BORIS IS FREE!!!! Nike has dropped its lawsuit against Boris Berian

No, there's no basis for Boris collecting damages. I think Nike realized that it was going to lose and the PR hit was going to keep getting worse. So it was a combo of both, but my guess is that the former trumped the latter. However you want to dress it up (i.e., Nike's argument that the lack of reductions needed to be conveyed on letterhead), Hawi had clearly disclosed the lack of reductions and a hypothetical jury would have viewed Nike's argument as a meaningless technicality.

R C S wrote:

Boscow third wrote:

Not a cent.

Oh, look. Another dummy providing a curt answer acting like he knows anything at all about the subject. Stop it already.

Tgbyhn wrote:

3. Damage control for the bad PR. Negative PR would be one thing if Nike thought it would win, but to put Berian through the wringer and lose would be terrible PR, especially with the ruling coming right before TV coverage of the Olympic trials.

Speaking of Trials coverage, I sure hope they mention that Craig Masback is employed by Nike. I've always thought it was weird that an employee of USATF's largest sponsor does the tv coverage and it's not mentioned

what about craig wrote:

Speaking of Trials coverage, I sure hope they mention that Craig Masback is employed by Nike. I've always thought it was weird that an employee of USATF's largest sponsor does the tv coverage and it's not mentioned

Wonder what Masback's reduction clauses are?

Tgbyhn wrote:

My guess is that-

1. Nike expected an adverse ruling and by dismissing Nike avoids having the judge issue an opinion that would be bad precedent for Nike in future disputes with athletes, especially with athletes in other sports who get paid a lot more than Berian.

2. It's hurting Nike's recruiting of athletes. I bet Donavan Brazier and other athletes are looking much more closely and skeptically at whatever Nike might offer and trying to negotiate changes to Nike's reduction language instead of just accepting whatever Nike says is "standard" contract language.

3. Damage control for the bad PR. Negative PR would be one thing if Nike thought it would win, but to put Berian through the wringer and lose would be terrible PR, especially with the ruling coming right before TV coverage of the Olympic trials.

It's has nothing to do with bad PR or hurting recruiting.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!

You see now a contract has been made public agents can rally for more money. But more importantly rally against reductions.

what about craig wrote:

Tgbyhn wrote:

3. Damage control for the bad PR. Negative PR would be one thing if Nike thought it would win, but to put Berian through the wringer and lose would be terrible PR, especially with the ruling coming right before TV coverage of the Olympic trials.

Speaking of Trials coverage, I sure hope they mention that Craig Masback is employed by Nike. I've always thought it was weird that an employee of USATF's largest sponsor does the tv coverage and it's not mentioned

All thr annoucers have othet gigs. Should we mention those as well. Why single out one company?

Again, I am but a humble bird lawyer, but the declarations of Jesse Williams, Nick Symmonds, and the Oiselle CEO that were filed in favor of Mr. Berian strongly indicate that reduction clauses are not standard in the industry. Since Nike would've had to show such clauses are standard to prevail in the case, these declarations could've been a key factor in Nike's decision to drop the case.

rojo wrote:

I certainly didn't see this coming. I wonder if Nike realized they were going to lose and decided to save face or just wanted to avoid more bad PR.

If they wanted to punish him and send a message, they may actually have gotten what they wanted via the injunction. How many meets did he miss, and will this affect his performance at the Trials and possibly the Olympics?

1HumbleBirdLawyer wrote:

Again, I am but a humble bird lawyer, but the declarations of Jesse Williams, Nick Symmonds, and the Oiselle CEO that were filed in favor of Mr. Berian strongly indicate that reduction clauses are not standard in the industry. Since Nike would've had to show such clauses are standard to prevail in the case, these declarations could've been a key factor in Nike's decision to drop the case.

