Man went berserk and smashed up bookie's over €2 loss

[Raheny Red]

Indo.

A punter who lost €2 on a betting payout went on the rampage with a slegdehammer, smashing up a bookie's office in "several minutes of madness".

John McCormac (56) got a taxi home to collect a sledgehammer when he was barred from the bookmakers after abusing a staff member.

McCormac, of Decies Road in Ballyfermot, Dublin, returned to the Paddy Power shop and smashed 27 television monitors causing €17,835 damage, the Circuit Criminal Court heard yesterday. He escaped jail after pleading guilty to causing criminal damage at the Ballyfermot Road shop, on December 8 2006.

Judge Patrick McCartan said it was "a matter of conscience" for McCormac and his family whether they repaid Paddy Power for the damage caused, and he imposed a one-year suspended sentence.

The bookmaker said yesterday it would not be seeking compensation. Spokesman Ken Robertson said the rampage was the most "violent, ridiculous attack" the bookmakers has ever seen.

"That's the first time we've had someone go berserk," he said. "Occasionally you have a dispute but 99.9pc of the time they are resolved amicably. We respect the decision of the judge and will not be pursuing further costs, nor inviting McCormac around for tea any time soon."

Garda Liam Ahere told prosecuting counsel Kerida Naidoo that McCormac placed a bet on a horse just as the odds changed and discovered he was due €2 less than he thought.

McCormac subsequently verbally abused a female member of staff. She told him that she would not take any more bets and advised him that he was barred from the premises.

Gda Ahere said McCormac took a taxi home to get a sledgehammer and returned with the weapon. Staff pressed a panic alarm, alerting gardai and he dropped the hammer as soon as he was challenged.

Madness

Gda Ahere agreed with defence counsel Paul Greene that McCormac had no previous convictions and had never before come to garda attention.

Mr Greene described the incident as "several minutes of madness" and said his client had a "significant psychiatric background".

McCormac was "a person with an unusually fragile personality" and the incident had been "an overreaction to a perceived slight". He said McCormac had suffered "a very real sanction" in being barred from his only social outlet.

[ForzaWexford]

Feck. Lucky he wasn't a fiver short!

Something not very similar happened me once. I was working in a bookies and the manager was on with me. She took a fairly large bet on a horse, and 2/1 was written on the docket. She looked at the screen or whatever and said "that price is gone into 15/8 there now". It must have only just changed because the punter never gets his prices wrong, he didnt mind though.

Stranger, from somewhere in Ulster, comes up to me 3 seconds later with a €20 bet on the same horse at 2/1. I had to say 15/8 because I didnt want the manager to think I was slacking or the other punter to think we were ripping him off. Anyway yer man went beserk. Started f*cking and blinding and banging the counter and everything. Thought he was gonna over and lay me out! I gave him the don't take it personally spiel and tried to explain how the computer wouldn't accept it, but he was having none of it. Called me every name under the sun.

Anyway the horse won. Customer A leaves us €50, probably feeling sorry for us!. Customer B reacted like he won the lotto, collected his docket, walked out towards the door. Stopped, kicked a bin over and threw a pile of dockets on the ground. Turned around and said "Off to lose your money across the road now", and away to Paddypowers he went.

Not quite on the same level as breaking 27 television screens I suppose.......

[tricky_colour]

Reminds me of the time when Ladbrokes used to rig the starting prices of winning horses in the 1990's, if you backed a horse at 12-1 you could be sure if it won it would be cut to 10-1 if it came in first, despite having been solid at 12-1 prior to the race. So bookmakers only have themselves to blame. Ladbrokes incidently addmited to the price rigging.
If you are going to bet you are better of doing it through a betting exchange online, there prices are much better then the rip-off prices bookies give. I was looking at some prices for Cheltenham online and the over round at an exchange was less then 104% IIRC whereas at a big book makers it was about 116% and sometimes a lot more.
I must open an account with one of these exchanges, I have two accounts with big bookmakers but I don't use then for bettting (just poker) because their margins are so big everything is unbackable. On the exchanges they often have a smaller margin than in poker (a 5% rake or the equivilent of an 'overround' of 105%) so at least you have a fighting chance of making a bit of money.

