Moderator: Dux
Stock Tip!I'm looking forward to see how the Reebok brand mutates in order to confirm with the Crossfit norm. Reebok will undoubtedly start introducing products that target the Crossfit community, imagine being a company of their magnitude with the opportunity to commercially distribute a complete line of sporting goods for a new, untouched, upcoming craze such as Crossfit. I'd be loving it if I were on the Reebok staff...(stock tip!)
This could get interesting.Hebrew Hammer wrote:Not legal advice, but by way of explanation:Danny John wrote:It has been a long time, since 1977, since I took any kind of law class, but one thing still screams out to me from, I believe, Business Law class: in a court case with a jury, Common Sense trumps even expert testimony...if I remember right. So, Reebok can put this ER medic up there and say that this will all be "false positives," but then the family of the firefighter can simply put anyone (and really just about anyone) on the stand and walk through what we just read and "common sense" would tell us that a gradual approach, maybe a check up, "something" would be in order.
I'm sorry to hear this. It also hurt me to hear that he died alone.
Someone close to me asked me if she should help open a crossfit affiliate in a small town with a globo gym and a couple of private studios. Her idea was to "get certified" and then buy all the equipment and start teaching. She doesn't know the difference between an Olympic bar and a dumbbell and she will be teaching snatches in a few weeks...
Technically the way it works is that a plaintiff needs to find an expert medical professional to opine something like it's more likely than not that the negligence of the instructor caused or partially caused the death. That requires looking at questions like if the trainer had done a screen, would the trainer have noted problems that would have led him to change the workout? Should a crossfit trainer require a physician's green light before starting a newbie on a crossfit workout? Absent the crossfit workout, or that extreme of a workout, would he have died anyday?
Without an expert opinion, you don't get to the jury; your case is dismissed.
Presumably the defendant would then obtain an expert with a different conclusion. The jury then applies its common sense in figuring out which opinion to believe.
(Another issue might be whether the trainer warned the guy that the workout would be extreme, and that the guy should be in good enough shape to deal with an extreme workout. Given the history and the jokes regarding rhabdo, pukie, and injuries, a trainer should do that and my hunch is that a trainer might legally be required to do so to argue that the guy knowingly assumed the risk.)
Because, when you're addicted to exercise:A much needed article and discussion. My wife and I crossfit from our home garage gym and have been following the main site for over a year. During that time we have made fantastic gains in fitness and strength.
Unfortunately, we have both suffered MRI confirmed herniated cervical discs during this time. Arm numbness, tricep weakness, and burning into our finger tips were the primary symptoms. I attribute our injuries to poor flexibility, mediocre technique and being bull headed (i.e., doing crossfit).
The worst symptom of our injuries was "Depression". We commit a tremendous amount of ourselves into the WOD, and the prospect of losing ground or going backward really bummed us out.
But other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?Yes I Have Balls wrote:Being eleeeeeet has it's price:
My wife and I crossfit from our home garage gym and . . . we have made fantastic gains in fitness and strength.
Unfortunately, we have both suffered MRI confirmed herniated cervical discs
I think in this case CrossFit, Inc. would testify against the trainers if there were a lawsuit and if called to come in. At least, if they weren't affiliates in the RRG (which they almost certainly weren't). They'd probably do the same if this were a rhabdo case. That's my bet.Gin Master wrote: This could get interesting.
I think a medical expert would be stopped short of opining that the trainer was negligent. However, each side would also tender a fitness training expert to testify about the reasonableness of the trainers' actions here. Under the current federal rules for experts (702 and Daubert, for the law dawgs), the judge must determine whether the experty's testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, is based upon reliable principles and methods, and has been applied reliably to the case.
The reliability prong is key. Factors indicating reliability include empirical testing, peer review and publication, error rate, standards, and acceptance within the scientific community.
What all this means is that only a qualified (by the court) expert is going to be allowed to testify about whether the trainers here were negligent. In other words, any would-be expert is going to have to be a big dog in one of the national accredited organizations with a slew of publications to boot.
So a non-@Fer will have to take the stand to try to defend @F. He will then be asked questions such as:
"you're not an @Fer, are you?"
"why not?"
"is @F recognized by any of accrediting bodies?"
"why not?"
"has @F been criticized in the exercise community for lack of standards, lack of safety, and lack of experience?"
