birdbeard wrote:
Even just saying “craves attention” is pretty stupid and misogynistic!
You’re too woke for your own good clearly.
birdbeard wrote:
Even just saying “craves attention” is pretty stupid and misogynistic!
You’re too woke for your own good clearly.
sub sub elite local hobby jogger wrote:
LetsIncel wrote:
That's a breathtakingly thoughtless take. The breadth and scope of it sure is misogynistic. Nobody speculated negatively on Hill's or Ben True's or Noah Droddy's intelligence or personality in discussion of their sponsorships ending. Multiple different posters on here have gladly done this very thing about Quigley. Don't be daft.
To offer a tiny bit of fairness, none of those mentioned are near the level of Quigley in terms of success in their event or events, so there is less incentive to speculate about their contracts. If they lose a contract or switch sponsors, it would be pretty obvious why. Quigley is at or near the peak of her career, so it is odd to see a contract switch wt this time.
But yea, I most agree with you.
Fairness? Try realness! Quigley has just as many international championship medals and essentially as many national championships as the other three mentioned. She's rated more highly in individuals' minds based off of looks and resulting SM presence. The misogynists build her up based on physical attraction and tear her down because of anything and everything else. And it's no surprise at all on letsrun.
Doesn’t Nike get 90 days to match any new offers so nothing can be official until April 2?
Thank you for the advice.
contract law 101 wrote:
Doesn’t Nike get 90 days to match any new offers so nothing can be official until April 2?
Then how would you explain Ryan Hill already having the NAZ contract?
TDK wrote:
contract law 101 wrote:
Doesn’t Nike get 90 days to match any new offers so nothing can be official until April 2?
Then how would you explain Ryan Hill already having the NAZ contract?
Couple of hypotheses:
1. Hill’s contract was significantly smaller/less lucrative than Quigley’s so it didn’t have as many restrictive provisions.
2. The split was more amicable/Nike gave notice early on that it wouldn’t match the NAZ contract.
mambaskills wrote:
birdbeard wrote:
Even just saying “craves attention” is pretty stupid and misogynistic!
You’re too woke for your own good clearly.
just not willfully obtuse, is all
Anyone that posts all over social media to total strangest craves attention and is, frankly, pathetic. My accounts are restricted to people I actually know in real life.
hei28hefug wrote:
Anyone that posts all over social media to total strangest craves attention and is, frankly, pathetic. My accounts are restricted to people I actually know in real life.
And you crave attention from those people. Pathetic, frankly.
sub sub elite local hobby jogger wrote:
To offer a tiny bit of fairness, none of those mentioned are near the level of Quigley in terms of success in their event or events, so there is less incentive to speculate about their contracts..
You sure about that? Hill has 3 US titles, Quigley has 1. Hill has a silver from Worlds, Quigley has no medals. Hill also has a 7th from Worlds to his name, Quigley's best finish is 8th.
I am torn on Colleen Quigley.
On one hand, she is a virtue signaling lame progressive posting black squares on Instagram and her silly "Achieving My Purpose" campaign (more virtue signaling).
On the other hand, she is fast! No joke, this woman can run!
I don't think any other club wants the headache of her social media/modeling/ .
Um, the modeling/social media is only a "headache" for weirdo losers who salivate over those things, they're addicted and can't look away. I'd never know about anything she posts on social media except for the losers who bring it up here. Why? Because I have a life, if I see her racing on a screen I'll probably root for her but otherwise she's not part of my consciousness.
Social media is literally part of her job. She makes money off of it. Maybe she craves maximizing her earnings and sponsorships. I would probably post a lot on social media if doing so would get me money / free gear, too. If we could all be so effective at it.
I've never heard anyone criticize a man as "craving attention." Particularly for an activity that is part of their earnings. It's just subtle misogyny that you LRC old dudes don't even realize you're putting out there.
why would a shoe company want all the attention that social media brings?
most real companies prefer athletes that even hard core fans who troll the LR forum couldn't pick out of a lineup.
.
juanito wrote:
why would a shoe company want all the attention that social media brings?
uh, to sell their stuff
birdbeard wrote:
juanito wrote:
why would a shoe company want all the attention that social media brings?
uh, to sell their stuff
The problem Quigley has is that she becomes less likable the more she posts. A bit here and there is cool but once it reaches the point of being annoying it works against her.
I bet you she pays for likes on her posts too
Um yeah.. for instance... her most recent post is her laying in a bath tub with 'beam' products all over her. It is not only weird, but way over the top. I don't even focus on the brand at that point.. I look at that like why are you laying in a bathtube with product all over you? Why are you trying to get a seductive shot when you're supposed to be selling beam? By the by, that leads me to 'wtf is happening here? '
The CBD stuff is just weird since her target audience is 12-year-olds with the braiding stuff. It feels gross to me.
hei28hefug wrote:
Anyone that posts all over social media to total strangest craves attention and is, frankly, pathetic. My accounts are restricted to people I actually know in real life.
Lol it’s literally their job.
Why is it gross? High school and college women can surely use CBD the same way adults can? It’s not like she’s telling them to buy her braid shaped bong