[Bondvillain]

Reminds me of the time when Ladbrokes used to rig the starting prices of winning horses in the 1990's, if you backed a horse at 12-1 you could be sure if it won it would be cut to 10-1 if it came in first, despite having been solid at 12-1 prior to the race. So bookmakers only have themselves to blame.

A madhead with mental issues causes criminal damage to a PadddyPowers shop because the price fell before a race was off, and Paddy Powers only have themselves to blame because Ladbrokes allegedly changed starting prices after the off, some 10 years before the incident?

Okeydoke.

Ladbrokes used to rig the starting prices of winning horses in the 1990's (....) Ladbrokes incidently addmited to the price rigging.

I was unaware of this (which doesnt mean jack, as I am unaware of a lot of things) but I hope you're 100% on those facts, as I know that there are some senior folks in the betting industry who use these forums regularly.

[ForzaWexford]

I think tricky_colour might be right in what he's saying. Ladbrokes have a lot of on course books so it wouldn't be hard to do.

Another trick that's played is that a horse might be 10/1. It starts playing up and looks like it won't start. Gets cut into 8/1. Withdrawn. Rule 4 of 10p on the winning horse now as opposed to the 5p Rule 4 which some (most?) bookies don't take out.

[Bondvillain]

I think tricky_colour might be right in what he's saying. Ladbrokes have a lot of on course books so it wouldn't be hard to do.

I appreciate what you're saying, It certainly would not be difficult to pull off, but saying its not difficult to do and saying "they did it" are two different things. Im just suggesting that care and tact may be required. Saying

"Ladbrokes used to rig the starting prices of winning horses in the 1990's" (....) "Ladbrokes incidently addmited to the price rigging"

is a printed allegation of complicity in criminal behaviour stated as fact. Without relevant evidence, this is libel.

Im not for a second stating that the relevent evidence doesnt exist, just that I haven't seen it, and as far as solicitors are concerned, anecdotes and "mights" wont cut it.

[tricky_colour]

A madhead with mental issues causes criminal damage to a PadddyPowers shop because the price fell before a race was off, and Paddy Powers only have themselves to blame because Ladbrokes allegedly changed starting prices after the off, some 10 years before the incident?

Okeydoke.


I was unaware of this (which doesnt mean jack, as I am unaware of a lot of things) but I hope you're 100% on those facts, as I know that there are some senior folks in the betting industry who use these forums regularly.

On the first point, it's funny how prices always seem to go in before the start of a race, and also I think you should remember it was his money which paid for those televisions in the first place.
If they were not so keen to exploit his gambling then it would not have happened in the first place.

I am 100% sure of the facts about Ladbrokes price rigging. I remember having to always take the price because of it, and I still do.
Write to Ladbrokes asking them to deny it if you like, it would be interesting to see the response as I am sure there is documentary evidence of it somewhere.

If they want to sue me for liable then fair enough. The fact is that Ladbrokes are proven price rigging cheats.
If they disagree they can always sue me, but that won't happen.

[Schumi]

On the first point, it's funny how prices always seem to go in before the start of a race, and also I think you should remember it was his money which paid for those televisions in the first place.
If they were not so keen to exploit his gambling then it would not have happened in the first place.

So if they didn't run a betting company, their betting shop wouldn't have been smashed up?

[tricky_colour]

So if they didn't run a betting company, their betting shop wouldn't have been smashed up?

Yes, cleary this was a vunerable man and they treated him very badly, banning him from the shop, they got no more than they deserved.
Lets hope he goes back in next week when they have got some new TV's in.
Be interesting to see if they kick him out again

[osarusan]

Yes, cleary this was a vunerable man and they treated him very badly, banning him from the shop, they got no more than they deserved.

