IGX

I think Glassman has spent his money on attorneys well versed in this shit.

Shaf wrote:I think Glassman has spent his money on attorneys well versed in this shit.

I'm not sure why you think that. He is doing exactly everything a good laywer would tell him not to do. It would be malpractice to advise client to do what he's doing. That doesn't mean he's not getting good advice and ignoring it.

Glassman actually believes his own hype.

Read what the drones are writing on the cult site. They are out of their minds.

There is an ominous saying in NA...Stall Spin Crash Burn Die.

Stall=NYT Article
Spin=There Ain't No Arizona
Crash=Makimba Lawsuit
Burn=Trial
Die="Makimba Fund" Where all Afiiliates will be asked to kick in $1-5k to pay judgement, fees, and full time counselors for Couch.

Predict many affiliates Changing name to "ex-fit"

This is all very interesting and now makes my free "Uncle Rhabdo" shirt a collector's item. To think, I was going to give it away to some lucky IGx'er.

This all boils down to a trainer who, under the tutelage of @fit, presumably he paid his $1000 and got his cert, advising a first time client to do a workout without first evaluating his client. Even the "Insta Trainers" at 24hr Fatness do a routine evaluation on the machines before putting their clients through the paces. One cannot presume a former champion wrestler to just jump in and 45 burpees, squats, and thrusters without some prep.

PT brings up the other point; is @fit protected under their affiliate agreements? Something tells me yes, or they would have been named. Perhaps it was a personal jurisdiction question, but maybe not. @fit prides itself on being "open source" yet very protective of its "product." Plus use of the intraweb to deliver your "product" may just give a defendant what he needs to show "reaching in" to a state to do business. Either way, the GWF should be "unavailable for comment" as the ab g_d suggests.

I will take offers for my Uncle Rhabdo shirt.

This reminds me of a guy who was on trial for a DWI crash that injured somebody. Prosecutors pulled pics of his myspace the week before sentencing drunk at a party in a prisoner's outfit making light of the trial. He got the maximum.

These fuck sticks should STFU about pending litigation, not dedicate a day of their web presence to mocking their victim.

The mere fact of an agreement "protecting" CF from liability doesn't mean protection, per se. The affiliates lawyer should/will join CF in the suit and they'll battle it out there. Depending on what the plaintiff's attorney, and the plaintiff, can afford, can be very expensive for the defendant, in any case. Of course now that they've made the guy the goon of the interdwebs he'll fight harder.

Get some, get some more.

OK, I see what you're saying.

I figure Teh Couch had his legal stuff on par with regards to his affiliates. However, the remorseless baiting of the suer is not going to look very good to anyone.

They have a point. What kind of pussy faggot gets Rhabdo from that workout? If the guy was a competitive wrestler, I cannot see that happening to him from that workout.

Cultfit should thank their lucky stars the plaintiff isn't a middle-aged housewife, mom of 2, with no prior athletic training, who was driven into the red by a cultfit certified trainer at a cultfit affiliate location.

Question for the lawyers:

If x-fit says, "Omigod, we're sorry. We need to have more warnings and require scaling, etc," do they harm their case by acknowledging they should have been more careful?

But if x-fit says, "We're infuckingtense. Pukey and Rhabdo are our mates. Everyone who walks through the doors absolutely knows our workouts are hardcore because we advertise it and the press reports it," do they help their case by not admitting vulnerability and putting the responsibility clearly back on the defendant? If all the x-fitters say, "The guy is a pussy," does he in fact become a pussy by that community's standards, which are well known to anyone who participates?

You want safe, sign up at Curves.

Could that work, legally?

There must be similiar cases involving big box gyms and their clients. As silly as the suit seems it makes me very, very happy. Somone over at @fit threatend to sue me a few years ago. I won't say who he is but I'll give you a hint: bourbon

Bony Pudding?

Tom o'Bedlam wrote:Question for the lawyers:

If x-fit says, "Omigod, we're sorry. We need to have more warnings and require scaling, etc," do they harm their case by acknowledging they should have been more careful?

But if x-fit says, "We're infuckingtense. Pukey and Rhabdo are our mates. Everyone who walks through the doors absolutely knows our workouts are hardcore because we advertise it and the press reports it," do they help their case by not admitting vulnerability and putting the responsibility clearly back on the defendant? If all the x-fitters say, "The guy is a pussy," does he in fact become a pussy by that community's standards, which are well known to anyone who participates?

