£260,000 bet LADBROKES DID NOT PAY. WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH ?

Just reading the book. Anyone have an opinion as I am confused.

If we are talking about the derby trifecta of many years ago laddies were in the right .. they actualy offered a multiple payout on the forecasts as they were not betting on the tricast about £1,500 .. the claimiants persisted until it transpired they were under 18 then got money back £4.50.

The book i think you are talking about is David Ashworth hitting the turf .. a great read and Ashforth is no friend of the bookies as honest as they come and and a real journalist.

think il get that book. tar

minardi

I know what you say is true about that derby trifecta I was surprised more didn't come of it could Ladbrokes have opened the door for anybody under 18 to claim all there losing bets back ?

no its not that

its about a £10 each way acca that they refused to pay

Is this a quiz?

Ah thank you for telling us.

its called straight from horses mouth by keith hughan

OK the suspense is killing me, what happened.

Ambiguous fred.

£24 on amazon - give it a miss. Blurb about a 66/1 winner and gentelmens agreements.

This is from 2004, not much else on google. Does sound a definite dodge by the big firm.The website listed seems to also have gone.

The Woodhatch bus driver who wrote a book about how his life was turned upside down over an unpaid bet worth £260,000 by bookmakers Ladbrokes, has found a publisher and his story could even be made into a film.

Keith Hughan, 45, was featured in the Life last July after he penned the book entitled Straight from the horses mouth' which detailed his downturn in fortunes since he put an £11 pound bet on a five-horse accumulator at the Woodhatch branch of Ladbrokes, which should have netted him £260,000.

His 10-year fight to claim back his money led to a spell in prison and the break-up of his family, after Ladbrokes refused to pay out because they say the bet was not recorded on the shop's security camera.

Keith said: "I've finally got the book published by an online publisher, after so many publishers were worried about it being too controversial and didn't want their names put to it.

"But we got round that by using my own ISBN 0954911202 Ladcrookes publishing', so I take full responsibly for it."

Keith hopes the book will be a success and will be enjoyed by everyday people, as well as racing fans.

Keith added: "I hope to make some money from it and I have had a couple of people in the media suggesting it would make a good film for the TV."

You can order Keith's book from any Ottackers bookstore nationwide and you can also see more information about Keith and his ongoing battle with Ladbrokes on his website www.ladcrooks.com.

If the bet was not on the security camera, the very real possibility exists that the acca was placed after the results were known (with the collusion of a betting shop staff member). No wonder they didn't pay.

Nothing to see here.

Maybe that was his argument, it should have been but wasn't, staff error, not sure of the details as not read the book. All history now.

Given how his life turned out after the bet you would have to say he was suffering from some genuine distress and adds weight to him being an innocent party in the event.

Had he been in collusion might he just accept he got busted and moved on with his life.

Always struck me as a bit of a simpletons fraud, whats the chances that the only bet not to go through the camera was the one that hit the jackpot. I would really like to hear the bookies side to this:

Did the punter have a habit of placing 25,000/1 accumulators with a £20 stake (note to self to get a highly paid bus drivers job)
Did the other bets around it get put through the camera
Did the staff on duty have a chronic habit of not putting bets through.

read the book sounds genuine

Many times when customers used to put multiple slips on and the cashier or myself used race through the till and camera with them it wasnt uncommon for one slip to overlap another making it out of view of the camera.

If this guy just did one £10 acca then that would look very sus to me.

read the book sounds genuine

the author (who was the bet placer by coincidence) was never likely to tell you in his book that he made it up when he was trying to get paid out by lads was he?

Not uncommon for Saturday staff not to put the bet through on accas and pocket the cash instead knowing it was unlikely to cop. Nice little earner .... unless it landed.