"is @F aware of injuries occuring within their community?"
"let's talk about exhibit 100--screen shots from the @F injury forums"
"and exhibit 101--the Couch thread" (no bullshit; I just tried a federal case where defendant put youtube vids into evidence)
etc.
Now, this case could still be saved if the medical expert testifies that MI couldn't be detected no matter safe the trainers were, which is probably going to be the case. If their negligence was not the proximate cause of the death, @F will skate by.
I see this being an uphill case for the plaintiff. If it was a rhabdo case, it would be a walk the other way.
didn't glasshole already do that with that navy ding dong?tzg wrote:I think in this case CrossFit, Inc. would testify against the trainers if there were a lawsuit and if called to come in. At least, if they weren't affiliates in the RRG (which they almost certainly weren't). They'd probably do the same if this were a rhabdo case. That's my bet.
He didn't testify or give a deposition (HQ wasn't sued, I believe), but he did have a friendly conversation with the plaintiff's attorney. Make of it what you will.sanchezero wrote:didn't glasshole already do that with that navy ding dong?tzg wrote:I think in this case CrossFit, Inc. would testify against the trainers if there were a lawsuit and if called to come in. At least, if they weren't affiliates in the RRG (which they almost certainly weren't). They'd probably do the same if this were a rhabdo case. That's my bet.
This is the genius of affliation. Unless it happens at a cert, CF Inc. will say "it wasn't us, trainer sucks". If it were a main page wad "trainer did it wrong". Unless couch killed you personally they are going to never take a hit and RRG is a fucking joke. The entire fund would be drained with 1-2 major suits if they fight every allegation. Look at all the SMEs. Every one is the best in the industry until they get shit canned. Now Wolf is a moron and Rip is stuck in the past and so on. It is actually pretty fucking brilliantthink in this case CrossFit, Inc. would testify against the trainers if there were a lawsuit and if called to come in.
Mr. Classy, Dale Saran steps in to quell the resistance....Yes I Have Balls wrote:Yeah, this is solid gold Jerry!WildGorillaMan wrote:YIHB, you do that guy a disservice by excerpting. His entire post was awesome.
Just jumping back on the original post, I think it's awesome that Reebok was ACCEPTED by Crossfit. I think a lot of people are coming to certain assumptions without understanding exactly what Coach wants to have happen with Crossfit and the sponsoring capabilities. I'm not getting into that, but it's all over his videos.
Just remember, Coach isn't going to sell out, HQ isn't going to sign anything that would affect Crossfit negatively. If anything, it would make more sense that Crossfit will have a large impact on Reebok and their future product line.
I'm looking forward to see how the Reebok brand mutates in order to confirm with the Crossfit norm. Reebok will undoubtedly start introducing products that target the Crossfit community, imagine being a company of their magnitude with the opportunity to commercially distribute a complete line of sporting goods for a new, untouched, upcoming craze such as Crossfit. I'd be loving it if I were on the Reebok staff...(stock tip!)
I'm looking forward to see how the Reebok brand mutates in order to CONFORM with the Crossfit norm.
It's always entertaining to listen to the experts on this thing (Yes, Jason Ashman, I'm talking about you). I don't recall you being in on the drafts of the agreement I was in on, but good on you for "knowing" and "explaining" it's ins and outs to all of us - who actually helped negotiate and draft it. Right now, I think I hold the only execute copy (on CF's side) of it in my file cabinet.
Let the "sell out" cries come. Whatever. We've been approached by dozens of companies offering massive amounts of cash to buy up affiliates, or regions, or other aspects, and all have been politely rejected. I still have the rejection letter I was asked to edit to a multi-million dollar TV deal from a major production company a few years back. And the "wheelbarrows of cash" mantra is always funny to me. Always written by people who have exactly zero experience in business negotiations. There was no giant check handed over to CF. None. I know, I was standing there at the signing with Coach, Reebok's Chairman, and their attorneys. Didn't happen.
And just to prove how little the naysayers know, Reebok and Adidas are owned by the same parent company. THEY (as in the owners of both companies) made the decision to select the marriage for CrossFit and Reebok - not Adidas.
As to the original point of the thread - I was there when Graham signed his sponsorship deal (as in at Reebok's HQ, not in the room). Graham is a great guy and ambassador, as well as being very conscientious about trying to represent himself, CF, and now Reebok, as well.