What a load of garbage.


He abused a staff member because he got 2 quid less than he expected.
She barred him because of the abuse.
He gets angry and causes 17,000 euros worth of damage.


He should be grateful they aren't pursuing the matter further.

No matter how you try and spin it, it has nothing to do with Ladbrokes price-rigging.

[tricky_colour]

What a load of garbage.


He abused a staff member because he got 2 quid less than he expected.
She barred him because of the abuse.
He gets angry and causes 17,000 euros worth of damage.


He should be grateful they aren't pursuing the matter further.

No matter how you try and spin it, it has nothing to do with Ladbrokes price-rigging.

There was a dispute and rather than resolve it amicably they banned him,
notice they had no problem taking his money.
Becomes a slightly differnt matter when it comes to paying it out though does't it? Like Ladbrokes they want to have a 'second chop' at it.
I don't know why you are defending a business so associated with cheating.


It could have easilly been made very clear to him what his bet involved before
they took his money from, rather than do that they just took his money from
him and sorted it out after the race when they could tell him to bugger off if he didn't like their 'unbiased' judgement.

Funny how Ladbrokes is allowed to continue taking money after they had been found to be cheating, how come they were not banned?

There is no point in taking the matter futher because they no doubt have all his money anyway.

And as I said at the end of the day he paid for their tellys in the first place.

[kingdom hoop]

he paid for their tellys in the first place.

Funny, that's the same type of defence I used after I smashed the windscreen of a Garda car at the weekend. Worked a charm so it did.

[Raheny Red]

There was a dispute and rather than resolve it amicably they banned him,
notice they had no problem taking his money.
Becomes a slightly differnt matter when it comes to paying it out though does't it? Like Ladbrokes they want to have a 'second chop' at it.
I don't know why you are defending a business so associated with cheating.


It could have easilly been made very clear to him what his bet involved before
they took his money from, rather than do that they just took his money from
him and sorted it out after the race when they could tell him to bugger off if he didn't like their 'unbiased' judgement.

Funny how Ladbrokes is allowed to continue taking money after they had been found to be cheating, how come they were not banned?

There is no point in taking the matter futher because they no doubt have all his money anyway.

And as I said at the end of the day he paid for their tellys in the first place.

Look, you got away easily with the €17,000 worth of damage you caused - get on with it. You should have pleaded this case with the judge and not the folk of foot.ie

[Bondvillain]

There was a dispute and rather than resolve it amicably they banned him.

If some dirtbird broke up €17,000 worth of my stuff, I'd consider the fact that he was still able to walk proof that I acted very amicably indeed.
Just Banning him after he terrorised retail staff and caused serious damage with a deadly weapon wasnt just "amicable". In those circumstances, it was downright loving.
He's a psychopath, a criminal, & a danger to society, and he got away lightly. Your argument that his violent and life-endangering acts were 'alright' because bookies take peoples money and therefore deserve it, is frankly astonishing. The League of Gentlemen would reject it as a sketch for being too bizarre.

(As for the rest of your posts, yeah, I get it, you hate Ladbrokes. However, Kind as your offer was, I won't be writing to them to verify your accusations, as

A) I dont personally care whether they performed the criminal activities that you've accused them of or not,
B) I use another bookmaker, &
C) Some of their senior office staff read this board themselves.

Im sure, though, that the moderators of this board will be pleased that you've "cast-iron" backed up your accusations of Ladbrokes complicity in fraud, collusion, monopolisation, criminal behaviour, breach of licencing, breach of trust, acting against Turf Board directives , financial irregularities & deception etc. etc. with an assurance that you are " sure there is documentary evidence of it somewhere." , because if you were wrong, and you were simply bringing up incorrect anecdotal hearsay of incidents that you assumed were correct from over 10 years ago, they wouldn't just sue you, they'd sue Foot.ie too...)

