B.C. Lottery faces lawsuit from second problem gambler

Comment #19

KY Floyd — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:15:52 GMT

It sounds like you have no idea what the agreement was. They'll throw you out if they know you're there, but they have no obligation to waste their time looking for the people who voluntarily promise not to show up, so they held up their end of it. The only one who broke the agreement is the guy who thinks other people are responsible for his personal shortcomings. He agreed not to show up and gamble, and he agreed that if he did show up he couldn't win anything. That's two ways that he broke th... [ More ]

Comment #18

LittleAsianguy — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:28:26 GMT

Exactly he signed a contract saying he knows the risk of having his jackpot or winnings taken from him. There's also other things in the contract like he can be fined up to a certain amount of money for being at the casino, that he's tresspassing and if caught to many times...the police maybe involved,and also he acknowledge there's a chance the casino staff might not catch him everytime he gambles ..but they do their best.

Comment #17

nanaimo — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:13:33 GMT

b.c casinos are regulated by b.c.l.c. british columbia lottery corporation, and they are very strict only when its in their favour,if the customer lost all his-hers money they dont care but if you win big they scrutunize very carefully and if your name is on the exclusion list they WILL NOT pay,its the bclc rules and regulations. so he has lost and mr.lee had the full knowledge about this fact,he will definitely lose his case the only winner will be his lawyer

Comment #16

rdgrnr — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:27:58 GMT

I see it as the Casino holding up their end of the deal.

He signed a contract that said they would not pay him his winnings.

It doesn't matter that they didn't catch him before, nobody's perfect.

If he wins in court, everybody gambling junkie with a contract will be tempted to do the same thing.

He claims they violated the contract by allowing him to play but he also violated the contract by playing so it's a wash.

It's called personal responsibility.

It's a great concept.... [ More ]

Comment #15

louise black — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:25:59 GMT

Self put on the list or not they allow him to play there fore he must be paid.He will win this one for the obvious reason,he played his money without interruption. Just like an alcoholic going to a bar where they know he was banned, because of his drunk driving,they still continues to service him cause he hadn't had an incident of drunk driving so far ,so they keep serving him until he's in another drunk driving accident. Should the Bar be held responsible. After all they took his money even whe... [ More ]

Comment #14

LittleAsianguy — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:58:40 GMT

Littleoldlady, that's not how it works. You pick how long you are banned from the self exclusion and you can write or ask them but they'll ignore you. Doesnt really what your reason for having a self ban ...you gotta serve your time in the self ban.

Comment #13

LittleAsianguy — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:54:53 GMT

In bc the self exclusion at the casino is 1 month,3 months,6 months,1 yr,2 yr and 3 yr. If your self exclusion hasnt ended you can beg,ask etc to be taking off self exclusion but they wont. You are banned for the duration you of the voluntary self exclusion and can be fined,kicked of of the casino,have your winnings taken from u etc. I choose the 3 yr self ban and i wont step anywhere near the casino...i dont wanna be embarassed and have my winnings taken from me.

Comment #12

Nino224 — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:14:53 GMT

Forgive me, but the whole concept of somebody else being responsible for your behavior is beyond absurd.

This sets a very dangerous precedent. From here, what's to keep somebody from creating a similar program for alcoholics, drug addicts or over-eaters, etc??

Hitting rock-bottom is part of the cure for whatever ails you.

Having said that, they broke the agreement. If they went ahead and took his money when he was losing then they should pay now that he won.

Comment #11

jeffrey — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:45:13 GMT

Sounds like a good deal for the casino. The guy is stupid and deserves to not win a thing. I hope he does the right thing and gets to teach the casino and expensive lesson within/outside of the law. Too many people get screwed in this life because of the golden rule. I for one am tired of this happening.

Comment #10

Hermanus104 — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:40:56 GMT

I think he's going to [expletive deleted] the $42,500 pretty quickly if he gets it.

The British Columbia Lottery really needs to start doing its job regarding keeping problem gamblers out of their casinos. An easy way to fix this would be to not have casinos. Of course, I'm not saying British Columbia should not have casinos; it's just one way of taking care of the problem.

Comment #9

rdgrnr — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 02:06:51 GMT

OK, thanks.

Comment #8

Littleoldlady — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:36:31 GMT

You can take yourself off the list. But the process takes a little longer..I think you have to send them a written statement or something. This second guy just put himself on the list because he had a new family and didn't want to lose his money gambling..he should have known how to budget his money..pay all bills, buy all food, save gas money, etc and last if there is any left over, then take a chance..that was dumb on his part.

Comment #7

rdgrnr — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:19:58 GMT

Can you take yourself off the list or is it permanent once you're on it

Comment #6

Keystone — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:19:50 GMT

Why would anyone be dumb enough to put their name on a list like that to begin with anyway! If you can't budget then have a relative or power of attorney handle your finances.................signing papers to give your jackpot money away to a casino boss is just plain stupid with a capital S.

Keystone

Comment #5

LittleAsianguy — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:15:12 GMT

Im on self exclusion also went into the casinos in bc to play. Was caught and had my small winnings taken from me. They usually show you the door if you're reconized. Even if he wins the lawsuit he'd eventually lose it gambling. They casino and staff cant catch everybody ...im sure they do their best. I know others who are on self exclusion also and they are afraid of being fined or embarassed. Last thing u want is to be playing a game which has a jackpot and having your huge winnings taken from... [ More ]

Comment #4

nanaimo — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:31:02 GMT

i agree, once you sign the exclusion papers it states very clearly that if you sneak in any b.c. casinos and win a jackpot ,you will not be entitled to claim it . mr.lee had signed that paper and knew very well about the consequences,in my opinion he will not win this case and above that he has to pay his lawyer i.e loser

Comment #3

Littleoldlady — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:39:01 GMT

One of the rules of the program is that he can't win any jackpots. I don't know why he would play if he put himself on that list. This is going to be VERY interesting.

Comment #2

PERDUE — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:17:33 GMT

They allowed him to cash in the smaller prizes and when he won a substantial amount then the casino want to keep the winnings? Hmmmmmmm. That is wrong on so many levels.

I would like to see how this work out in the courts. That is not to excuse or absolve Mr. Lee from his lack of self control nor of his being accountable for his actions. Once again we see the results of an unwillingness to tell oneself no and stick to it come hell or high water.

Is it easy? Heck no!! Never!! But it is poss... [ More ]

Comment #1

billyloco — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:53:56 GMT

Personnaly, I think Mr Lee has a darn good case!

Joy, on the other hand, keep on wishing

B.C. Lottery faces lawsuit from second problem gambler

Lottery Post — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:19:02 GMT

A Vancouver Island man is suing the British Columbia Lottery Corporation because the company denied him a $42,500 jackpot on the grounds he's a registered problem gambler although the BCLC has never stopped him from losing money.

At the time, Mike Lee was supposed to be barred from casinos entirely under the BCLC self-exclusion program, but his lawsuit contends that the company let him in and allowed him to gamble anyway.

It's unconscionable to allow someone that has gambling issues to le... [ More ]