BREAKING: Symmonds off World team

123098 wrote:

Question: Did Nick stand up for the sport,as he is now, when he was running for Nike? If he did, then I am all ears and give him 110% support. If not, then he is just looking out for only Nick.

Yes he did. Remember the tattoo fiasco a few years ago? That whole issue was about an athlete's right to branding / marketing. That is what this issue is also about.

Nick will appreciate your 110% support.

This is utterly wrong-headed. Symmonds was our best and he should be on the team. USATF cannot ban athletes from carrying non-Nike gear on a trip. He should go right to court to get an injunction to compete. If Butch Reynolds could do it, and he had a positive test, then Symmonds in his own peculiar act of conscience/commerce should be able to get that injunction. I do not want to see potentially his last World's slot in his career go the way of the dodo. USATF, like the IAAF, is more concerned with allowing dopers and men in the women's competition. So, it's okay to compete against women if you have testes, but not if you wear Brooks out to coffee.

Honestly I just find this whole thing pathetic from both sides. USATF is becoming a joke organization with this undefined last minute sponsorship requirement and then the ugly way that they enforce it. And Symmonds is a media whore and is now willing to skip a world championship in exchange for the press. Face it -- its not like he'd get a New York Times article written about him if he went.

Does anyone remember the dream team basketball olympic team where they had an almost identical issue? They ended up taking the podium wearing the reebok jackets but draped flags over the logos:

http://nowiknow.com/star-spangled-ad-banner/

http://articles.philly.com/1992-07-30/news/26025873_1_nike-reeboks-dream-team

Are you really going to tell me the two sides couldn't have worked something out? If only people used the phone instead of Twitter to publicly call out the other party.

Moby Dick wrote:

I'm never buying a Brooks product again. Nick ruined the brand for me.

This

NJ Possible wrote:

Honestly I just find this whole thing pathetic from both sides. USATF is becoming a joke organization with this undefined last minute sponsorship requirement and then the ugly way that they enforce it. And Symmonds is a media whore and is now willing to skip a world championship in exchange for the press. Face it -- its not like he'd get a New York Times article written about him if he went.

Does anyone remember the dream team basketball olympic team where they had an almost identical issue? They ended up taking the podium wearing the reebok jackets but draped flags over the logos:

http://nowiknow.com/star-spangled-ad-banner/http://articles.philly.com/1992-07-30/news/26025873_1_nike-reeboks-dream-team

Are you really going to tell me the two sides couldn't have worked something out? If only people used the phone instead of Twitter to publicly call out the other party.

In Wejo's post he mentions that Nick did talk to Max on the phone. Twitter has nothing to do with it.

What do you expect from an organization with Siegal and Hightower in charge?

coach d wrote:

Sue both USATF and Nike for Restraint of Trade, and seek an injunction that keeps EVERYONE (from USATF) from going to Beijing.

USATF would do well to settle quickly with Nick whenever he sues them. They (and Nike) don't want to go through the discovery process. I'm fairly certain you'll see Nike kickbacks much like they did with the CBF.

The sport would be much better off without Mr. super ego Nick Symmonds.

This is not a negotiated contract. These are the terms of being on the team. The USATF cannot realistically negotiate 150 separate athlete contracts. What the athletes should be doing is collectively bargaining the terms through the TFAA or some similar organization.

If Nick thought the terms were vague, he should have just signed and followed his own interpretation. If the USATF threw him off the team for wearing Brooks gear at breakfast, he would have tee'd up the issue of how much control the federation has over it's athletes during the games and how broad the uniform restrictions are. Right now he is off the team for refusing to sign the statement of conditions because they were "vague" and might have infringed on his sponsorship contract. He is in a much weaker position right now to take on the USATF.

You're welcome.

NCAA D I basketball and football players are the talent. College games are as low production cost as it gets. ESPN is making billions off of this business model, just the way Housewives of Orange County and Duck Dynasty are. Desparate talent without a union and low production costs means big money to The Man.