As to how this came to be - it's quite simple (mostly). Reebok HQ had some CF'ers who were high up in the food chain. They basically brought the idea together quickly and Reebok's management clearly was enthralled by the Games. Now they're the title sponsor. I have not received any "direction" from them, nor has anyone at HQ, about how to run CF - notwithstanding Mr. Ashman's claims that it is inevitable and that you all shouldn't kid yourselves. Reebok wants to be associated with our brand - and I may not care for "toning shoes" or some of their other products - but so what? They're the first company that's really put up or shut up when it comes to sponsoring CF and elevating it and being willing to stand behind it.
What I don't get is that no one was b#itching about Under Armour and its plastic-y shirts or shoes when they became a sponsor. No one thought the sky was falling then. But now because it's "Reebok" - the world is ending. Talk about amusing. And hypocritical. But the more important point is that there is NO "perfect" sponsor, whom everyone in CF is going to like or believe "fits" what we are, but it's time to grow up a little bit and join the adults at the big table for serious conversation. Reebok has shown they are committed to elevating our sport and athletes to a level that no one else was willing to - in short, they were bold and "got" our vision - and they have gotten behind it. As far as I'm concerned, that puts them way ahead of almost every other company we've spoken with. And I always think of it this way - what's more likely to happen: CrossFit(ters) to become "Reebok-ified" or Reebok to become more "CrossFit-ified"? The Games was streamed free last year and it is not a cheap event to put on, in terms of money or man-hours for CF. It could consume the company as it grows. We needed a sponsor for it - anyone with any business sense could see that. Voila. And Reebok agreed to sponsor while letting us control every aspect of it - i.e. running the event OUR way - and went way further in terms of their commitment to CF and CF athletes. They LOVE us and they genuinely want CF to help them remake their image from the Olivia Newton John, step-aerobic image that they can't seem to shake from the 80s, into something authentic and about fitness. Read up on this company (and their origins), you might be surprised (first company to sponsor an African American - Jesse Owens at the 1936 Berlin Olympics). They also dig what we've done in terms of elevating and empowering women in fitness. I'm not embarrassed, ashamed, or concerned about our relationship with them at all.
End of my rant.
This is interesting. By way of education, a lawyer should not disclose the terms of his client's deal (or discuss anything about the client's business) unless the client directs the lawyer to do so. If a lawyer repesents an entity, the entity needs to authorize it, which can be a tricky issue if the owners of the entity are at odds.Yes I Have Balls wrote:Mr. Classy, Dale Saran steps in to quell the resistance....Yes I Have Balls wrote:Yeah, this is solid gold Jerry!WildGorillaMan wrote:YIHB, you do that guy a disservice by excerpting. His entire post was awesome.
Just jumping back on the original post, I think it's awesome that Reebok was ACCEPTED by Crossfit. I think a lot of people are coming to certain assumptions without understanding exactly what Coach wants to have happen with Crossfit and the sponsoring capabilities. I'm not getting into that, but it's all over his videos.
Just remember, Coach isn't going to sell out, HQ isn't going to sign anything that would affect Crossfit negatively. If anything, it would make more sense that Crossfit will have a large impact on Reebok and their future product line.
I'm looking forward to see how the Reebok brand mutates in order to confirm with the Crossfit norm. Reebok will undoubtedly start introducing products that target the Crossfit community, imagine being a company of their magnitude with the opportunity to commercially distribute a complete line of sporting goods for a new, untouched, upcoming craze such as Crossfit. I'd be loving it if I were on the Reebok staff...(stock tip!)
I'm looking forward to see how the Reebok brand mutates in order to CONFORM with the Crossfit norm.
It's always entertaining to listen to the experts on this thing (Yes, Jason Ashman, I'm talking about you). I don't recall you being in on the drafts of the agreement I was in on, but good on you for "knowing" and "explaining" it's ins and outs to all of us - who actually helped negotiate and draft it. Right now, I think I hold the only execute copy (on CF's side) of it in my file cabinet.
