BREAKING: Symmonds off World team

Ambulance chaser wrote:

Here come the lawyers. If Tyler McCandless is suiting for $300k, then this should be a good one. USATF will be decertified within the next 4 years.

He has NO case. None. I doubt any respectabe attorney would even sniff this.

Stop! Stop making athletes apparel whores! If you have to live, breath and $hit the almighty "SWOOSH", somethings seriously gone wrong on the way to the forum! Remember this all started out with a frick'in waffle iron and a piece of sticky yellow tape - i.e. - "Looks like needless wind drag to me" - Prefontaine

This is all about corporate control freaks maintaining their dominance - If Nick wants to run in a damn diaper, then let him do so. What they want are nice little superintended complacent robots who have no personality of their own - just "Nike-zomboid" clones who walk around as living endorsements for their products. Seriously, Nick has no problem with Nike apparel, equipment and products; just stop trying force feed it down his throat and up his a$$ every frick'in second!

End BRAND-SLAVERY NOW! World class athletes are not MINIONS!

wejo is a clown wrote:

yeah sick the way wejo tweeted symmonds right before the news broke and then makes it sounds like he provided a reasonable solution that symmonds ignored. nice journalism wejo.

I never wanted to give the implication at all that Nick didn't follow my advice. You are reading into what I wrote, but I am sorry for not writing more clearly.

I was just saying it was something I thought of tonight when I saw the team was going to be announced tomorrow. I was hoping that there could have been something done to get Nick on the team. At the same time I was just pointing out this is not bad for Nick Symmonds the brand at all.

My best case scenario is 1) Contract is changed and Nick is on team.

2) Second best case I think would have been for Nick to go and just wear whatever he wanted in the hotel at non official functions and see what USATF did. Publicity is on the issue and USATF could have clarified what a team function was. More athletes could have said they wouldn't compete if they were told what to wear in their free time.

3) Third best case scenario is what we have now.

LetterOfTheLaw wrote:

That response is clearly written by a lawyer to refute things Nick S has said, but still is very clear to NOT define what a "Team Function" is. This definition is obviously his main contention to the agreement. Meanwhile they kick him off the team and try to make it seem like they tried to work with him. They have not. The whole letter can be summed up just as Nick has said, "Sign it or stay home."

Claiming that he signed the agreement before by clicking a checkbox online is pretty weak. It may be legally binding, but it is not the same as signing a EULA agreement to download a free PC application. This is about athletes livelihoods, not getting a browser plugin.

I wonder if in all of Nick's prior conversations with USATF (which are alluded to in the letter) if he asked them point-blank what constituted an official team function. The questions being answered by Siegel in the letter seem very specific.

Also, electronic document signing is perfectly legal and accepted. When I bought my house 100% of the purchase was done online via electronic forms/signatures. It also leaves a permanent record, something that might not happen if FedEx loses a hand-signed form or it's lost at the USATF office.

wejo wrote:

Nick told the NY Times, "I'd probably have to talk to a lawyer" if USATF kicked him off and told Sports Business Journal, "He said he will sue to recover costs if he is left off the team, but his goal is bigger than that. "

Anyone know what his legal options are to get on the team? Might warrant its own thread.

Recover what costs? Aren't Nike and LOC footing the bill for the entire trip??

This says to me 1) it was never about athlete rights - only publicity2) he's not 100 % 3) people are foolish. Btw how many other athletes were "bullied"?

Everyone is not talking about the more important point...

He is going to show proof tomorrow that USAT is stealing millions from athletes. Come on! This Nike uniform thing is just something Nick jumped on in order to have reason to throw this down. Isn't it obvious? This Nike stuff is just a pawn...he has been on numerous teams and to be honest...this really is dumb. However, it gives him the platform, press, and incentive to destroy USATF with this supposed proof.

read it on scribd wrote:

scribd is yo problem wrote:

This is incorrect. Please do not talk in absolutes if you do not know all the facts. Thanks.

Show me public support (tweet, blog post, skywriting, whatever) from ONE athlete currently on the Beijing team.

Swooshes wrote:

wejo wrote:

Nick told the NY Times, "I'd probably have to talk to a lawyer" if USATF kicked him off and told Sports Business Journal, "He said he will sue to recover costs if he is left off the team, but his goal is bigger than that. "

Anyone know what his legal options are to get on the team? Might warrant its own thread.

Recover what costs? Aren't Nike and LOC footing the bill for the entire trip??

Nick claims he's purchased travel (for family and friends?) and had other costs associated with this trip. I don't see how he can sue to recover these costs if it was deliberate inaction on his part (i.e., not signing the agreement) that caused not going to Beijing. It would be hard for a lawyer to demonstrate that Nick didn't know he'd have to sign such an agreement since he's been on US teams before. It would have to be clear that this agreement was substantially different than others Nick has signed, something I'm not sure is the case here.

The fact that Nick is going to talk to lawyers only after not signing tells me he's not the sharpest. I would think you'd want to have everything lined up before you take such a dramatic stand.

read it on scribd wrote:

Wejo,

It sounds like you haven't seen USATF's official response to Nick:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/273698298/Max-Siegel-USATF

There was a lot of back-and-forth between the two parties. What I find interesting is Nicks claim that signing this would violate his contract with Brooks. That makes no sense, and Max calls him out on it.

Notice that in one of Nick's tweets he said "thanks to all of the fans for their support" and NOT "thanks to all of the fans and my fellow athletes" for their support. There has not been a peep from any non-Nike athlete on the team, no matter if they are well-positioned and have "nothing to lose" like Nick (think Jenny S. and Molly H.) or already have an axe to grind with Nike (think Leo M.). To me, that speaks volumes.

I don't see anything where Nick or Max are talking about what an official team function is. That is the heart of the matter that USATF is trying to extend this to everything.

Is there any correspondence on that?

Nick said in the NYTimes he could sign the contract or that Brooks would let him, so I think that is a non-issue, so Max is correct in that.

The email shows the contract usually is just signed with people checking a box like a terms and conditions.

LetterOfTheLaw wrote:

That response is clearly written by a lawyer to refute things Nick S has said, but still is very clear to NOT define what a "Team Function" is. This definition is obviously his main contention to the agreement. Meanwhile they kick him off the team and try to make it seem like they tried to work with him. They have not. The whole letter can be summed up just as Nick has said, "Sign it or stay home."

Claiming that he signed the agreement before by clicking a checkbox online is pretty weak. It may be legally binding, but it is not the same as signing a EULA agreement to download a free PC application. This is about athletes livelihoods, not getting a browser plugin.

You realize in the eyes of the legal system. It does NOT help usatf to not define official function.

And Electronic signatures have been legally valid for years.

read it on scribd wrote:

Show me public support (tweet, blog post, skywriting, whatever) from ONE athlete currently on the Beijing team.

The problem if Symmonds is trying to get publicity on this is that he may be able to get it in the track community but in 1 month, nobody in the general public or general sports fan will remember this if they know about it now. It is in the headlines of ESPN now and may make it in a few weeks at Worlds so some people will notice it but it won't bring a large outcry to his issue. Only a few athletes worldwide would have that power like Bolt. He needed other athletes who qualified to join him if he wanted the publicity and that did not happen for their own reasons.

In reality, he may just not care that much about Words anymore so he did this for an issue he cares about whether or not it makes a difference for his running career.

So...Nick isn't going to worlds because USATF would not precisely state what a "team function" is?

Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous? I have been very upset and hard on USATF. I'm for much change...but really?

This is about something else.

This is like your girlfriend breaking up with you after she notices you "liked" some girls Facebook status. The reality of the situation is that she is still bitter about you making out with that chick last year.

Armin Hary 1960 100m Olympic Champion retired early after a scandal that he received money for competing at a time when athletics was supposed to be amateur. And now there is a conflict when it comes to sponsors, governing bodies, and athletes. Silly! No more purity in sports!

The thing I find so stupid is during the race he would be wearing Nike which is the only thing that will likely be on TV (marketing value).

Is it really going to affect Nike's marketing/ USATF agreement with Nike if he wears Brooks the rest of the time??? My opinion, no, because it is not on TV.

It's all about $$$ and beurocratic BS.

No one even cares about track and field until the Olympics.

Maybe track and field should only be AMATEUR. Get rid of the $$$!!! Mo Money Mo Problems!!!

Either way all these companies are still making money. It's a business and the most important thing is $$$.

all this for performance enhancing gum?

bobo7 wrote:

Nick also tweeted that tomorrow he will show proof that USATF is stealing millions from athletes...

Anyone explain?

I think Nick is overplaying his hand by using the word "stealing" but I do think USATF should give more money to the pros. If the Nike contract went up $5 million or $10 million a year, I think 90% of that money can go to Olympic level athletes in some form. USATF already has what it needs for its overheard and if it gets an extra $5 million a year, that should go to the pros because it was given to sponsor the pros.

I assume Nick will say not enough of the USATF budget is going to pros.

The buget just increased lasat year but I did wonder why USATF didn't say it was giving a ton more money to Olympic athletes once their budget jumped so much last year. There was 1 main reason it jumped I think.

Darren Rovell of ESPN has written on this tonight

"Symmonds said that elite members of USA Track & Field, who are really who Nike is paying for, are projected to earn only $2.46 million in total compensation in 2015, citing numbers put forth by Smith College professor of economics and esteemed sports business author, Andrew Zimbalist. If those numbers are true, the elite athletes are getting roughly get eight percent of the USATF's annual revenue compared to other major team sports athletes who get at least 50 percent of gross revenues received as reflected in their salary cap.

Runners are independent contractors and do not have their own union, making it hard to get similar equality that athletes in other team pro sports have.

Jill Geer, chief public affairs officer for USATF, said the organization does spend roughly half of its annual budget (about $14 million to $15 million) on athletes, including prize money, cash and travel stipends, insurance deductibles, event costs and television production."

checking a box wrote:

I wonder if in all of Nick's prior conversations with USATF (which are alluded to in the letter) if he asked them point-blank what constituted an official team function. The questions being answered by Siegel in the letter seem very specific.

I emailed Nick tonight about a few things including if there was back and forth with USATF. He said, "Thanks for the email. I am meeting with a lawyer tomorrow to discuss my options. I spoke with Max Siegel a few times over the phone and he was very supportive. In the end USATF refused to alter the Statement of Conditions in any way. The TFAA is working with a lawyer to draft a new Statement of Conditions to present to USATF for use in future team selections."

If they spoke multiple times I have to assume he would have to know the concerns about an official team function. Maybe I'm wrong.

I emailed Jill Geer about it a few days ago and she said she could not comment because of possible litigation, so USATF as a whole has to know that was important.

Nick Symmonds is using this to show the ridiculousness of USATF and their contract with Nike. By refusing to clarify what a "team event" is while in Beijing, they are giving Nike a monopoly on the advertising at the World Championship. This sounds awfully like the AAU in the 1970s, except for instead of not being able to be endorsed at all, one can only be endorsed by Nike.