Sweat the payout not the panel

JamesHunt · Oct 7, 2005

I am the player in the Olympic F1 dispute. I thank RX moderators TTinco and wilheim for their advice, and Roberto and the TOW panel for their thorough efforts.

Olympic have declined to abide the panel's ruling in my favour. Whilst this ruling was not binding, neither was the original bet. In most jurisdictions wagering contracts are a matter of honour. I indicated in good faith that I would drop the matter if the ruling went in Olympic's favour. Olympic undertook (quoting Roberto) to "disclose information and favorably review the panel's ruling and its final recommendations." Roberto communicated his belief that Spiro would comply. So what sort of favourable review is this? Olympic don't even comment on the panel ruling. This is an insult to TOW and his hard-working panel memebers.

So that "stellar" sportsbook Olympic won't honour its own bets, follow its own rules, or abide fair third-party arbitration. Any efforts that Olympic made to resolve this dispute are exposed as phony after its rejection of the TOW verdict.

I submitted the case to TOW via TheRX, where Olympic is currently listed as a Preferred Sportsbook. I propose that it be removed from this list until it abides the panel's ruling and pays me out on my winning bets.

Illini · Oct 7, 2005

I never heard the full story. What exactly happened to cause the dispute?

JamesHunt · Oct 7, 2005

Read about it on http://www.theoffshorewire.com/

ClipJoint · Oct 7, 2005

Good for Olympic. Spiro definitely doesn't need a "panel" to tell him how to run his sportsbook.

wilheim · Oct 7, 2005

Jameshunt, I do understand your dissapointment and frustration however as you have pointed out the TOW panel ruling was never binding for anyone. You volunteered to drop the case if you lost and that is admirable. Oylmpic will continue to be a preferred advertiser here just as they continue to be a preferred sportsbook everywhere you look on the sports betting internet scene. This case has been rehashed many times and still continues to split opinions as to what the right course is for Olympic to follow. It was extremely unfortunate for yourself and also for Olympic that the events that let to this impasse occured the way they did.

I very much hoped this would have ended differently, from what I can see no one came out the winner here, including yourself, Olympic, the TOW panel, or The Rx.

wil..

royalfan · Oct 7, 2005

Although, I disagree and Olympic should have paid since they had 4 hours to cancel the things, I do agree that panel is laughable and as Froggie would say, "Boberto" thinks he is much more important than he is.

Dawoofdaddy · Oct 7, 2005

Rather weak for Oly to not pay the winning wagers.

Judge Wapner and Tow being disrespected is even weaker.

Piss poor decision from Olympic.

Oly chooses to book wagers and then later decide whether they should pay winners???

:howdy:

JamesHunt · Oct 7, 2005

Why is Olympic's preferred status not in doubt here Wilheim? Olympic's actions in taking a shot at the panel pour scorn on your efforts to mediate.

ZZZSpeedster · Oct 7, 2005

After reading a lot on this I definitely agree the bets should be honored

Something like this happens once in a blue moon, the player had Olympics listed rules and according to them he should be paid

wilheim · Oct 7, 2005

James, I really don't think anyone is taking a shot at any panel or our efforts to mediate. Olympic has been consistent in it's stance on your case from the beginning and again I will say it -- they never agreed beforehand to be bound by any TOW panel ruling. Personally I would very much like to see you get paid, but that is beyond my control. On the other hand Olympic remains a very solid sportsbook and will retain preferred status here at The Rx..

wil..

JamesHunt · Oct 7, 2005

If Olympic are such a straight book, why didn't they tell the panel they were wasting their time before they started work on the case? What was all the crap about "favorably reviewing the panel's ruling and its final recommendations?" Or was that in Roberto's imagination?

Anonymous1 · Oct 7, 2005

very dissapointed wth this decision...oly won't fess up to poorly written wagering rules and then won't stand behind the poorly drafted ones...will never again reccomend this book to folks...

Dawoofdaddy · Oct 7, 2005

What has Jay C said about this case and ruling?

TTinCO · Oct 7, 2005

Illini said:
I never heard the full story. What exactly happened to cause the dispute?

Illini, this was discussed in great detail here http://forum.therx.com/showthread.php?t=290460&page=2&pp=30

and to a lessor extent here
http://forum.therx.com/showthread.php?t=291674&highlight=formula

I'm not going to get involved with this issue again, but it is definitely one of the messier disputes that I've seen, and a very good case could be made for either side. Based upon Oly's rules (Not FIA's rules, or most Euro books rules), only 6 cars started the race, and therefore they feel that they have reasonable grounds to void "Top 8 finish" wagers as a bad line since it was a 6 car field. I have a pretty tough time saying that the book does not have that right based on their own rules.

JayC · Oct 7, 2005

I posted on it a couple of times. I didn't think the bets should stand but I was in the minority.

I thought I had posted about it but I can't seem to find it. Olympic booked bets on a race, there was no race for the "Top 8" if only 6 cars were running. The player was betting on the politics of the matter, not what Olympic was offering. Under the general rules that cover the crazy stuff that nobody can anticipate, I, and this is my OPINION, believe Olympic had the right to refund the wagers.

I also posted about the dispute going to a panel and asked what the point of it was if Olympic had not agreed to it?

http://forums.therx.com/showthread.php?t=299740

Was Olympic and others asleep at the wheel? Yes

Was the player taking a shot? Yes

Perhaps a fair settlement might have been to split the difference.

JamesHunt · Oct 7, 2005

I did suggest that to Olympic.

JimmyHoffa · Oct 7, 2005

Good publicity has it's price. Olympic would stand to glean much favorable publicity in this forum and others with a decision in the player's favor. It would be a small price to pay for a major offshore player like Olympic.

This in my opinion is where Olympic dropped the ball.

bucsfan67 · Oct 7, 2005

Like many others here, i can see both sides too.....

possibly if both parties had agreed to "split" the difference, alot of this could have been avoided.......but that wasnt the case...

As much as i understand why James is upset, i can see Olympic's side as well...

If you had a horse race with 6 horses, and you bet a horse to show, and before the race, 3 horses are scratched, you better believe that the show bets would be "refunded"

However, since Form I rules state all cars on the "warm up" lap are in the race, it makes it a little more like a 6-horse race, where 3 horses collide and go down, right out of the gate......

Bad deal for both sides....

You think u can anticipate every event, and try to make rules for it, but something ALWAYS come up that you never thought of

JamesHunt · Oct 7, 2005

I also posted about the dispute going to a panel and asked what the point of it was if Olympic had not agreed to it?

As I've said, the panel would not be binding even had Olympic pledged absolutely to accept the ruling. But quoting Roberto from that thread:

Chuck,

I am pretty sure that both parties in question will positively review and abide to the ruling, whichever the final verdict will be.

Thanks for asking.

NEWPORT · Oct 7, 2005

HOW MUCH $$?? is disputed in payout Someone please??

Sweat the payout not the panel

New member

FreeRyanFerguson.com

New member

LA Clippers Junkie

New member

New member

Triple digit silver kook

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Triple digit silver kook

.

New member

New member

New member

Pop-culture, entertainment, sports and contest Mod

New member

New member

Forum statistics

Share this page