Former Dartmouth XC coach sues college, claiming Letsrun post as evidence of libel

wood has a case wrote:

This is a really weird thread, and that's saying something on this site. Half the posts are by or about Barrett Dahl and his active imagination/trolling and have nothing to do with this case.

Then you have someone on here like this guy who is super fired up about Wood and on the attack. You a Dartmouth alum or something? Have a bad history with Wood? Connected to Harnden? I'm not one to think that people who are being attacked go immediately on let's run to defend themselves, but maybe that's the case here given how obscure this guy (Wood) is. I never heard of the guy until today, and I follow college and pro running pretty avidly.

That latter sentence pretty much sums up whether Wood is a public figure. No way in hell. An obscure cross country coach at Dartmouth does not have the fame to be considered a public figure legally. I'd bet my house on that.

As for "libel," I wasn't doing a deep-dive analysis and just glancing at the heading of the claim. On these facts, the broader claim that he was defamed has some merit. I didn't spend any time on slander vs libel (they claim both), and doesn't particularly matter here. But you're right that they don't present any evidence that defamatory statements were written; rather, they contend that defamatory statements were oral (slander) or emailed (libel) or both. Discovery would likely shed light on that.

coaches aren't public figures wrote:

wood has a case wrote:

This is a really weird thread, and that's saying something on this site. Half the posts are by or about Barrett Dahl and his active imagination/trolling and have nothing to do with this case.

Then you have someone on here like this guy who is super fired up about Wood and on the attack. You a Dartmouth alum or something? Have a bad history with Wood? Connected to Harnden? I'm not one to think that people who are being attacked go immediately on let's run to defend themselves, but maybe that's the case here given how obscure this guy (Wood) is. I never heard of the guy until today, and I follow college and pro running pretty avidly.

That latter sentence pretty much sums up whether Wood is a public figure. No way in hell. An obscure cross country coach at Dartmouth does not have the fame to be considered a public figure legally. I'd bet my house on that.

As for "libel," I wasn't doing a deep-dive analysis and just glancing at the heading of the claim. On these facts, the broader claim that he was defamed has some merit. I didn't spend any time on slander vs libel (they claim both), and doesn't particularly matter here. But you're right that they don't present any evidence that defamatory statements were written; rather, they contend that defamatory statements were oral (slander) or emailed (libel) or both. Discovery would likely shed light on that.

Wood has absolutely no case. I only see 2 posts by Barrett dahl. This case would get thrown out before it even started. Letsrun can't be held responsible for the content of other users, therefore it can't be used in referencing 3rd party cases either. The Johnsons are well protected.

wood has a case wrote:

wheres the libel wrote:

You are not a lawyer because you don't even know what libel is.

There is no evidence of libel.

Deleting a coach off the online roster once they leave is not libel.

This is a really weird thread, and that's saying something on this site. Half the posts are by or about Barrett Dahl and his active imagination/trolling and have nothing to do with this case.

Then you have someone on here like this guy who is super fired up about Wood and on the attack. You a Dartmouth alum or something? Have a bad history with Wood? Connected to Harnden? I'm not one to think that people who are being attacked go immediately on let's run to defend themselves, but maybe that's the case here given how obscure this guy (Wood) is. I never heard of the guy until today, and I follow college and pro running pretty avidly.

That latter sentence pretty much sums up whether Wood is a public figure. No way in hell. An obscure cross country coach at Dartmouth does not have the fame to be considered a public figure legally. I'd bet my house on that.

As for "libel," I wasn't doing a deep-dive analysis and just glancing at the heading of the claim. On these facts, the broader claim that he was defamed has some merit. I didn't spend any time on slander vs libel (they claim both), and doesn't particularly matter here. But you're right that they don't present any evidence that defamatory statements were written; rather, they contend that defamatory statements were oral (slander) or emailed (libel) or both. Discovery would likely shed light on that.

no libel wrote:

wood has a case wrote:

This is a really weird thread, and that's saying something on this site. Half the posts are by or about Barrett Dahl and his active imagination/trolling and have nothing to do with this case.

Then you have someone on here like this guy who is super fired up about Wood and on the attack. You a Dartmouth alum or something? Have a bad history with Wood? Connected to Harnden? I'm not one to think that people who are being attacked go immediately on let's run to defend themselves, but maybe that's the case here given how obscure this guy (Wood) is. I never heard of the guy until today, and I follow college and pro running pretty avidly.

That latter sentence pretty much sums up whether Wood is a public figure. No way in hell. An obscure cross country coach at Dartmouth does not have the fame to be considered a public figure legally. I'd bet my house on that.

As for "libel," I wasn't doing a deep-dive analysis and just glancing at the heading of the claim. On these facts, the broader claim that he was defamed has some merit. I didn't spend any time on slander vs libel (they claim both), and doesn't particularly matter here. But you're right that they don't present any evidence that defamatory statements were written; rather, they contend that defamatory statements were oral (slander) or emailed (libel) or both. Discovery would likely shed light on that.

So in one of your first posts, post 25, you say it is a clear cut case for libel. Now you backtrack and say you need access to all of Harnden's emails and texts for proof of libel. You are clearly not a lawyer, LMAO.

Wood is basing everything on conversations he can't even prove happened, or in conversations where he doesn't even know who was involved in the conversations.

This case will be tossed long before discovery.

wood has a case. wrote:

no libel wrote:

So in one of your first posts, post 25, you say it is a clear cut case for libel. Now you backtrack and say you need access to all of Harnden's emails and texts for proof of libel. You are clearly not a lawyer, LMAO.

Wood is basing everything on conversations he can't even prove happened, or in conversations where he doesn't even know who was involved in the conversations.

This case will be tossed long before discovery.

thank you, Mr. Pedant. In some states, libel and slander are subsumed by "defamation" more broadly. It's the same pedantic argument from a few weeks ago about assault vs battery, i.e., in some states like Washington where Sha'Carri was charged, there is no distinction in the code but there was a huge argument about whether Sha'Carri assaulted or battered Coleman. It didn't matter! .

You're not going to believe me and probably have a personal stake of some kind here, but I have no connection to any of this whatsoever. Just thought it was wild and interesting that a cross country coach is suing an Ivy League college, and who doesn't like to rubber-neck drama like this in our niche sport.

I already explained my use of "libel" because i was glancing at the heading of the claim (2nd one I think) in the complaint. As already explained, Wood claimed he was either libeled or slandered because he doesn't know if defamatory statements were made orally or in writing or both, but that he is sure defamatory statements were made (to be proven of course). He's legally correct that it's a difference without a distinction. He presents strong evidence that something negative was said or emailed, which would at very least implicate the non-disparagement clause, given the response he received from NYU. Not to mention some of the other evidence he presented.

So whether it's libel or slander is immaterial, and you probably know that and are just deflecting. Or you don't know that and are being a blow hard. Either way, it's immaterial.

Anyway, have at it. I was answering the question early in the thread whether the claim has any merit, and on its face it is promising. But we of course have only read his complaint so we'll see.

this is all false wrote:

wood has a case. wrote:

thank you, Mr. Pedant. In some states, libel and slander are subsumed by "defamation" more broadly. It's the same pedantic argument from a few weeks ago about assault vs battery, i.e., in some states like Washington where Sha'Carri was charged, there is no distinction in the code but there was a huge argument about whether Sha'Carri assaulted or battered Coleman. It didn't matter! .

You're not going to believe me and probably have a personal stake of some kind here, but I have no connection to any of this whatsoever. Just thought it was wild and interesting that a cross country coach is suing an Ivy League college, and who doesn't like to rubber-neck drama like this in our niche sport.

I already explained my use of "libel" because i was glancing at the heading of the claim (2nd one I think) in the complaint. As already explained, Wood claimed he was either libeled or slandered because he doesn't know if defamatory statements were made orally or in writing or both, but that he is sure defamatory statements were made (to be proven of course). He's legally correct that it's a difference without a distinction. He presents strong evidence that something negative was said or emailed, which would at very least implicate the non-disparagement clause, given the response he received from NYU. Not to mention some of the other evidence he presented.

So whether it's libel or slander is immaterial, and you probably know that and are just deflecting. Or you don't know that and are being a blow hard. Either way, it's immaterial.

Anyway, have at it. I was answering the question early in the thread whether the claim has any merit, and on its face it is promising. But we of course have only read his complaint so we'll see.

Where is the strong evidence that something negative was said?

The only actual quote from the NYU person was that the Dartmouth employee said "we just can't" which is literally abiding by the separation agreement because they are declining to say bad things. HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW FOR SURE IF IT WAS HARNDEN THAT SPOKE TO NYU.

Regarding the letsrun post, there is no way to prove who posted it. Rojo or Wejo said they spoke to the spouse, which DOES NOT violation the separation agreement.

He doesn't even know who on the team Harnden allegedly told things to.

You still haven't explained how removing his name from the roster from 3 years ago is "defamation".....because it is NOT.

dumb lawsuit wrote:

DartmouthSued wrote:

Link:storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Fascinating lawsuit filed this week by former Dartmouth XC coach Justin Wood, who resigned abruptly in 2022 after just one XC season.

Wood claims he resigned after raising concerns about Porscha Dobson Harnden, who was the director of track & field at the time. He claims she was "leading those programs with a glaring disregard for Ivy League and NCAA policies, along with potential admissions fraud and laxities taken with the health and safety of Dartmouth’s student-athletes."

After he leaves and signs an agreement, though, is where things get very interesting. Wood claims he was in the final stage of the process for the NYU coaching job when he learns that Dartmouth was blackballing him. As evidence, he cites a Letsrun message board post from 2022 in which the poster claims Wood resigned "because he was associated with some inappropriate actions by coaching friends of his."

Wood claims called Letsrun and was told by "the manager of the blog" -- perhaps Weldon or Robert? -- that he had spoken with Harnden's spouse about the circumstances surrounding Wood's departure.

Rojo/Wejo - Care to way in?

Dumb lawsuit. He's suing Dartmouth because they didn't give him a glowing recommendation.

No school wants to hire the guy who sued his former school. He will lose this lawsuit and it will end his coaching career because of it.