books had it in their written rules that the race officially started on the Parade / Formation Lap. This is probably the main reason that they were obliged to pay out on winning wagers for this race.<o
></o>Olympic, on the other hand, had a different rule. Their rule stated: " For wagering purposes, the start of the race is defined to be when the first car/bike crosses the start/finish line when the start of the race is officially signified. "<o
></o>After reading that rule, the next logical step was to refer to the official F1 website to determine when the race "started". From reading the F1 website … http://www.formula1.com/insight/rulesandregs/13/510.html
… I am reasonably satisfied (and for that matter, the three other Panel members are also reasonably satisfied) that the race did NOT start on the formation lap:
"Once all cars have safely taken up their grid positions at the end of the formation lap five red lights will appear in sequence at one-second intervals. These red lights are then extinguished to signal the start of the race."<o
></o>As such, for betting purposes at Olympic, only 6 cars started the race.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
<o
></o>Footnote 2: Given that only 6 cars started the race, Olympic had no chance of winning these “Top 8” bets, and the Player had no chance of losing these bets.<o
></o><o
></o>In my opinion, in order for Olympic to be justified in canceling these “Top 8” bets, Olympic had to have had zero chance of winning these bets. In other words, the “Top 8” bets became “cancellable” if, and only if, the ‘gambling’ aspect of these bets was effectively eliminated when only 6 cars started the race.<o
></o>In order to determine if the ‘gambling’ aspect was effectively eliminated when only 6 cars started, given the lack of specific written rules, I have, in a couple of cases, given the Olympic spokesperson the benefit of the doubt, in as much as I took his word at face value when he explained how Olympic have handled these types of bets in the past.<o
></o>In order to ascertain that Olympic had no chance of winning these bets, the following two things had to be true:<o
></o>1. The “Drivers to finish in the Top 8 positions” bet at Olympic MUST pay out on the top 8 drivers in the race, even if there are less than 8 drivers that actually finish race.
Otherwise, if this was not the case, then even if only 6 drivers started the race, if one of the 6 drivers did not finish the race due to mechanical problems, the “Top 8” bet on this driver would lose, and the Player would actually stand the risk of losing his money. The Olympic spokesman stated that “as far as I’m aware, even if only 7 drivers finished the race, the top 8 are paid out, so whomever is classified in 8<SUP>th</SUP> spot would be paid out”.
2. All “Top 8” bets on a particular driver are refunded if that particular driver does not start the race.
This MUST be the case. Otherwise, I would rule in favour of the Player. In order to see why this MUST be the case, let’s look at a hypothetical situation …
“Suppose that none of the news of the concerns of the Michelin drivers had been public, for whatever reason, before the race. Nobody knew that the Michelin drivers might choose not to start the race. And suppose that all of the wagers made at Olympic happened to be on the 14 various Michelin drivers to finish in the "Top 8". Then, the same thing happens … the Michelin drivers pull out before the start of the race, only the 6 non-Michelin drivers start the race, and Olympic is sitting with several thousand dollars worth of “Top 8” bets on the Michelin drivers that did not start the race.”<o
></o>Given the above hypothetical, if Olympic does not cancel all the “Top 8” bets on the Michelin drivers, then they are, in effect, able to “take a shot” … they can choose to keep all the bets if they are on the Michelin drivers that pulled out (like in the hypothetical example), or they can choose to cancel all the bets on the 6 drivers that elected to race (like they did in the real-life case).
In order for Olympic to justify cancelling the Player's wagers, they had to have had a policy in place of cancelling ALL “Top 8” bets on drivers that did not start. The Olympic spokesman stated that “the race is a week event, hence all bets are made with the assumption of the Drivers Starting, and the Non- Starters being refunded”. There is also a specific rule in the F1 section at Olympic, that I believe supports Olympic’s contention that they cancel all “Top 8” bets on drivers that do not start. This is the rule: “All bets are on the driver/rider competing in the race.” To me, since the rule states that all bets are on the driver competing in the race, then it seems to me that if a driver does NOT compete in the race, then the bet is “off” (in other words, the bet is cancelled).<o
></o><!-- Edit --><!-- Edit -->[/size]