Let the "sell out" cries come. Whatever. We've been approached by dozens of companies offering massive amounts of cash to buy up affiliates, or regions, or other aspects, and all have been politely rejected. I still have the rejection letter I was asked to edit to a multi-million dollar TV deal from a major production company a few years back. And the "wheelbarrows of cash" mantra is always funny to me. Always written by people who have exactly zero experience in business negotiations. There was no giant check handed over to CF. None. I know, I was standing there at the signing with Coach, Reebok's Chairman, and their attorneys. Didn't happen.
And just to prove how little the naysayers know, Reebok and Adidas are owned by the same parent company. THEY (as in the owners of both companies) made the decision to select the marriage for CrossFit and Reebok - not Adidas.
As to the original point of the thread - I was there when Graham signed his sponsorship deal (as in at Reebok's HQ, not in the room). Graham is a great guy and ambassador, as well as being very conscientious about trying to represent himself, CF, and now Reebok, as well.
As to how this came to be - it's quite simple (mostly). Reebok HQ had some CF'ers who were high up in the food chain. They basically brought the idea together quickly and Reebok's management clearly was enthralled by the Games. Now they're the title sponsor. I have not received any "direction" from them, nor has anyone at HQ, about how to run CF - notwithstanding Mr. Ashman's claims that it is inevitable and that you all shouldn't kid yourselves. Reebok wants to be associated with our brand - and I may not care for "toning shoes" or some of their other products - but so what? They're the first company that's really put up or shut up when it comes to sponsoring CF and elevating it and being willing to stand behind it.
What I don't get is that no one was b#itching about Under Armour and its plastic-y shirts or shoes when they became a sponsor. No one thought the sky was falling then. But now because it's "Reebok" - the world is ending. Talk about amusing. And hypocritical. But the more important point is that there is NO "perfect" sponsor, whom everyone in CF is going to like or believe "fits" what we are, but it's time to grow up a little bit and join the adults at the big table for serious conversation. Reebok has shown they are committed to elevating our sport and athletes to a level that no one else was willing to - in short, they were bold and "got" our vision - and they have gotten behind it. As far as I'm concerned, that puts them way ahead of almost every other company we've spoken with. And I always think of it this way - what's more likely to happen: CrossFit(ters) to become "Reebok-ified" or Reebok to become more "CrossFit-ified"? The Games was streamed free last year and it is not a cheap event to put on, in terms of money or man-hours for CF. It could consume the company as it grows. We needed a sponsor for it - anyone with any business sense could see that. Voila. And Reebok agreed to sponsor while letting us control every aspect of it - i.e. running the event OUR way - and went way further in terms of their commitment to CF and CF athletes. They LOVE us and they genuinely want CF to help them remake their image from the Olivia Newton John, step-aerobic image that they can't seem to shake from the 80s, into something authentic and about fitness. Read up on this company (and their origins), you might be surprised (first company to sponsor an African American - Jesse Owens at the 1936 Berlin Olympics). They also dig what we've done in terms of elevating and empowering women in fitness. I'm not embarrassed, ashamed, or concerned about our relationship with them at all.
End of my rant.
Its different in the age of the internet BB where a lawyer feels the "need" to defend his company's decision.Hebrew Hammer wrote:This is interesting. By way of education, a lawyer should not disclose the terms of his client's deal (or discuss anything about the client's business) unless the client directs the lawyer to do so. If a lawyer repesents an entity, the entity needs to authorize it, which can be a tricky issue if the owners of the entity are at odds.
Moving the goal posts.Ash Uber Alles wrote:Dale is full of shit because Jesse Owens wore Adidas.
Of course Dale is rewriting history because later on in time Adidas bought Reebok (or merged with, whatever)....
Their coaches must be eleet at something, 'cause "Coach Jess" is terrible at catching a 95lb clean:Kazuya Mishima wrote:More LULZ from Shoreline...they have badass programming...trust them.
http://www.shorelinecrossfit.com/2011/0 ... -maddness/
That is FULL of terrible, from the cluelessness, to the rationalizations, to the pictures. I can't tell if that one broad is doing sumo front squats or sumo cleans or what, and they all seem to have terrible flexibility b/c they can't stop their elbows from pointing straight down.Kazuya Mishima wrote:More LULZ from Shoreline...they have badass programming...trust them.
http://www.shorelinecrossfit.com/2011/0 ... -maddness/
Kazuya Mishima wrote:More LULZ from Shoreline...they have badass programming...trust them.
http://www.shorelinecrossfit.com/2011/0 ... -maddness/