[tricky_colour]

If some dirtbird broke up €17,000 worth of my stuff, I'd consider the fact that he was still able to walk proof that I acted very amicably indeed.
Just Banning him after he terrorised retail staff and caused serious damage with a deadly weapon wasnt just "amicable". In those circumstances, it was downright loving.
He's a psychopath, a criminal, & a danger to society, and he got away lightly. Your argument that his violent and life-endangering acts were 'alright' because bookies take peoples money and therefore deserve it, is frankly astonishing. The League of Gentlemen would reject it as a sketch for being too bizarre.

(As for the rest of your posts, yeah, I get it, you hate Ladbrokes. However, Kind as your offer was, I won't be writing to them to verify your accusations, as

A) I dont personally care whether they performed the criminal activities that you've accused them of or not,
B) I use another bookmaker, &
C) Some of their senior office staff read this board themselves.

Im sure, though, that the moderators of this board will be pleased that you've "cast-iron" backed up your accusations of Ladbrokes complicity in fraud, collusion, monopolisation, criminal behaviour, breach of licencing, breach of trust, acting against Turf Board directives , financial irregularities & deception etc. etc. with an assurance that you are " sure there is documentary evidence of it somewhere." , because if you were wrong, and you were simply bringing up incorrect anecdotal hearsay of incidents that you assumed were correct from over 10 years ago, they wouldn't just sue you, they'd sue Foot.ie too...)

You chose your name well BondVillan because you are siding with the bad guys here. Are you a bookmaker by any chance?

AND LADBROKES DID USED TO RIG THEIR STARTRING PRICES - FACT.

Foot.ie do not need to worry about getting sued because it is TRUE and it will be in the newspaper archives.

Ladbrokes would not even attempt to sue because it would be a big hit on
their business if it made the headlines again.

Maybe I should pop down Ladbrokes and ask them there about it?
But maybe they would kick me out

So there you have it:- LADBROKES = PROVEN CHEATS.

And of course Ladbrokes never compensated it's victims.

[Bondvillain]

LADBROKES DID USED TO RIG THEIR STARTRING PRICES - FACT.

So there you have it:- LADBROKES = PROVEN CHEATS.

Where do I have "it" exactly?

Now really, you cant be suggesting that repeating your allegations all over again IN A VERY LOUD VOICE counts as proof, can you?


Are you Lionel Hutz?

[osarusan]

Are you Lionel Hutz?

no, this guy is.



Tricky Colour, your argument sounds to me like you are very pi$$ed off at Ladbrokes for what they did many years ago, and as a result, you feel that anything bad which happens to bookies is ok, because "they deserve it".

But this case has nothing to do with Ladbrokes. It's a different bookies.

The guy's winnings were 2 euros less than he expected. We (or I at least) don't know how this came about. You seem to think that the teller took his bet at a certain odds, but paid him at lower odds. I've spent a fair bit of time in a bookies, and never seen this happen. If he had written the odds on the docket, and the docket was accepted and stamped, I'm very confident that the teller would have paid him the winnings according to the odds written on his docket, regardless of what odds the horse finally won at.

I'd say it is far more likely that he didn't write any odds at all, but remembered what the odds had been at the time he wrote the docket. The odds subsequently went in (fractionally, we can assume, given the difference was only 2 euros), and he was paid according to the final winning odds.

Now, both cases are just speculation on my part. But the next bit isn't - he was out by 2 euros. 2 euros, for God's sake. Because of this, he abuses a female member of staff, and gets banned. He gets a taxi home to get a sledgehammer, and causes 17,000 euros worth of damage.

Paddy Power decide not to seek compensation from him.

The guy engaged in dangerous pre-meditated criminal behaviour because of what his own lawyer called "a perceived slight".

And you say that Bondvillain is "siding with the bad guys"?

[tricky_colour]

no, this guy is.



Tricky Colour, your argument sounds to me like you are very pi$$ed off at Ladbrokes for what they did many years ago, and as a result, you feel that anything bad which happens to bookies is ok, because "they deserve it".

But this case has nothing to do with Ladbrokes. It's a different bookies.

The guy's winnings were 2 euros less than he expected. We (or I at least) don't know how this came about. You seem to think that the teller took his bet at a certain odds, but paid him at lower odds. I've spent a fair bit of time in a bookies, and never seen this happen. If he had written the odds on the docket, and the docket was accepted and stamped, I'm very confident that the teller would have paid him the winnings according to the odds written on his docket, regardless of what odds the horse finally won at.

I'd say it is far more likely that he didn't write any odds at all, but remembered what the odds had been at the time he wrote the docket. The odds subsequently went in (fractionally, we can assume, given the difference was only 2 euros), and he was paid according to the final winning odds.

Now, both cases are just speculation on my part. But the next bit isn't - he was out by 2 euros. 2 euros, for God's sake. Because of this, he abuses a female member of staff, and gets banned. He gets a taxi home to get a sledgehammer, and causes 17,000 euros worth of damage.

Paddy Power decide not to seek compensation from him.

The guy engaged in dangerous pre-meditated criminal behaviour because of what his own lawyer called "a perceived slight".

And you say that Bondvillain is "siding with the bad guys"?

You know no more about the facts of the matter than I do.
What you do know is that the man a "significant psychiatric background" and
clearly they with him very badly. It is highly unlikey that this man was doing
anything other than throwing his money away at that particular bookmakers.
No doubt they were more than happy to take it. Exploiting a vunerable person. The judge awarded them bugger all in damages, which is a good
indication of his opinion of the situation, had the judgement been any worse
for PaddyPower, he would have fined them!!!
Thought it was nice that he said it was a 'matter of conscience' whether he paid any compensation because it is rather unfairly a 'matter of conscience'
for the bookmaker as to whether they paid out or not.

So well done to Mr McCormac not only has he taught Paddy Power a lesson in customer care he has no doubt saved himself a fortune in the process.

It is absolutely digusting that PP sought to rob this guy of the the princely sum of 2 Euros when there is little doubt they would have got it back on the
next race anyway. I don't think that 2 euro would have made much of a dint
in PP's 78 million profits somehow, at least not as much as a dint as
Mr McCormac made in their tellys

Maybe if they had spent more on staff training than on flashy TV's they would
not be having to replace them.

[osarusan]

You know no more about the facts of the matter than I do.

Agreed.

What you do know is that the man a "significant psychiatric background" and
clearly they with him very badly.

Do you think Paddy Power were aware of his psychiatric background? (oh, this guy's a definite nutter, he's exactly the kind of guy we want to get 2 extra euro from)

And there is no evidence to suggest they treated him "badly". For me at least, it's not difficult to imagine that a guy with a "significant psychiatric background", who was still angry enough to smash the place up after a taxi ride home to get his sledgehammer might have said some pretty rough stuff in the bookies. On what do you base your opinion that he was clearly treated badly?

It is highly unlikey that this man was doing
anything other than throwing his money away at that particular bookmakers.

He'd just won on the only bet we know about.

No doubt they were more than happy to take it.

They're a bookies.
Do you begrudge bookies the right to take money from people trying to take it off them?

Exploiting a vunerable person.

Please explain how, without knowing if Paddy Power were aware of his psychiatric condition or not (unlikely they were, in my opinion), and without knowing it transpired that Paddy Power offered him 2 euros less than he expected, you can say that they were "exploiting a vulnerable person"?

It is absolutely digusting that PP sought to rob this guy of the the princely sum of 2 Euros

'rob' is a pretty strong word. What evidence do you have to back it up?

[micls]

I think the man was in fact Tricky Colour. Its the only thing that explains his posts....