What are Symmonds Legal Options to be Put on Team?

Les wrote:

Actually, the stipulation that athletes only bring NIke-branded USA gear or regular NIke gear, nothing else, is a relatively new one. And Nick also did not sign when presented with the doc I believe at world indoors.

What other parties do or choose not to do has no bearing on the merits of a case. If 100 people are poisoned by bad water caused by a chemical company's spill, if 99 people choose not to sue but one does, that does not mean the suing party has to explain why those other 99 are not suing nor does it invalidate their case. The suing party only has to prove their particular case, nothing else.

You're wrong on both counts. First of all, the requirement to wear team USA apparel or non-branded apparel to official events is not a new requirement. It has been in place for years. Nick has undoubtedly signed similar documents before. There is next to no chance he didn't.

And remember that Nick didn't have to wear Nike training clothes that aren't his team USA gear (singlet, warmups, etc). He could wear unbranded apparel. That doesn't mean some generic t-shirt, it simply means something without a logo/wordmark visible. I have a couple Brooks t-shirts that would easily qualify. Mostly because the logo wore off, but that's beside the point. Nick could easily get a blank t-shirt and some logoless shorts from Brooks.

(I will agree that the term official needs to be explicity defined from here on out. But that doesn't change the fact that this document, in similar form has been signed by Nick and other athletes in the past.)

Second, Nick signed the document for World Indoors. I've used the electronic signature system used by USATF; it is incredibly unlikely that someone was able to log in as Nick and sign for him. USATF has proof that he signed, but he claims he didn't. He's going to have to prove that someone else signed his name.

wearing saucony shoes wrote:

Nick didn't have to wear Nike training clothes that aren't his team USA gear (singlet, warmups, etc). He could wear unbranded apparel.

That's what the protest is about.

I wholeheartedly agree that Nick knew good and well he would be lucky to make the final, let alone finish top 5 (top 3? hahahaha) but the fact is that he has history on the medal stand, which will mean MUCH more to any jury or judge than "what shape he may/may not be in right now". unless the judge (and/or jury) happens to be a runner who follows letsrun closely, the only thing to go on is precedent, which Nick has on his side. he's still a bit of DB, but at least he's not a complete idiot.

Brooks is hurt more than Nick wrote:

Nick can claim he personally will suffer loses by not competing in Beijing, but realistically he only can cash in with a podium finish which isn't likely this time, so tough to prove those losses.

wejo wrote:

What are Nick's legal options to be put on the team?

The issues of the USATF position being Draconian aside I believe Symmonds position at this point must be Shermanesque to be valid.

If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.

William Tecumseh Sherman

electronic signing expert wrote:

If 100 people find something reasonable (is that a legal standard?) and 1 person doesn't, does that make it unreasonable?

No, that's not a legal standard for "reasonable", though USATF has used that argument recently: Everybody else signed the SOC, and Nick didn't, so HE must be the problem. This is an invalid argument that likely won't be allowed in court, and even if it were, it's also easily countered by testimony from other athletes who thought the SOC was unreasonable but they signed it anyway. There would be plenty of opportunity to cast USATF as the oppressor who was too big to challenge.

Here's how I would present it to a jury: "Wouldn't it be great for all tyrants if their past tyranny proved their entitlement to future tyranny?" "Nobody has challenged us yet, so we must right, and fair, and just!!?? - that's ridiculous!" I don't think it matters one bit that Nick waited until now to make his stand against USATF. (That said, the better attack on the SOC is that it's vague and incomplete, and that part of the overall contract - to qualify for the world champ team - should be stricken.)