Anyone has more info on this
Anyone has more info on this
Sorry about the Grammer
I have no direct info. I'm assuming, based on his tweets, that Nike is requesting or has won a temporary injunction preventing him from competing while wearing NB gear.
In that case, if they've asked that he be not allowed to compete while wearing NB stuff, couldn't a workaround be that he just wear a blank singlet and shorts? Assuming that NB allowed him to?
Would actually work out great for NB. They let him run without wearing his stuff, come across as the good guys, and get more promotion than they would have without the suit...
SlowTurtle wrote:
Anyone has more info on this
Well can you help us find this "anyone" fellow so he can give us the info he has?
Thanks.
Why does the title say "my"? Are you a race director or Boris Berian?
Nike's Motion for a TRO and Injunction is linked here:
http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/nikecontract.pdf
Story here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2016/06/nike_seeks_court_order_to_halt.html
It is not clear whether Nike is seeking to compel Berian to wear Nike gear or just to prohibit him from wearing NB.
If it's the latter, I agree with the other poster that if Nike gets the injunction, it would be good for NB to let him compete in blank gear - particularly because that would contrast with Nike's thuggish behavior in crushing a runner with no resources who was flipping burgers 2 years ago.
Free Boris Berian! wrote:
If it's the latter, I agree with the other poster that if Nike gets the injunction, it would be good for NB to let him compete in blank gear - particularly because that would contrast with Nike's thuggish behavior in crushing a runner with no resources who was flipping burgers 2 years ago.
The dumbness on this board surprises me. How is it thuggish behavior to enforce your contracts??? That's business behavior. Then you go a step stupider and seem to think that if you flip burgers, then you should be able to violate any rules you want to.
uhohh wrote:
Free Boris Berian! wrote:If it's the latter, I agree with the other poster that if Nike gets the injunction, it would be good for NB to let him compete in blank gear - particularly because that would contrast with Nike's thuggish behavior in crushing a runner with no resources who was flipping burgers 2 years ago.
The dumbness on this board surprises me. How is it thuggish behavior to enforce your contracts??? That's business behavior. Then you go a step stupider and seem to think that if you flip burgers, then you should be able to violate any rules you want to.
Well any company should pick their battles. Nike sued Dante Culpepper a while ago. Definitely different because of an NFL player
Not every breach = a lawsuit automatically.
The optics look bad for Nike even if they are in the right.
I have a question. What ever happen to the money Nike paid Boris in 2016. Nike says they paid him. Did Boris take the money?
This kind of behavior by nike makes me ashamed to race in my streak lts. If new balance hadn't ruined their 1400s by making them so soft (what are they trying to do, make a competitor for boost, which I also can't run well in), I'd go with those. Yes I know about the 1600, but its horrible for trail running.
edward teach wrote:
This kind of behavior by nike makes me ashamed to race in my streak lts. If new balance hadn't ruined their 1400s by making them so soft (what are they trying to do, make a competitor for boost, which I also can't run well in), I'd go with those. Yes I know about the 1600, but its horrible for trail running.
So Nike should just let people steal from them? Is this really your mentality?
Free Boris Berian! wrote:
Nike's Motion for a TRO and Injunction is linked here:
http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/nikecontract.pdfStory here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2016/06/nike_seeks_court_order_to_halt.htmlIt is not clear whether Nike is seeking to compel Berian to wear Nike gear or just to prohibit him from wearing NB.
If it's the latter, I agree with the other poster that if Nike gets the injunction, it would be good for NB to let him compete in blank gear - particularly because that would contrast with Nike's thuggish behavior in crushing a runner with no resources who was flipping burgers 2 years ago.
Nike apparently seeks to prevent Berian from wearing any identifiable gear of any competitor, which Nike characterizes as "endorsement."
Berian has said that he has no contractual deal with New Balance, which, if true, gives NB no control over whether Berian chooses to run in blank gear (or with logos covered up).
