|
|
 |
|
#1
09-12-2007, 07:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
$6.5 million voucher
__________________
Ticket Seller: All kind of balls... Bodyguard: One of his is crystal. 
|
|
#2
09-13-2007, 09:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Seems like this would be easy to prove either way.
__________________
Do I think Charity can win? Well, I am walking around in yesterday's suit.
|
|
#3
09-13-2007, 10:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The issue isn't whether he's owed $6.5 million. I'm sure they'll prove he's not. But the implication is that he's owed something because he claims that the machine retained some tickets before issuing the voucher (he apparently doesn't know, conveniently, what bets he actually won because he fed a bunch of tickets into the machine to check them). So now the question is how much they will pay to make this go away.
__________________
Ticket Seller: All kind of balls... Bodyguard: One of his is crystal.
|
|
#5
09-13-2007, 10:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You have hit the nail on the head. Those automated machines are logged on a transaction by transaction basis. It seems possible that the error that produced his ticket has also destroyed the tracks ability to decipher the actual value of the winning tickets. This makes it interesting that the track opposed the disclosure of the records. Because if they were accurate, the track could have shown him that he's only truly owed $3,975.20, and the track would want him and all bettors to know that they have accurate records. The track's own records may not reflect an error, and therefore they don't want him or a judge to see them. The track's comments about the Kentucky Derby might support the possibility that its records are gonna kill 'em. Why use hyperbole to make a point when you don't have to???
|
Linear Mode