I would guess Nike writes contracts for track athletes probably 100-1 over any other competitor maybe more - So maybe they feel that they set the industry standard. The whole thing is ugly

rojo wrote:

Here is our article on the development with a quote from Hawi:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2016/06/david-1-goliath-0-nike-dropped-lawsuit-againt-boris-berian/

I certainly didn't see this coming. I wonder if Nike realized they were going to lose and decided to save face or just wanted to avoid more bad PR.

NIKE could be sued for lying deliberately and damaging boris reputation.

this contract is the biggest of his career, very likely. it may be all she wrote.

And Boris has had his olympic games preparation messed with.

So Nike backed out to avoid an arsekicking legally, the lawyers, scum-suckers, would risk their jobs with a loss.

Boris should now sue for damages, liable, lost earnings.

f(((u)ck Nike.- horrible outfit - i will write a hit piece on that MF company as soon as i get caught up with work.

Nike shiller wrote:

In Sum This wrote:

Don't give Nike any kudos

Are guys 3 yrs old? Boris and his agent are adults who signed a contract and effed up. Nike realized Boris simply wasn't worth the effort. When he flames out in the semis, he will become another "promising" athlete.

Nike still sponsors a ton of athletes and if you aren't a whiner or on the downside of your career, you won't get reduced.

But the usual idiots will call me a shill

Well that or

You are some parts evil and immoral and some parts ignorant.

Most people are like that. The truth is our world, our society is full of disgusting unbelievable injustice, machination, deception, arrogance and hostility. The poster below speculates things that are true. Big multinational corporations have revolving doors with government and they have intimate relationships with big law and pr firms w o morals. Like the devils advocate movie but not that extreme for the most part (not rise of the Nazi party murdering extreme). More white collar terrorizing but still reprehensible and completely undermining of the foundations of civilization. And most of you out there and your extended networks are a part of it. There are so many particular details and aspects of these dynamics that it takes a lot of mental energy and organization to put forward a convincing teaser expose for you guys. Those who have never pierced the veil and are ensconced in the blissful ignorance of daily conventional life have no idea the depth of the injustice and the effort required to understand it, to hold it in consciousness and combat it. It's not just big multinational corporations but a whole way of life, of not questioning the societal system that makes these things possible. Get good grades at any cost, go to law school, get a high paying job, look good, be well adjusted. It produces shallow people who cannot pierce truth. It produces confusion and a false sense of security and a false veil of competence. The spirit of the law and of morals is forsaken. Fancy lawyers and fancy pharma and biomedical scientists whose know how are simply constructs, over a shallow and very crass and greedy basic human core. How else do you explain how the Agro chemical companies can infiltrate government, persecute innocent people, corrupt and twist the law, and buy out media and journalism and have the short sighted rat race termites believe such incredible lies?

That cross taxonomical genetic modification

Is the equivalent of species level breeding,

Or that it is light hearted, risk free and clean and mechanical, like computer games? They misrepresent science and even try to hide the true workings of science and then call it science. Only a distracted idiotic populace could fall for this propaganda.

This disastrous dynamic has happened in the Anglo-American and European past. These dynamics, like nuclear weapons testing, leave long lasting consequences and pollution. At least with nuclear weapons testing, people grasp the basic truth of details clearly. But with these matters of our societal institutions across

Education, culture, sex, social organization, professions, science, medicine, law, media, journalism, academia, religion, etc people are ignorant and even if awakened in a module or two, don't realize how the modules are interconnected.

We have systems in our society that are getting out of control. Yes it's not as bad as things going on elsewhere in the world, like the Middle East or Eastern Europe, or parts of Africa in previous decades. But by our standards and dreams it is appalling and can set us up for disaster.

I've told you people before, Nike is an example of these evils and also what ails society and the distance running community. We have corrupted life cycles. Athletes getting cushy jobs with such corporations is parallel to similar negative life cycles (that are much worse) elsewhere. People think that team sports is fundamental to American identity, manhood and regional and daily life and that blinds them to trying to think critically About the negative role it is playing in our society. Nike is a part of this:

Corruption of the media

Labor abuse

Lousy immoral business ideas and business attitudes

Shallow and distasteful advertising

Shoddy products

Consumers with perverted tastes

Supply and demand not furthering human good but reset and corrupted with perverted tastes and encoding

Immoral legal services

Doping

The list goes on and on.