You want safe, sign up at Curves.

Could that work, legally?

The general rule is that changes after an event are not admissible in evidence.

If they don't change, and someone else sues, then the prior notice and inaction are admissible in evidence. Thus the best advice in a situation like this is to do the right thing, give people information they can use to do the work outs smart and safe and to know the risks from pushing limits when you're not in top shape.

The "only tough guys need apply" works only if you clearly tell people this. Risk is probably obvious if you join a boxing club; rhabdo is not so obvious from a 30-minute calisthenic drill. Looking at their injury forum, they don't seem to be very good at teaching people how to scale.

Telling adrenaline junkies to scale is like telling heroine junkies to moderate their dope usage. It’s ridiculous. The injury forum is a testimony to this absurdity.

I'd gladly contribute to the Makimba Mimms Legal Fund.

Funny that they did the video tune Hakunnah Mattata. Fucking hilarious.
A trial lawyer will crucify them for their racial baiting, but who am I to judge anything about race?

Bourban Drinker?

Rant wrote:There must be similiar cases involving big box gyms and their clients. As silly as the suit seems it makes me very, very happy. Somone over at @fit threatend to sue me a few years ago. I won't say who he is but I'll give you a hint: bourbon

Barry Cooper. I liked it when he got the banning for his Ben Grindle debate on pull-ups.

Good times, good times.

PlainTalk wrote:

Tom o'Bedlam wrote:Question for the lawyers:

If x-fit says, "Omigod, we're sorry. We need to have more warnings and require scaling, etc," do they harm their case by acknowledging they should have been more careful?

But if x-fit says, "We're infuckingtense. Pukey and Rhabdo are our mates. Everyone who walks through the doors absolutely knows our workouts are hardcore because we advertise it and the press reports it," do they help their case by not admitting vulnerability and putting the responsibility clearly back on the defendant? If all the x-fitters say, "The guy is a pussy," does he in fact become a pussy by that community's standards, which are well known to anyone who participates?

You want safe, sign up at Curves.

Could that work, legally?

The general rule is that changes after an event are not admissible in evidence.

If they don't change, and someone else sues, then the prior notice and inaction are admissible in evidence. Thus the best advice in a situation like this is to do the right thing, give people information they can use to do the work outs smart and safe and to know the risks from pushing limits when you're not in top shape.

The "only tough guys need apply" works only if you clearly tell people this. Risk is probably obvious if you join a boxing club; rhabdo is not so obvious from a 30-minute calisthenic drill. Looking at their injury forum, they don't seem to be very good at teaching people how to scale.

Remedial measures can be used to show control. So, if changes are made in the certs or affiliates are asked to carefully screen every new client, then the plaintiff can show @fit had control

Throwing up is encouraged? This guy is a fucking retard.

http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=35664&page=4

"You aren't cool unless...you pee your pants!"

Shaf wrote:

Code: Select all

So, I saw this and had to post. I have a contract with the Army and train a new 30 every month. As trainers and owners of affiliates we hopefully understand that there exists a mutual responsibility. When my folks come in the first thing they are briefed on is Rhabdo, Passing Out, and throwing up...first two are no go and the last is encouraged...

Throwing up is encouraged? This guy is a fucking retard.

http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=35664&page=4

The Royal Mounted Bulimics are fucking bad ass.

odin wrote:

Shaf wrote:

Code: Select all

So, I saw this and had to post. I have a contract with the Army and train a new 30 every month. As trainers and owners of affiliates we hopefully understand that there exists a mutual responsibility. When my folks come in the first thing they are briefed on is Rhabdo, Passing Out, and throwing up...first two are no go and the last is encouraged...

Throwing up is encouraged? This guy is a fucking retard.

http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=35664&page=4

The Royal Mounted Bulimics are fucking bad ass.

=D> =D> =D>
. . .oh, Jim Glover was called out for being a critic of @fit, yet posts on the comments. The retardedness of the @fit community never ceases to amaze. I still have friends who run affiliates and I wonder what keeps them hanging on when cooch is clearly running off the rails.

And when the hell are we going on the radio? Set it up, oh Foxy one.

What?

Where was I called out?

And fuck @fit I fucking hate those douchebags.

Edit

Never mind I found it.

They love to eat their own young over there.

http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=35311

Once more CrossFitters know what's best for Olympic athletes.

Notice how the conversation quiets down by page 6 after all of the people who "should be eating better" completely dominated their events.