Not sure how busy this local laddies would have been or how many bets a day they take to understand how the not on camera issue occurred.

was there a camera watching the staff?

most peculiar story

What you would like to know if the cctv caught him putting the bet on.

no cctv in shops back then

o

cant find the book anywhere

I read it through Amazon. It sounded like a scam at first but its a hard one to call due to him being so passionate about his plight. Even though I hate ALL bookies I would be inclined to think they are right on this occasion. He had to many inconsistencies from the beginning. Its a good read but I reckon if it was your business you would think he was trying it on.

If the bet was genuine it should have been phoned through to head office (BAC) when the liability hit a certain amount, probably after three winners at reasonable prices, but certainly before the last one won. Obviously if the manager wasn't on the ball this may not have happened. So we now have a bet that wasn't on the camera and was missed by the manager/ settler, that copped for £260,000. Draw your own conclusions.

I have not read the book or the full story of how it all panned out, but surely if this was a scam and you've basically been caught out would, you then go through all of this rigmarole to then be thought of by each and everyone that you are a cheat/scammer? Without personally knowing the individual to make my own conclusions, we will probably never know the truth, but what is the cashier and managers version of events? Surely if it was all made up in the book and a scam Lads would be taking him to the cleaners (not sure if their brand could get any lower now though)!

It was not rang through because the settler/manager had already put it through as a loser because he misread the second selection. He said he placed the bet with a number of other bets early on in the day but stayed all day watching the racing but didnt check his slip until the next day. There were numerous things that dont add up. In my opinion he was in on it with the manager or counter staff and LadCrooks got on to it.

Wonder if the manager kept his job?

load off b I cant even get 20 pound on

I am sure the guy told loads of people that he was waiting for a horse to win and he would collect 260,000 quid.
These people he told would know if the guy was for real or not .
in fact I am surprised he did not ring the crooks and tell them that his bet might win,and that there would be 260 grand on it if it did win.

Here's some blurb to help promote his book:

Sledge was a good mate of mine. He only stood about 3 foot high and weighed 14lb, but we had some smashing times together Ladbrokes were a war unto themselves.

So assuming he's talking about taking a sledgehammer to some of Laddie's shop windows or whatever, that does seems a bit drastic for someone who apparently knows he was trying it on.....for that matter it's a bit drastic too for someone telling the truth but you can kind of understand it a bit more under that circumstance.

FAO Brassneck....Thats just one of the things that dont add up. If you put a few multiple bets on before racing starts, then stand in the shop until the last race, I'm pretty sure you would be checking to see how your bets where doing. He said he left the shop and only checked the next morning. There are quite a few of these things which to me says he was trying it on. I think the ongoing campaign is just so he doesnt look a total numpty to the people who believe him or he might think Crooks will pay him something to shut him up.

FAO antone who's still interested.......I've just reread the beginning of his book and it just doesnt sound right that he checked his bets and noticed that he had a massive win on one of his slips but didnt ask them to check it like his others he handed in. He also didnt show his best mate who was with him in the betting shop all day. He said he wanted to wait until the morning to recheck them in the paper. Why would anyone in their right mind not hand it in when he noticed he had four winners and start bouncing round with your best mate at the time. His explanation is so weak. He was also seen arriving at the investigation with the manager who was in the shop when he " placed " his bets.

I'm only saying what I've previously done here in the days when I've used shops but there have been times when say I might have fancied half a dozen horses and backed them all as single, but then had several slips in doubles, trebles and upwards and I was aware of what was winning with each of the single bets I had placed as each horse raced, yet often wouldn't know how the multiples had gone and how they were grouped until after checking the individual slips, as the thing that used to annoy me was that I might have has say 4-5 winners but they were all spread out, rather than all clustered together on the one slip.

I don't know where this punter was based but where I am you wouldn't be jumping around or telling anyone you stood to win £260 let alone £260k for fear or making yourself a target.

He did check his slips and handed three smaller winning ones in. He did see that he had a massive win at the same time but decided he didnt want to hand it in to get checked and didnt even mention it to his best mate who was with him. That says to me he hadnt written it out yet and had to finish it at home that night. Just read it again and thats how I read between the lines. His actions just didnt make sense then what happened after in the shop didnt.