Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

IOC rule 40

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • IOC rule 40

    On another thread 26mi365 raised the dark shadow of IOC rule 40.

    The story on today's top headlines by Onion on IOC rule 40 seems to suggest an athlete could be DQ'd after winning gold if, for example, New Balance posted "Congratulations Jack Smith on winning your Gold at Rio."

    Curious to know how this could be possible as athlete had no control over what their shoe company says or does. Would seem that IOC would lose in CAS.
    Last edited by Tuariki; 07-30-2016, 07:32 AM.

  • #2
    And they certainly would lose in the court of public opinion. The absurdity of the rule is such that I doubt the IOC will press anything too much because it is likely to blow up in their face.

    I am not a lawyer but there are legal terms and conditions and those made to sign such contracts are not signing on a free basis and courts of law are going to be rather lenient on the athlete and rather tough on parties like the IOC if they come down on the athletes. I think that the term might be 'consideration':

    Consideration must be of value (at least to the parties), and is exchanged for the performance or promise of performance by the other party (such performance itself is consideration). In a contract, one consideration (thing given) is exchanged for another consideration.
    What has the IOC given up to get the consideration and what value has been given to the athlete who has been forced to sign the condition.

    Going after 'ambush marketing' will probably hold up, going after athletes and rather innocent commentary, and especially public tweeter stuff is almost certain shaky ground. I wish we had more attorneys here (Law Dude) use to comment but my guess is that his employer told him to cease.

    Comment


    • #3
      How can IOC stop companies publishing the truth and/or punish athletes when their sponsor publishes the truth?

      Example: new Balance posts the following in Twitter and FB.

      "Congratulations to Jack Smith who won a gold medal at the Rio 2016 Olympics. He was wearing New Balance shoes when he crossed the finish line in first place".

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 26mi235 View Post
        What has the IOC given up to get the consideration and what value has been given to the athlete who has been forced to sign the condition.
        The athlete gets the right to compete in the event the IOC is putting up, which clearly represents significant value to the athletes. I'm not saying the restrictions are reasonable, and they could likely still be challenged, but consideration isn't really the issue here.
        Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

        Comment


        • #5
          The extend of that rule is ridiculous though, i read an article about that yesterday. Basically any word that can be associated with Rio is forbidden, even for companies that are in no way connected to the games. "Summer" "Rio de Janeiro" "gold", "silver, "bronze", lots of hashtags, if a travel agency were to advertise "last minute flights to Rio de Janeiro", they would be breaking Rule 40.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
            On another thread 26mi365 raised the dark shadow of IOC rule 40.

            The story on today's top headlines by Onion on IOC rule 40 seems to suggest an athlete could be DQ'd after winning gold if, for example, New Balance posted "Congratulations Jack Smith on winning your Gold at Rio."

            Curious to know how this could be possible as athlete had no control over what their shoe company says or does. Would seem that IOC would lose in CAS.
            You do realize that the Onion is a satire site, right?

            Comment


            • #7
              That's a first...using The Onion as a source.

              Comment


              • #8
                The rule in itself makes sense but the egregious scale and reach of it, is ludicrous.
                i deserve extra credit

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mump boy View Post
                  The rule in itself makes sense but the egregious scale and reach of it, is ludicrous.
                  Yes that about sums it up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gh View Post
                    You do realize that the Onion is a satire site, right?
                    Yes, but my concern is as mump boy says - what is the extent to which the IOC would go to "protect" what they consider their rights?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think the IOC delegates enforcement to the NOCs and that the USOC is one of the strictest. I seem to recall the British Olympic Committee easing up on some of this stuff earlier in the year.

                      I think athletes will get a warning first and companies get a cease and desist letter. No one is getting kicked out unless they keep violating the rule.

                      It's funny that athletes are more afraid of tweeting the wrong thing than they are of consuming the wrong substance...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by gh View Post
                        You do realize that the Onion is a satire site, right?
                        And often a good one. Here's another gem:

                        http://www.theonion.com/infographic/...s-doping-53315

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Those are great...especially,

                          'Just run continuous disclaimer at bottom of NBC’s coverage informing viewers that results not as intrinsically inspiring as they might’ve thought'

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X