racingmeridian.com

Here’s the truth; there’s always more at stake than fithy lucre when a bet is consummated. It’s painful to lose cash but far more onerous is the psychological damage wrought from being wrong while your adversary is proven right. While people usually own up to their financial obligations, the desire to fudge or deny the nature of the bet can often reveal the character, or lack thereof, of an individual. I ended a friendship over a bet once; here, you can see whether I overreacted or if “cutting my losses” and ditching the loser was the best approach.

The year is 1991 and the Meridian is enthralled with the play of a certain Eric Lindros, a star with the Oshawa Generals of the OHL. He’s fast, mobile and mean, and a terror in front of the opposition’s net. During a conversation with a very close friend, I mention my impression of Lindros. To my surprise, I’m met with disagreement. Vehement disagreement. I’m told Lindros is a slow, overrated bully who will be exposed when he arrives in the NHL. In fact, my friend posits, he won’t even get 50 points in his rookie year. I’m astounded but clearly the foundations of a wager are afoot. The bet, for a not inconsiderable sum, is brokered with this definition; the Meridian holds that Eric Lindros will get 50 points or more in his rookie year in the NHL.

Time passes. Lindros is drafted by Quebec and refuses to report. More time passes and Lindros opts to sit out the 1991-92 season. Around February or March of 1992 my, ahem, pal, suddenly pipes up, hey, it’s too bad you lost the bet, time for you to pay up. I’m stunned. What? WTF? According to my friend, Lindros, by sitting out, has given up the possibility of scoring 50 points and thus, I lose. I’m thinking do you really want to go down this path? Do I need to actually show you the definition of a rookie? More importantly, though, is the spirit of the bet, the lynchpin of our disagreement; is Lindros going to be a successful player in his rookie year. How does Lindros’s refusal to play in anyway impact our central assertions? Who would ever claim a players rookie year commences from the time he is eligible to play in the league and not when he actually starts to engage in NHL hockey? (For reference, see Sergei Makarov, 1989-90 Rookie of the Year at the spry age of 31).

Now, if I was Cary Grant or something, I’m sure I would have peeled off the coin and paid the man and walked away. But I was just too shocked, too blindsided. And this was not the kind of money one carried around on their person. It was, instead, an ugly confrontation. I realize this dude just wants the money, and will twist and connive to get his way.

Lindros, as a rookie, recorded 41 goals and 34 assists for the Philadelphia Flyers in the 1992-93 season. I never collected on the bet. Never even attempted to. And the friendship just kind of dissolved. I never consciously said, that’s it!, but I never could forgive the man for his unseemly attempt to massage the terms of the wager. I viewed him as sleazy and sordid thereafter, and let our friendship just fade away…

Now, did I lose a friendship because of a bet? Or did the circumstances of our wager reveal the real character and nature of the person? What would you have done?

Now here’s the bizarre transcript to the tale. Years later who walks into my local but..Eric Lindros. I end up sitting at a table with him having a few beers and a nice discussion. Hell yes, a few pops in, I tell him the story of the bet. He laughs and saids the guy sounds like a ”real jerk”.

Who am I to argue with Eric Lindros?