I've seen no indication that a TRO or injunction has issued yet (or that Berian's attorney has even filed his response paper).
Nike's position may or may not win out and can be plausibly defended by those so inclined. But they really should take Prefontaine's name off the Nike Invitational and put away the statue.
Because he would hate every bit of it.
Cool story. Love all the hippie apparel/shoe anecdotes and protests every time this comes up. Buy Nike. Don't. No ones gives a shit about your little protest.
Nike should realize that messing with one of the top U.S. Olympic hopefuls, who has a great backstory, is terrible corporate policy and isn't worth pursuing.
Berian's contract is with new balance, not nike now. Nike is not paying him to race for new balance and thus he is not stealing. If I didn't like my job, I could quit and go teach at another school. Berian should be allowed to switch sponsors like any other professional. This sport can never reach the professionalism it deserves if athletes aren't allowed to maximize their earning potential and are stuck in draconian contracts that may not even be legal. This is all common sense.uhohh wrote:
edward teach wrote:This kind of behavior by nike makes me ashamed to race in my streak lts. If new balance hadn't ruined their 1400s by making them so soft (what are they trying to do, make a competitor for boost, which I also can't run well in), I'd go with those. Yes I know about the 1600, but its horrible for trail running.
So Nike should just let people steal from them? Is this really your mentality?
edward teach wrote:
uhohh wrote:Berian's contract is with new balance, not nike now. Nike is not paying him to race for new balance and thus he is not stealing. If I didn't like my job, I could quit and go teach at another school. Berian should be allowed to switch sponsors like any other professional. This sport can never reach the professionalism it deserves if athletes aren't allowed to maximize their earning potential and are stuck in draconian contracts that may not even be legal. This is all common sense.So Nike should just let people steal from them? Is this really your mentality?
I have sympathy for Nike. They are crying: We should be paying you, not our competitor! This is not about Nike v. Berian. It is all about Nike v. New Balance.
there are better ways for a multi billion dollar company to settle things than taking legal action against one guy to try and stop him from racing right before the Olympic Trials.
It doesn't really matter if they are legally right or not. They are massively losing the PR battle. With all their resources I'm sure this could have been handled better but they went the hard on lawyer route.
I find it distasteful and I doubt I'll be buying an Nike stuff any time soon.
Ok you are wrong. The very point of the Nike v. Berian lawsuit is to determine whether Nike and Berian HAVE a valid contract. Until this is determined by the courts or a private settlement, there is no agreement.
Free Boris Berian! wrote:
Nike's Motion for a TRO and Injunction is linked here:
http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/nikecontract.pdf.
I've skimmed the brief. FWIW, I'm an attorney and former litigator (but NOT an expert in California or Oregon law or contract law).
First impression - yup, Nike's left it muddy as to whether they just want to prevent him from wearing NB gear, or want to force him to wear Nike gear. They're seeking to prevent him from breaching his contract - if the supposed contract with Nike requires him to wear Nike gear, then racing in a blank singlet could arguably be a breach.
Based on Nike's own description of the contract renewal discussions, I'm not terribly sympathetic to Nike.
They say that they had the right to match NB's offer. NB's offer didn't include a clause reducing Berian's compensation if he failed to perform, and didn't mention the issue one way or another. Nike matched the terms that were explicitly covered in the NB contract, but also included a reductions clause.
To me as an unbiased reader, that clearly wasn't a match to NB's contract. That was a worse offer. Nike cites to the Culpeper case, but trying to equate matching of an oral promise to adding a reductions clause is a really weak argument, in my opinion.
And if I'm not buying Nike's argument, even after ONLY reading their side of the issue and their legal arguments, it's a pretty weak argument.
Les wrote:
Ok you are wrong. The very point of the Nike v. Berian lawsuit is to determine whether Nike and Berian HAVE a valid contract. Until this is determined by the courts or a private settlement, there is no agreement.
Ahem, only signed contracts are valid.