If you think all that SEC TV revenue is all going to non revenue sports, maybe you should check out the football practice facilities at U Alabama, Nick Saban's new house, and his 4 million dollar contract. Really, WeJo, naivete does not become you.

The olympic sport revenue stream is similar. Cities and countries foot the bill for most of the production costs, athletes provide the content, and NBC counts the dollar bills. Olympic athletes have no union, no bargaining rights, are totally dispensable, and so have little to no leverage in contractual negotiations.

Nick was offered a place on the team. They gave him a contract to sign. He didn't approve of the contract and didn't sign it. Therefore, he declined his place on the team.

He declined his place on the team because he didn't want to wear the team uniform. His choice, but don't expect the public or an attorney to side with his decision.

Not a win for Nick wrote:

Nick was offered a place on the team. They gave him a contract to sign. He didn't approve of the contract and didn't sign it. Therefore, he declined his place on the team.

He declined his place on the team because he didn't want to wear the team uniform. His choice, but don't expect the public or an attorney to side with his decision.

It seems more like USATF decided to not define certain terms listed in the contract, thus the time expired to sign the contract. It seems from his past experiences, he wanted to know what they meant by certain terms because he had an impression and negative experience from signing this last time (worlds indoor...) I think he could have signed it if they actually said what "official" team functions were.

read it on scribd wrote:

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.

Well, why the hell do you think?

If you're in the Nike/USATF "bad books" you can get DQed at nationals for "fouling" an athlete you weren't even near. (Bumbalough.)

You can have USATF clowns literally make up rules as they go to screw you out of a spot in an Olympic event, putting a Nike favorite (Feleix) in instead.

Money and threats can buy a lot of silence.

HokeyPokey wrote:

Kara Goucher's Facebook:

"What a sad day for USATF when we send convicted drug cheats to world champs but keep Nick Symmonds home because he won't wear Nike gear at the meet hotel."

I think I actually agree with a facebook post by Kara Goucher.

This can't be right...

I need to think about this some more.

Being a legal secretary or low level contract flunky is not negotiating contracts.

And Im darn sure you never were involved in contract dispute litigation.

Not ebery term in a contract can be or should be defined. Even if this was a purely negotiated contract, the term official function is far from vague. Ordinary usage and accepted practices would suffice.

They can't hid behind non specific language. This is the biggest misconception out there. Vague language doesn't help the usatf. However they probably can't just change it for one person for one contract.

But Nick signed this same contract a number of times before without issue.

Wear the Nike gear when outside your hotel room - in the public eye. Inside your room it's up to you. Simple. There has to be more to this than all that has been reported to date.

team dysfunction wrote:

They presented him with a contract. He wanted them to clarify an important point which was worded ambiguously. They instead kick him off the team.

Why was 'official' in quotes?

Makes it seem so vague, like even they're not sure what it means, or want to extend it to anything that might be considered like a team function. I believe the quotation marks were used intentionally, to confuse the athlete, so they would wear nik3 everywhere, just to be sure.

If it was clear what constitutes an official function they wouldn't have to use quotation marks. That is the smoking gun. Deliberate ambiguity IMO.

In a legal dispute over ambiguity in the language of a contract, doesn't the law favor the party that did NOT draft the contract?

Maybe USATF should have been more specific in their wording of what constitutes an official function?

If a lawyer drafted this contract, he/she should be fired immediately. What kind of idiot puts the word "official" in quotation marks but does not define it in any way?

joho wrote:

In Wejo's post he mentions that Nick did talk to Max on the phone. Twitter has nothing to do with it.

I missed that, thanks. But even if they did speak, Nick's use of social media has been a barrage of criticism and press aimed at making USATF look bad (which they deserve to some degree of course). If you're truly interested in running, you come to the conversation and figure out what can be done. That's why I say he's more interested in the press than he is competing. I'm simply not a fan anymore.