WEJO off the mark on Nick Symmonds' comment

Stanhope wrote:

I'm not sure about it, but in most countries the IAAF-rules are incoporated in the competitionrules of the national federations, so the uniform-rules even comply in non-IAAF permit meets.

I think you're right. If USATF needs to change their rules to come into compliance with what the IAAF wants, then it needs to be presented as such to the Rules Committee and the public as such. Instead we're left with inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement of the rule, and no one is sure what the truth is.

Stephan Shay wrote:

1. Your comment was idiotic.

2. I said nothing about being paid a superstar salary. Maybe next time instead of just skimming over the text, you might be able to make an informed comment? The argument isn't focused on how much money we're getting paid by sponsors, but rather how we are restricted with our potential to have multiple sponsors represented.

Also, superstars like Kobe are not the only ones getting paid in the N.B.A. If every guard in the N.B.A. said screw it because they were never going to get paid like Kobe, there would be 3 guards in the N.B.A... which, I guess at this point, not too many people would care

NBA players are not allowed to wear sponser logos aside from their shoes(maybe socks too) during games either.

If I didn't make myself clear before what I'm saying is the IAAF, USATF, races that pay you to run them and other coporate sponsers do not owe you a damn thing.

Wet Blanket (Tim Messina) wrote:

Stephan Shay wrote:

1. Your comment was idiotic.

2. I said nothing about being paid a superstar salary. Maybe next time instead of just skimming over the text, you might be able to make an informed comment? The argument isn't focused on how much money we're getting paid by sponsors, but rather how we are restricted with our potential to have multiple sponsors represented.

Also, superstars like Kobe are not the only ones getting paid in the N.B.A. If every guard in the N.B.A. said screw it because they were never going to get paid like Kobe, there would be 3 guards in the N.B.A... which, I guess at this point, not too many people would care

NBA players are not allowed to wear sponser logos aside from their shoes(maybe socks too) during games either.

Obviously it would be "sponsor".

I would love to see a NASCAR style marketing ploy by athletes...

But what if athletes were able to increase their profits from outside advertising by say 15%, but then shoe companies responded to not having sole advertising rights by cutting their contributions to the struggling athlete by 18 or 20%?

I'm sure a few athletes would do well, but maybe the long term affect is less shoe company $$$, and those companies are the only ones that seem to be more likely to keep sponsoring athletes even if it is not the most profitable way to spend their marketing budget...as someone said, those contracts and deals are largely charity...

Rojo your comment "I thought Fleshman's gripe was engineered" is completely off base. She did not "engineer" anything - she was asked a question and was brave enough to say what she, and many other athletes, think about the situation.

She also had nothing to do with the subsequent Picky Bar social media campaign. It was a response "engineered" by the TFAA and implemented by many many athletes who all felt compelled to stand up for one of their one. Clearly they understood her "gripe."

ichabod crane wrote:

I would love to see a NASCAR style marketing ploy by athletes...

But what if athletes were able to increase their profits from outside advertising by say 15%, but then shoe companies responded to not having sole advertising rights by cutting their contributions to the struggling athlete by 18 or 20%?

I'm sure a few athletes would do well, but maybe the long term affect is less shoe company $$$, and those companies are the only ones that seem to be more likely to keep sponsoring athletes even if it is not the most profitable way to spend their marketing budget...as someone said, those contracts and deals are largely charity...

The NASCAR style of marketing is the way to go. I don't know why people keep talking about NBA. Do you see NASCAR sponsors getting upset about sharing advertising space on a car. Someone mentioned triathletes and their singlets. You make fun of them because they look goofy, but they have multiple sponsors and it seems to work. Why can't running do the same?

The Hansons had Saturn, a car company, as a sponsor at one time. Didn't they share sponsorship with Brooks? If Nike wants to be the sole sponsor for any given athlete they can still do that. It may cost them more to have exclusive rights but that benefits the athlete.

UFC is another model to look at. Multiple sponsors on an athletes uniform (and a very small uniform at that).

If these contracts from shoe companies are so called "charity", and the big shoe companies don't care because they mak their money off of "hobbie joggers" then why do they care if we have multiple sponsors or not? And try to pitch that statement to a company like Saucony that has been around for a while, but has gotten much bigger in recent years. I don't think it's a coincidence that they have signed on many more runners in that time. Just like in basketball, when younger people, or fans, see one of their favorite runners wearing a shoe, it makes it more desirable. I have done workouts on multiple occasions and have been asked "what kind of shoe is that" only after an initial "you're fast". And once again... the point I made before was about the fact that we are regulated on the amount of sponsors we can have, not on how much each sponsor is paying. Also, i'd like to know your idiea of "elite times". And apparently, if you haven't run the best times right out of college, you should quit and get a "real" job? Tell that to Magdalena Lewy-Boulet, Brian Sell, or Nick Arciniaga. I have worked smaller jobs while training post collegiately, and at some point when you have a break through, you want to be able to invest more of your efforts into running.

Stephan - You're in the right here. Don't degrade your own argument by arguing with guys like this.

I said if money is an issue for you then get a real job. If you want to chase your dream and don't mind living in poverty then that's fine. Peter Snell worked a full-time job and still managed to win 3 Olympic gold medals, it can be done. Is there an issue with having multiple sponsors? Ryan Hall and Meb have multiple sponsers. I didn't see Meb in New York but Ryan Hall doesn't get to wear a big Garmin or Nissan patch on his jersey either. Have so many people come up to you asking about shoes that it offsets the amount of money Saucony(??) pays you?

Wet Blanket (Tim Messina) wrote:

I said if money is an issue for you then get a real job.

He's not asking for a handout. He's saying if a company wants to put a logo on his shirt, he'd like to let them. What difference does it make to you?