Why does CrossFit.com like to post videos of non-CrossFitters blasting through their workouts? Josh Everett, Rob Orlando, now the Burgeners...
I like how Steve Rakow limited to number of possible scenarios to 3 in his post regarding the RRG today.
1. insurance company settles, you get dropped
2. insurance company fights, but loses, you get dropped
3. RRG fights, wins, and peace and harmony are spread throughout the land!
He also forgot the following scenarios:
4. insurance company fights, wins, you might get dropped (?)
5. RRG fights, the CF attorney rambles on about modal domains and shit, makes the judge/jury pitty the plaintiff even more, and you lose
6. the RRG refuses to respect your claim at all, since CrossFit doesn't hurt people, only bad trainers do
7. the government finally gets wise to how Glasshole is sidestepping past every business practice law he can, then you get entangled in some federal investigation for being an partial owner of a company he initiated
8. Glassman takes the $500k then runs off to some foreign country (oddly enough, the CF Nation still loves him for it, and he continues to sell overpriced certs abroad to all the eager CrossFitters around the world who couldn't afford a plane ticket to Santa Cruz along with their cert fee)
This was also an interesting part of Steve's post:
Steve Rakow wrote:Scenario #2 -
Your insurer decides to litigate the claim, but gets an attorney that can't even pronounce rhabdomyolysis correctly, is a fat pig sitting behind a desk, but he's a good litigator nonetheless.
I'm not sure what the fat pig part has to do with his being a lawyer, especially since Steve said he's a "good litigator nonetheless." Also, it's very common for business professionals to be sitting behind a desk, so I'm not sure if that was supposed to
imply anything. Would you expect a lawyer to have a card table in his office to work at? I'd hardly think so.
Gant's post covered everything non-inflammatory that I wanted to say.
Gant Grimes wrote:No, I don't think it will make. Many affiliates and trainers either don't believe the hype/scare, don't have the money, or don't appreciate the bully tactics going on. The CF community has taken on a stark "with us or against us" mentality the last 18 months, and this is the latest manifestation of that. That's a shame.
The RRG is being formed in response to CF affiliates' inability to obtain insurance. Think about that. This is a work-around, not a solution. Is the problem that everyone in the world, including doctors, exercise scientists, and insurers, are a bunch of dumbasses that just don't "get" CrossFit? Or does it have something to do with the fact that an untrained individual (with no athletic experience) can show up on Friday, get certified to teach CF methods over the weekend, and then get turned loose to train someone (equally untrained and equally unathletic) on Monday?
Steve's hypothetical is well-written bit of coercive marketing. One of the RRG's selling points is "lawyers who understand and do CF." This is unnecessary, and every litigator worth his salt knows it (Steve, you know it, too). It also suggests that RRG lawyers are the only ones who conduct discovery or even know how to work up a case. Come on.
Also, what's with the posturing that the RRG will never settle a case? Really? It has already determined that CF is always right and any person that gets rhabdo doing a WOD is always wrong? That's not the way it works.
$500K is a lot to raise, but it's a drop in the bucket if ignorant L1 trainers start screwing people up. I wonder if the money could be better spent on 1) full time quality control trainers that work for HQ and audit affiliates, 2) standardizing the CF certs and requiring demonstration of actual knowledge and ability before certifying new trainers, and/or 3) requiring continuing education for CF trainers.
The first line of defense is quality and reasonable care. Affiliates should demand that HQ increase the knowledge and performance requirements to get certified, not fund a safety net to protect the ignorant.