The couch thread

WildGorillaMan · Post by **WildGorillaMan** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:36 am

Turdacious wrote:
Crust Bucket wrote:Nice teaching BitchMac

Help me out because I didn't see the original-- did his trainee finish?

Is that POSE in action?

Holland Oates · Post by **Holland Oates** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:49 am

WildGorillaMan wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
Crust Bucket wrote:Nice teaching BitchMac

Help me out because I didn't see the original-- did his trainee finish?

Is that POSE in action?

That is an abortion.

The 70sbig crew aren't going bad mouth anyone involved with @fit since they are making money doing seminars at @fit gyms.

kreator · Post by **kreator** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:59 am

Jay wrote:70's big caters to koolaid drinkers, what did you expect?

Let's be honest, the only reason why its popular is because so @fitters can think they are strong.

Isn't 70s Big just a bunch of Rip disciples who can't think for themselves?

I read the comments on that article. Don't feel like posting there so if you're reading this:

MacKenzie is a moron, I've met him, I've done the program, I've done POSE. Realized it's full of pseudo-science and lies and have found greater success after moving on. (And stronger too, imagine that.)

POSE can work for some athletes, but it's just another technique in a big world. Treating it as the One True Running Method is just a bunch of dogmatic BS.

Oh yeah, I've yet to hear of a single ultra runner (who finishes) that does POSE.

Dave Chesser wrote:
Gin Master wrote:
Cave Canem wrote:
Annie-Sakamoto.jpg
Better living through Chemistry !
Give Annie a break. Anyone can get Tom Platz legs in 7 weeks provided you weigh and measure your 12 blocks and add fish oil.

I'm getting nervous about my sweet Annie. There's only so much penile growth a man can excuse before it becomes a dealbreaker.
What the heck did she do to herself? She was always my favorite. Heartbroken over here.

Isn't this the Games influence? A little is a good thing but more becomes excessive? i used to us her as an example to Asian women. Now they'd be scared of her. Me, too.

Annie, come back!

Couldn't agree more

sanchezero · Post by **sanchezero** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:36 am

Captain Quack wrote:
Ed Zachary wrote:Holy titty fuckubg gorilla jeebus!

BMacnCheez gets referenced as a viable source of info at 70sbig.
http://www.70sbig.com/blog/2011/08/shin-splints/

This guy is spreading like a fucking disease.

well, i imagine cheezy has a lot of experience faking injuries and plenty of time to do his research since he isn't racing.

The Nightman · Post by **The Nightman** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:45 pm

Dave Chesser wrote:
Ed Zachary wrote:http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?pa ... SizeDisp=7

The people v. @fit

I haven't read through the whole thing. Any bets on the exercise that broke her? Kipping pull ups? Box jumps? Thrusters?

The second page of the contract contains three additional sections: a "Release," discussed in more detail below; a paragraph entitled "Indemnification" with a blank for the participant's initials following the paragraph; and a paragraph entitled "Use of picture(s)/film/likeness" with a blank for the participant's initials following the paragraph. At the bottom of the second page is the following language in bold with portions underlined: "I have fully read and fully understand the foregoing assumption of risk, and release of liability . . . . I understand that by signing this form I am waiving valuable legal rights." Blanks for the participant's signature and date are at the bottom of the second page. Quintana's initials appear in each blank on the contract and her signature appears at the bottom of the agreement.
CrossFit and Dodson filed a combined no-evidence and traditional motion for summary judgment. In the traditional motion for summary judgment, they asserted that Quintana's claims were barred because she signed a release discharging CrossFit and its employees of all liability arising from her participation in CrossFit's fitness programs and classes. Quintana responded that appellees' release did not meet the requirements of fair notice.
This just scares me. How the heck is that not fair notice?

I think the point EZ was making is that the lack of ability to properly couch and train someone led to the this person breaking their arm. Just throwing them into the workouts with properly teaching them first is just bad.

I hear the same thing about the BOX right down the street from me, a friends neighbor attends and he was told we went to a saturday WOD and was amazed the the people he worked out with during the week were now helping teach this free wod since they were all CF level 1 couches, they couldnt perform half the shit they were trying to couch....

Holland Oates · Post by **Holland Oates** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:56 pm

Das Night mensch is correct.

A waiver isn't a shield against negligence.

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:01 pm

Dave Chesser wrote:This just scares me. How the heck is that not fair notice?

I didn't read the whole thing to see if "fair notice" was discussed thoroughly but, she lost. And she lost b/c she signed a release.

That's the long and short of it.

Always a good practice to have a release and waiver of liability (if allowed in your State).

If you tell someone, "Sign this piece of paper. It says you may die doing what I tell you. I may seriously injure or maim you. You may blow out your rotator cuff and your vertebrae doing what I tell you. And you're OK with that," then they usually can't whine that they didn't know you would injure them.

Then again, there may be wiggle room if the trainer says things to you verbally that conflict w/ the waiver (i.e., "don't worry, this stuff is very safe! it's very rare to get hurt doing it"), when in fact, there is a long record showing that Cultfit is not safe and does frequently result in very particular injuries (e.g., rhabdo, SLAP tear). Then the trainer may be held to a higher standard to inform and/or not mislead.

Cave Canem · Post by **Cave Canem** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:16 pm

Ed Zachary wrote:Das Night mensch is correct.

A waiver isn't a shield against negligence.

In this case, it was. And it was upheld on appeal. And as much as I hate @fit HQ, not all (many but not all) the individual gym owners are mind numbed robotic swine. Without more details of the case, it is wrong to speculate that it was the result of negligence even though negligence was alleged. Negligence is always alleged when someone wants a payoff. This person fell and broke her arm, for all anyone really knows, she could have tripped on her own fat feet on her way to the rest room.
And at least this owner was smart enough to have all his legal ducks in a row with a comprehensive signed waiver and health assessment. The first @fit box I walked into, the only thing I had to sign was a check.

This could happen to anyone who trains people for a living whether they have a PhD in exercise science or are just some schmuck with a 2 day seminar certification. In fact the PhD might be held to a higher standard based on their education.

Holland Oates · Post by **Holland Oates** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:29 pm

When did you become an @fit apologist?

And before you get all butthurt I'm busting balls.

I never claimed they were negligent only that a waiver is not an ironclad protection from negligence.

She lost so it was probably a bullshit suit but with the fact that these idiots continue to put up video evidence of their stupidity is going to make someone very rich one of these days.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:16 pm

She's only asking for about 80k. Lawyer is probably asking for 1/3 of that. Her injury was not life threatening, although not what would be expected with normal training. Probably not the best lawyer either.

Contrast that to this:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/08/m ... t_081608w/

Asked for more money-- $500k (probably had a faster lawyer chasing that ambulance)
Injuries documented more thoroughly-- also more debilitating
Injuries more serious, and no documented pattern of these injuries from Navy PT (pretty sure the Navy keeps good documentation on this).

The Nightman · Post by **The Nightman** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:48 pm

Cave Canem wrote:
Ed Zachary wrote:Das Night mensch is correct.

A waiver isn't a shield against negligence.
In this case, it was. And it was upheld on appeal. And as much as I hate @fit HQ, not all (many but not all) the individual gym owners are mind numbed robotic swine. Without more details of the case, it is wrong to speculate that it was the result of negligence even though negligence was alleged. Negligence is always alleged when someone wants a payoff. This person fell and broke her arm, for all anyone really knows, she could have tripped on her own fat feet on her way to the rest room.
And at least this owner was smart enough to have all his legal ducks in a row with a comprehensive signed waiver and health assessment. The first @fit box I walked into, the only thing I had to sign was a check.

This could happen to anyone who trains people for a living whether they have a PhD in exercise science or are just some schmuck with a 2 day seminar certification. In fact the PhD might be held to a higher standard based on their education.

It could happen to anyone, but since it happened at a @fit it's probably pretty safe to assume it had at least a little to do with poor coaching, improper progressions or putting someone in a situation they shouldn't have been put in according to their physical ability. Remember, it not the program that sucks....it's you. @fit argues everyone's needs are the same. Anyone with an ounce of experience in this industry knows that this isn't true.

Cave Canem · Post by **Cave Canem** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:16 pm

The Nightman wrote:
Cave Canem wrote:
Ed Zachary wrote:Das Night mensch is correct.

A waiver isn't a shield against negligence.
In this case, it was. And it was upheld on appeal. And as much as I hate @fit HQ, not all (many but not all) the individual gym owners are mind numbed robotic swine. Without more details of the case, it is wrong to speculate that it was the result of negligence even though negligence was alleged. Negligence is always alleged when someone wants a payoff. This person fell and broke her arm, for all anyone really knows, she could have tripped on her own fat feet on her way to the rest room.
And at least this owner was smart enough to have all his legal ducks in a row with a comprehensive signed waiver and health assessment. The first @fit box I walked into, the only thing I had to sign was a check.

This could happen to anyone who trains people for a living whether they have a PhD in exercise science or are just some schmuck with a 2 day seminar certification. In fact the PhD might be held to a higher standard based on their education.
It could happen to anyone, but since it happened at a @fit it's probably pretty safe to assume it had at least a little to do with poor coaching, improper progressions or putting someone in a situation they shouldn't have been put in according to their physical ability. Remember, it not the program that sucks....it's you. @fit argues everyone's needs are the same. Anyone with an ounce of experience in this industry knows that this isn't true.

I'm curious to know just how many of these suits are out there. With a reported 2500 affiliates and given the lack of experience and training (business and professional), I have to assume that there are many more claims that haven't seen the light of day or have been actively suppressed/covered up by HQ and their minions.
Has the RRG issued any policies and if so, have they paid any claims yet ?

Cave Canem · Post by **Cave Canem** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:20 pm

Ed Zachary wrote:When did you become an @fit apologist?

And before you get all butthurt I'm busting balls.

I never claimed they were negligent only that a waiver is not an ironclad protection from negligence.

She lost so it was probably a bullshit suit but with the fact that these idiots continue to put up video evidence of their stupidity is going to make someone very rich one of these days.

Good point. There are a lot of hungry young tort lawyers looking for work and a big payday. I'd be scouring YouTube for @fit videos looking for potential clients. Instead of just for lulz.

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:25 pm

Cave Canem wrote:
Good point. There are a lot of hungry young tort lawyers looking for work and a big payday. I'd be scouring YouTube for @fit videos looking for potential clients. Instead of just for lulz.

I talked with the lawyer who brought the Mutumbo suit (?) awhile back and he was really eager to get more cases like it. He suggested how to network with other attorneys on these cases and how to advertise to find others injured by Cultfit. LOL

Also, although I mentioned this probably 500 pages back now, for those n00b Cultfisters just now checking in, you should know that COUCH WAS ON THE PLAINTIFF'S LAWYER SIDE ON THIS ONE AND WAS READY TO GIVE A FAVORABLE DEPOSITION FOR THE INJURED GUY. IN OTHER WORDS, HE WAS PREPARED TO THROW THE BOX AND THE TRAINER UNDER THE BUS COMPLETELY.

Holland Oates · Post by **Holland Oates** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:16 pm

protobuilder wrote: Also, although I mentioned this probably 500 pages back now, for those n00b Cultfisters just now checking in, you should know that COUCH WAS ON THE PLAINTIFF'S LAWYER SIDE ON THIS ONE AND WAS READY TO GIVE A FAVORABLE DEPOSITION FOR THE INJURED GUY. IN OTHER WORDS, HE WAS PREPARED TO THROW THE BOX AND THE TRAINER UNDER THE BUS COMPLETELY.

Quoted for prosperity.

Cave Canem · Post by **Cave Canem** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:25 pm

protobuilder wrote:
Cave Canem wrote:
Good point. There are a lot of hungry young tort lawyers looking for work and a big payday. I'd be scouring YouTube for @fit videos looking for potential clients. Instead of just for lulz.
I talked with the lawyer who brought the Mutumbo suit (?) awhile back and he was really eager to get more cases like it. He suggested how to network with other attorneys on these cases and how to advertise to find others injured by Cultfit. LOL

Also, although I mentioned this probably 500 pages back now, for those n00b Cultfisters just now checking in, you should know that COUCH WAS ON THE PLAINTIFF'S LAWYER SIDE ON THIS ONE AND WAS READY TO GIVE A FAVORABLE DEPOSITION FOR THE INJURED GUY. IN OTHER WORDS, HE WAS PREPARED TO THROW THE BOX AND THE TRAINER UNDER THE BUS COMPLETELY.

Anything to protect the "Brand".

But now how long before R@@bok gets brought in with their deep pockets and co-branding. Will R@@bok protect @fit or throw them under the bus as quickly as the couch would to one of his loyal stooges?

Holland Oates · Post by **Holland Oates** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:48 pm

Cave Canem wrote:
protobuilder wrote:
Cave Canem wrote:
Good point. There are a lot of hungry young tort lawyers looking for work and a big payday. I'd be scouring YouTube for @fit videos looking for potential clients. Instead of just for lulz.
I talked with the lawyer who brought the Mutumbo suit (?) awhile back and he was really eager to get more cases like it. He suggested how to network with other attorneys on these cases and how to advertise to find others injured by Cultfit. LOL

Also, although I mentioned this probably 500 pages back now, for those n00b Cultfisters just now checking in, you should know that COUCH WAS ON THE PLAINTIFF'S LAWYER SIDE ON THIS ONE AND WAS READY TO GIVE A FAVORABLE DEPOSITION FOR THE INJURED GUY. IN OTHER WORDS, HE WAS PREPARED TO THROW THE BOX AND THE TRAINER UNDER THE BUS COMPLETELY.
Anything to protect the "Brand".

But now how long before R@@bok gets brought in with their deep pockets and co-branding. Will R@@bok protect @fit or throw them under the bus as quickly as the couch would to one of his loyal stooges?

Franchising baby. A set syllabus for every box and lots of corporate training. No more beer busts at the gym, no more pukie, no more uncle rhabdo, and no more nasty slogans on branded clothing.

It's going to turn into a globogym type of deal.

Batboy2/75 · Post by **Batboy2/75** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:53 pm

About this time would be a great time for Cooch Gl@sshat to cash in his chips and ride off in the sunset in his El camino, with a trunk full safe way gin, and a bank account stuffed to gills with Cultfit members money.

Be on the lookout for Cooch to initiate a private sale of stock to the dumb asses that comprise @fit. It will be sold to the unwashed masses like an employee stock program. This will allow cooch to get a good portion of his money out of @fit, before the house of cards come down. However, just before the sale is done, @fit corp should sign a multi year consulting contact with cooch, so he can suck more money out of @fit.

@fit corp gets all of the lawsuit heat and Gl@sshat retires to a life of trying to kill his liver.

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:54 pm

Maybe I missed something a few dozen ages back or so about the Reebok deal, but my thought is that they are just marketing clothing and using training footage, etc, but staying away from the negligence issues that surround all of the unmonitored, untrained, uneducated affiliates practicing under the Cultfit banner.

HQ is the one that has to worry about that.

I am sorry that in these past few years, no state has gone after Cultfit for franchise taxes. I thought we'd see that some day.

RudyK · Post by **RudyK** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:58 am

WTF?

Whhhhhyyyyyy???!!! Fucking idiots! Really just pisses me off....

Shafpocalypse Now · Post by **Shafpocalypse Now** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:02 am

Yeah, fuck that guy.

syaigh · Post by **syaigh** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:12 am

Grounds for divorce. Seriously.

Spider Monkey · Post by **Spider Monkey** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:16 am

This picture brought me out of several weeks of silence. My Gawd. That is the most irresponsible, dangerous, assinine thing I have ever seen. Somebody call Child Protective Services please!

friedquads · Post by **friedquads** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:24 am

I want to kick that guy in the crotch. Fucking moron.

Protobuilder · Post by **Protobuilder** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:52 am

Please tell me that wasn't on some official website promoting their brand?

IGX

The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread