Official Thread to Discuss Boris Berian's Contract

this guy is funny. I'm friends with one of these guys and well aware of the other, both have world class educations, and both are well versed in law & sport. I'll certainly have what you're smoking down there, buddy.I'm also well acquainted with vince ewing, and I'm half temped to text him this thread, specifically Avo and 800dude's comments, as I'd love to see him starting hitting nike more directly on this. Really don't see how they can lose, but need to adjust the angle of attack on this one.

100+ trials to verdict wrote:

800 dude wrote:

Avocado's Number wrote:

I quickly read through Boris's response. I really don't understand why his lawyers aren't focusing more on the standards for obtaining injunctive relief, specifically TROs and preliminary injunctions. In addition to the requirement to show likelihood of success on the merits, Nike needs to meet a number of equitable requirements regarding, among other things, irreparable harm and interests of the public. These are not typically easy standards to meet, especially when dealing with athletes whose livelihoods depend largely on how they perform once every four years.

I agree completely. They're too focused on the facts of this specific case instead of arguing how categorically inappropriate Nike's request is. I don't believe they cite any law at all.

Analysis by guys who sound like they don't have a lot of courtroom litigation experience versus pleading drafting experience.

Nike Interpretation wrote:

Buudy bo breep wrote:

Nike already said they would if it had been offered. So you lose.

Nope. That would all competitors have to do is not include reduction provisions for other athletes and Nike would have to remove them. Not happening. The reduction provisions were added--not long ago--to make the financials work better for Nike.

So, you, and your client/employer Nike, lose.

Is English your second language?

Berian is screwed. The only thing Nike did wrong (aside from suing him) was bullying him in the letter saying that he couldn't negotiate further with new bbalance once new balance agreed to match. There is nothing to support that. Unless berian somehow is persuasive that he isn't endorsing nb products he loses.

There is no bond on the TRO not because there would be no damage but because berian would have to pay the costs on the bond if he ultimately losEs. (Also no one is worried that Nike can't pay whatever damage the TRO would have to berian).

not my real name. wrote:

this guy is funny. I'm friends with one of these guys and well aware of the other, both have world class educations, and both are well versed in law & sport. I'll certainly have what you're smoking down there, buddy.

I'm also well acquainted with vince ewing, and I'm half temped to text him this thread, specifically Avo and 800dude's comments, as I'd love to see him starting hitting nike more directly on this. Really don't see how they can lose, but need to adjust the angle of attack on this one.

100+ trials to verdict wrote:

Analysis by guys who sound like they don't have a lot of courtroom litigation experience versus pleading drafting experience.

Vince is probably more worried about being outclassed by Nike's attorney and having his @ss handed to him yesterday.

Also the guys claiming Boris's lawyer should have argued more about public interest and harm and whatnot, how exactly is Boris irreparably harmed by not being able to wear new balance gear? Nike isn't restraining him from racing

Booed buddy wrote:

Nike Interpretation wrote:

Nope. That would all competitors have to do is not include reduction provisions for other athletes and Nike would have to remove them. Not happening. The reduction provisions were added--not long ago--to make the financials work better for Nike.

So, you, and your client/employer Nike, lose.

Is English your second language?

Is ignorance your first language? Indeed it is.

So Boris' lawyer claims Nike doesn't match NB's offer because Boris can't wear NB gear?

You don't need enemies with that kind of lawyers.

LOL ... Cap"gun"riotti has his team out on the LRC. Special treatment for those on his hit list.

Doc Brown wrote:

Also the guys claiming Boris's lawyer should have argued more about public interest and harm and whatnot, how exactly is Boris irreparably harmed by not being able to wear new balance gear? Nike isn't restraining him from racing

Nike is restraining from racing unless he wears for free Nike gear. Restraint of trade?

He just can't wear competitor's products. If I were him I would get some huaraches and target brand shirt and shorts for the next couple of races. Or make his own shirt that says derogatory things about Nike in some way or something funny otherwise

Doc Brown wrote:

He just can't wear competitor's products. If I were him I would get some huaraches and target brand shirt and shorts for the next couple of races. Or make his own shirt that says derogatory things about Nike in some way or something funny otherwise

Since most good quality running gear has obvious logos then it would be a inappropriate restraint against Berian.

He can't run in Target since Target gets some free PR.

He can't run in huaraches because Nike has a brand under that name, and no other competitor dares to use that name.

Nike Interpretation wrote:

Buudy bo breep wrote:

Nike already said they would if it had been offered. So you lose.

Nope. That would all competitors have to do is not include reduction provisions for other athletes and Nike would have to remove them. Not happening. The reduction provisions were added--not long ago--to make the financials work better for Nike.

So, you, and your client/employer Nike, lose.

Why you are saying NO to what Nike has said YES to in court?

Nike Interpretation wrote:

Doc Brown wrote:

He just can't wear competitor's products. If I were him I would get some huaraches and target brand shirt and shorts for the next couple of races. Or make his own shirt that says derogatory things about Nike in some way or something funny otherwise

Since most good quality running gear has obvious logos then it would be a inappropriate restraint against Berian.

He can't run in Target since Target gets some free PR.

He can't run in huaraches because Nike has a brand under that name, and no other competitor dares to use that name.

http://www.footlocker.com/_-_/keyword-nike+huarache

I hope you don't practice anything other than playing COD.

The order said Berian CAN wear BBTC gear. So there is not restraint on his ability to run. He can't wear NB branded BBTC gear.

Booed buddy wrote:

Nike Interpretation wrote:

Nope. That would all competitors have to do is not include reduction provisions for other athletes and Nike would have to remove them. Not happening. The reduction provisions were added--not long ago--to make the financials work better for Nike.

So, you, and your client/employer Nike, lose.

Why you are saying NO to what Nike has said YES to in court?

LOL ... too late is why, fool. Nike DID NOT say yes in time, and has not proven they would have removed the clauses in an appropriate manner.

Lets see how NB, Brooks, etc. use that against Nike--that Nike will drop performance reductions--for anyone those companies want on their teams. It would be financial blood bath for Nike, as far as Capriotti is concerned.

Or, is this is single one-off with Nike playing bully, with no intent of ever removing the clauses in future case?

Nike Interpretation wrote:

LOL ... Cap"gun"riotti has his team out on the LRC. Special treatment for those on his hit list.

LOL you're an idiot.

Educate me. I get what you are saying and it makes perfect sense.

However, if that was the case why didn't Boris and his agent either sign with NB after Nike's contract with the reductions came. Or why are they waiting until the 180 days to sign at all?

Do you think they are just being cautious? or will no one sign them, because under your theory, the minute Nike sent a contract that had reductions (inspire of them saying "We match the NB offer") the contract with Nike was over.

Booed buddy wrote:

Nike Interpretation wrote:

LOL ... Cap"gun"riotti has his team out on the LRC. Special treatment for those on his hit list.

LOL you're an idiot.

What does something the Wall Street Journal reported --about LRC on a hit list-- make you so angry?

Booed buddy wrote:

Nike Interpretation wrote:

LOL ... Cap"gun"riotti has his team out on the LRC. Special treatment for those on his hit list.

LOL you're an idiot.

Why does something the Wall Street Journal reported --about LRC on a hit list-- make you so angry?

Nike Interpretation wrote:

Booed buddy wrote:

LOL you're an idiot.

Why does something the Wall Street Journal reported --about LRC on a hit list-- make you so angry?

So you work for LR?

Seriously, can't you guys take a joke. You do the April fools day page every year and no one takes it serious enough to be afraid.