Colorado's Injuries Recounted

Holland Nass wrote:

But the cockroaches that scurry into the darkness after throwing a Wetmore slam should really put a lid on it.

The original post is taken directly from a CU press release. Colorado libelling Wetmore???

hmmm wrote:

yeah, suspicious...

I heard he tells the team to run 80miles and eat 1600kcals...possibly the reason for injuries???

this is pure bs and anyone with a brain knows it.

HMMM.. you are a LIAR and a MORON, as is anyone who bites this sh!t.

NOBODY in ANY position to know jack sh!t about wetmore or CU, is going to be giving a F%cking idot like your self any such info.

maybe im taking this wrong; maybe this is just some dumbasses idea of a joke; but, this board AT ONE POINT had a good deal of useful and helpful info,

now id have to say that way to much of it is just a bunch of f^ktards who seem to think they know everything about every college, and profesional program, and all their dopeing, eating and whatever other habits they have.

you guys most certainly are a BUNCH OF F*^*KING A$$HOLES.

FEEL FREE TO EMAIL ME ANYTIME.LITTLE TWITS

eman wrote:

Also knew a former member of the national championship women's team who also said that she was told to control her eating also.

But she was on the national championship team, correct?

They won't email you and would absolutely shit a plank if their anonymity was revealed. No one with any sense believes these bogus threads anymore.

The way I understood the question was about the injuries that seem to be mounting for the CU Buffaloes. No one questions their success just the means used to accomplish it.

Read running with the buffaloes. Odds are the men are running over 90 mpw and women are running over 60 mpw. I have also heard that Wetmore tries to keep his athlete's weight under control by weighing them throughout the season.

And you heard wrong.

RWTB was only about some of the runners, your a dumbass.

you are right that libel is rarely an issue with the court. You are off slightly on the burden of proof. First the plantiff must prove that the defendents comment/claim are false. All the defendent has to do is claim that it is his/her personal opinion.

Even if the plaintiff can prove that the defendent knows what they are saying is false, you are then correct in that the plaintiff must then prove damages. That the plaintiff intentionally meant harm or recklessy caused it. You dont necessarily have to have intent- hence the assumption by some that the burden is on the defendent. If the defendent acted recklessly in regards to their actions- and a resonable person would have known better- they can be held liable for damages with or without intent.

It is difficult to get around the defense of opinion. Is it this posters view that so and so person causes injury. He is entitled to his opinion-even if its wrong. Is he intentionally trying to smear the guy/gal and cause harm, or is he being careless and causing harm- then there might be a case.

The easiest lay to prove libel is to prove the defendent is lying. That is not too easy in most cases, but can be done. Of course, different states have different case law so that can vary as well.

There are very few times were telling the truth can be libel, but it is possible. First of all, the person claiming wetmore=injuries- is that truth? If the plaintiff can show its not, than its an easy case. IF the defendent personally believes it as the truth, and the plaintiff cant show how a resonable person would think otherwise, libel can still be an issue. Did the person intentionally try to damage the plaintiff with "the truth". Not only that, did they act recklessy and cause actual damages.

And we're supposed to listen to an eminem wannabe? Get a life...dawg.

Still injured?

Bitch.

Who would be jealous of a coach who f***s his runners up??

Come back to reality...bitch.