Home > Current Events, Guest Posts, Hockey > [Guest Post] Large Corporation Sticks It To Young Sniper and Family

[Guest Post] Large Corporation Sticks It To Young Sniper and Family

September 12, 2011 Leave a comment Go to comments

Hi folks! 

Dee Mason has been kind enough to contribute a guest post for you.  A well-written article on the family that lost out on $50,000 after his twin boys pulled the old switcheroo and the wrong boy shot and canned a shot from centre ice, but dad’s conscience made him admit the stand-in.  See what you think, and weigh in your opinion with a comment below!   Dee is a freelance travel and sports writer (the colder, the better!) and writes on behalf of a luxury ski holidays site. Feel free to shoot the breeze with her on dee@wikivee.com!


[ Source: http://abcnews.go.com/News/twin-boys-50000-hockey-shot-danger-posed-brother/story?id=14308901 ]

An 11-year-old boy makes a miracle shot during a contest. Problem was, the name on the ticket was that of his identical twin brother. Does it matter? It’s not like the kid sent in a ringer! He did not throw in Wayne Gretzky to take his shot, but rather the spitting image of himself. Not to mention the fact the promoters did not know the difference. Now the company is not going to give the family the $50,000.


Let’s analyze this. I do understand the father’s decision to teach the kids honesty, but in that moment was it the smart thing to do? If the twins had truly cheated, put a magnet in the puck, ran across the line or some other thing to cheat the system than yes, you should tell. But your brother takes the shot? Is that really dishonest? What if the one twin had just been shy instead of off in line somewhere? Is what happened really cheating?


Then think of the company. When you pay to borrow products such as party rentals, truck rentals, DJs and sporting goods, all the companies reserve the right to substitute a “like” product. You might not get exactly what you want but you will get something similar. Isn’t that what happened here? Now the company is denying these boys a great savings account, a potential college education; wouldn’t the good image alone be enough reason to give the family the money? Let’s be realistic about where the money would go in the first place. The money benefits the same family no matter which child earned it. Likely a father with this kind of honest bone would have started a decent sized college fund for each of the twins. Wouldn’t that look good for the promotions company?


This is just another example of being punished for honesty. As long as Americans keep knocking down people willing to tell the truth, the more dishonest people become. Honesty and integrity needs to be celebrated. One should be able to own up to bad judgment or a questionable call without being sent out to pasture. All the twins have learned is to lie if you want to get ahead/if you are honest you get nothing.


The whole spirit of the half-time hockey promotion is charity. Watching an adorable little boy in Minnesota make an impossible shot is awe-inspiring. It gave the entire crowd a warm and fuzzy feeling. The spectators left feeling anything was possible. The hope alone is worth 50 grand. The insurance company attempted to make things better by offering $20,000 to youth hockey programs in the boys’ names. Why not give the twins the $20,000? Not only is the total $30,000 less it is to a non-descript supposed program. How does one track such a donation?


While the family stands up for the “honesty is the best policy” standpoint, it has to be incredibly disappointing to make an 89-foot shot through a hole slightly bigger than the puck and get nothing for it. Supposedly the choice of who shoots is random in the first place. So how can the company legitimately say it is unfair for the twin to take the shot? If it is truly random, this could have happened to anyone. This is just another example of a company offering something it believes no one will have capitalize on, so any loophole is worthy of getting out of paying the money.


I love what the Dad tried to teach here. I would love it even more if the company worked to be as responsible as the father and reward integrity. To logically look at the rule and the kids and realize it really does not matter which child took the shot only that he MADE the shot. As an outsider, I now question anything Odds on Promotion does. All this says to me is the company looks for a way out of living up to obligations while others live up to theirs. “We appreciate the eventual honesty,” Mark Gilmartin, President of Odds on Promotion says, but what he really means is, we appreciate it because we now don’t have to pay. When you select random kids to do something, children who come without ID, it seems like any child should be able to make the shot.

  1. April 15, 2012 at 5:33 am

    Thanks for the follow up, this was the only place I could find it.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: