|Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 ||
He did say that. It's been several years since we spoke so I may not have his exact words. The original interview went down in a computer crash, but I asked him if there was anything he'd change if he could do it over again. His answer was that he thought he'd gotten it right the first time except that during the base phase he would add one fairly casual weekly session of something like 10x330 or 440 rather than becoming "purely a distance runner." He didn't think it would detract from the base building and that it would have been useful to have a little faster work.
|the 99 percent|
|yeah, that's right|
|really think so?|
First, I think Canova has been the primary target of gypsy's mouth-foaming rants. But second, and more importantly, I think it would be necessary for somebody reading the thread to take him seriously for him to have done any damage to anyone, no?
BTW - that Chris?
Maybe you should say a little more. Are you a lawyer?
How is "Lydiardism" protected by law?
What did "gypsy" do to damage Lydiardism, at all, let alone beyond anyone's imagination?
How much damage did "gypsy" due to "Lydiardism"?
Does the "Lydiard Foundation" have standing to sue?
On what grounds should the Foundation sue "gypsy"?
In which country, and court, will this lawsuit be appropriate? Which court has jurisdiction? NZ? US? Australia?
Why isn't "gypsy's" freedom of speech protected by law?
- "gypsy" recommends the Lydiard way, and acts as a salesman and a spokesman for Lydiard. Do you think the "Foundation" has grounds to sue, on the basis of incompetence of an unpaid spokesman?
- if anything, "gypsy" has abandoned any hope of popularity, for his "unique" interpretations of the success of Renato Canova's methods, and its alleged costs for the longterm career of any athlete unlucky enough to be coached by Renato. If anyone has been damaged, it's Renato, but then again, in countries that allow opinions and free speech, there doesn't seem to be enough grounds for a lawsuit.
The Lydiard Foundation does in fact have standing to sue. In his will, Arthur willed his intellectual property to Nobby. I very much doubt it would happen, but yes, LF does have standing to sue.
Gypsy may or may not be silly, but the idea of a lawsuit is
even sillier. what intellectual properties? To coach
in a certain way? Should I pay royalties if I include a
hill phase in the spring?
Thanks for the information on the LT of various 800 runners.
Do you think that one week is enough time after the 3 x 600 workout to run a PB in the 800? It obviously worked for Fiasconaro but would you do things differently today?
I would love it if you had some samples of Leonard Kosencha's training to share.
Did you ever seen that that attorney ?
Intellectual property is confined to be the owner of authorship and copywrite.
After some decades, copywrite is dead.
Intellectual property does not include the comment and opinion on what is published or was been said.
Everyone could be sued by comment on other training. When the Lydiardists did comment on other coaches might be sued as well ?
|time out rob|
is that you , Antonio?
Of course it is. He is making many comments under different names in this thread. This is just one of the more obvious ones.
To think, to seriously believe that I could have any affect on Lydiardism, Lydiard, Lydiard's ideas etc is ludicrious. Who am i to make even the smallest dent in the influence of Lydiardism. Besides i am a strong proponent of Lydiardism and i am free to reinterpret things as i see fit. Am i right? And i'm free to convince MD runners to take a look at the longer term and to think about building their mileage over a number of years and to minimise the amount of 'burning' training they are doing etc etc, which fit in line with Lydiardism, i believe.
This is very interesting. Do you have an observation on Seb Coe in this context - I am aware you had contact with Seb while training in Italy I think? His father applied the training to the energy demands of the event as understood at the time. If one had a young athlete with an interest in the 800 but with a difference between LT and pb in 800 of 7263km/h in which direction should his training go?
Yeah, I'm aware of some transfer in Lydiard's will to the Foundation. I guess I'm just trying to figure out what shape a lawsuit would take, which really involves the next question, on what grounds would they sue? (Actually it involves answering all the questions.) When you think about it (or when I think about it), the whole idea of a lawsuit is fundamentally wrong on 3 or 4 levels.
If the claim is slander or defamation, I doubt that the right to sue transfers with the intellectual property of Lydiard. This right, if it still exists, probably belongs to living family members.
And I think we are not talking about infringement of copyrights, patents, or trademarks, or divulging trade secrets. Offering opinions in a forum is something usually protected by free speech laws. Such commentary is not usually considered infringing, even if it includes some direct copying of the subject being commented, which is not the case here.
It's hard to imagine that "Lydiardism" is protected by any intellectual property law, to the point where it could chill criticism. Otherwise, the "Foundation" would have found a way to issue a gag order on Antonio a long time ago.
And again, gypsy always argues in favor of Lydiardism, as a superior expression of the Soviet periodization he grew up with. In what form did this alleged damage appear? Is there an unwritten allegation that "gypsy" is somehow incompetent, and that his positive support of Lydiardism can actually be viewed as damaging, by association? Maybe now "gypsy" has grounds to sue, for this kind of personal attack on his character.
And then there is the question of damages. Did the Foundation suffer any damage?
So to the one who just wanted to say that the Foundation should sue "gypsy" for all the damage he caused to Lydiardism, it seems like that wasn't thought through at all.
It seems that if anyone was "damaged", it's Renato Canova. But even insulting, unpopular speech is protected by "free speech" laws, if it's simply gypsy's opinion, and not slanderous or defaming.
Gypsy, this is another demonstration of your not honesty.
Another athlete with me from 2006, already with good talent, now at 7th year of training together : EDWIN SOI.
He won bronze medal in 5000 in OG 2008, won African Championships in 2010, and won bronze medal in World Indoor in 3000m 3 days ago. His career :
2004 3'46"92 / 7'56"3 / 13'22"57
2005 3'44"76 / 7'44"97 / 13'10"78
(he came under my training at the end of the season)
2006 7'31"84 / 12'52"40 / 27'14"83
2007 7'34"07 / 13'10"21
2008 7'31"83 / 13'06"22
2009 7'31"48 / 12'55"03
2010 7'29"75 / 12'58"91
2011 7'27"55 / 12'59"15
Average his best 10 performances (3000, 2006/2012) : 7'31"179
Average hus best 10 performances (5000, 2006/2012) :
But, of course, everything was wrong, because Edwin didn't improve in 1500m, that was his first event....
Now we can add paranoia to stupidity & intellectual disonhesty.
All I was doing was answering your question about whether the LF has any legal standing to sue anyone. They do and evidently you knew that when you asked the question which makes me wonder why you asked that.
Whether they'd ever do it, who it would be, why they'd do it, how they'd do it, where the suit would be filed, is just chatter from people here who seem to get overly worked up when Arthur's name gets into a thread title.