People want to screw and make money and run fast and spend hours on these things but they don't want to think. So we have a society of incompetent moral thinkers and when the one in a couple million genius comes along who is overburdened with the work because everyone else is freeloading, distracted and blissfully ignorant, the illuminator at every step is disregarded for countless psychological bias reasons. Alarmist, this and that. This generation will not believe unless mountainous miracles are done, as Jesus lamented. The masses will not be moved until exponential means are summoned: A perfect movie, a perfect stunt or series of stunts, perfect writing or series of writings and other such works and arrangements that take years and even lifetimes. We don't necessarily have that much time.

1HumbleBirdLawyer wrote:

I primarily practice bird law, but I still know it is not a coincidence that Nike dropped their suit the day after the hearing on Nike's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent Boris from competing in a competitor's gear. I would bet good money that the judge at yesterday's hearing indicated to all parties that he would rule in favor of Boris on the motion for preliminary injunction as well as the merits of the case and that is why Nike dropped the suit today.

+1. My thoughts exactly. The judge pulled the lawyers into his chambers after the hearing and told them how he was going to rule. Nike dropped the suit because they (1) were going to lose on the merits of the suit, but (2) succeeded in getting their message across.

I bet you have nice hands.

did nike apologize to boris?

Maybe they found out Boris is worn down/will lose in the trials and dropped him.

tghpdx wrote:

I would guess Nike writes contracts for track athletes probably 100-1 over any other competitor maybe more - So maybe they feel that they set the industry standard. The whole thing is ugly

I'm not sure that argument would have gotten them very far with the judge as Nike was supposed to match a contract from a different company. So, what matters is what is standard for what they were trying to match.

What's Nike's message exactly? I read the whole thread and may have missed that information.

Another Lawyer wrote:

1HumbleBirdLawyer wrote:

I primarily practice bird law, but I still know it is not a coincidence that Nike dropped their suit the day after the hearing on Nike's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent Boris from competing in a competitor's gear. I would bet good money that the judge at yesterday's hearing indicated to all parties that he would rule in favor of Boris on the motion for preliminary injunction as well as the merits of the case and that is why Nike dropped the suit today.

+1. My thoughts exactly. The judge pulled the lawyers into his chambers after the hearing and told them how he was going to rule. Nike dropped the suit because they (1) were going to lose on the merits of the suit, but (2) succeeded in getting their message across.

Does anyone else see this as a big win for Mawi Keflezighi?

Will he be seen as the go-to agent that beat Nike? If I was a college athlete looking to go pro I would certainly be knocking on his door.

Gotta go to Class wrote:

It's has nothing to do with bad PR or hurting recruiting.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!

You see now a contract has been made public agents can rally for more money. But more importantly rally against reductions.

This is the part I don't get! This was the only possible outcome! Say they won and got to resign Boris with reductions. All future agents would be fighting hard against reductions after seeing a NB and Nike contract together.

This law suit never should have been fired. Nike had not enough upside to keeping Boris and too much downside to showing every athlete one of their contracts for a stud.

Well at least Nike owns the NBA and can have the refs toss a series to their lifer rather than to the under armor guy.

My take is that Nike would have won the breach of contract case if it had been resolved.

However, Nike didn't care about that, they only cared about Boris wearing Nike for the trials and the olympics.

That would have required them winning the argument that Boris was under Nike contract once Nike said they would match NB. That argument was going to lose as evidenced by the judge dropping the TRO without immediately deciding the preliminary injunction.

Since Nike was not going to get what they wanted, they dropped the case (even though the would have eventually won the breach of contract).