William Lowe files Rhabdo lawsuit

If he does have permanent damage to his body, I hope he cashes out, especially given the way Ferentz handled (I mean didn't handle) the situation. Just like everything else, the people at the top of the food chain are willing to look the other way as long as the checks keep rolling in. If Kirk was on the hot seat, the U of I would have fired him in a second over Rhabdo-Gate...
 
herky01 said:
If he does have permanent damage to his body, I hope he cashes out, especially given the way Ferentz handled (I mean didn't handle) the situation. Just like everything else, the people at the top of the food chain are willing to look the other way as long as the checks keep rolling in. If Kirk was on the hot seat, the U of I would have fired him in a second over Rhabdo-Gate...
Click to expand...


You are clueless.
 
MeatMan said:
good God, still so much misinformation out there. there definitely was negligence on the side of the coaching staff. i wrote a blog post about it, you can read it if you like.

http://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum/blogs/meatman/286-rhabdo.html

here's a quick summary:

1) It was coming off a down period, where kids hadn't been lifting.
2) It was a type of workout that they had done before, but certainly not every year, and never at the start of a training period.
3) It is questionable, though not provable, that some of the kids may have been on supplements during the down period. And while that doesn't mean they were doing anything shady, it does mean that they could have been much more susceptible, or been taking supplements that were of low quality.
4) The workout itself was widely condemned by the Strength Coaches associations, with some qualified individuals equating it with ignorance of the science or negligence.

also: 1 in 4 will develop long term liver damage. maybe he's showing signs that he will eventually need a liver transplant. pretty serious stuff, so let's not throw the kid under the bus, mmmkay?
Click to expand...

1. There is no (to my knowledge) "down" period with regard to lifting. A kid can lift any time he/she wants
2. If they had done it before, then there is no reason it couldn't have been done again. There is no information ANYwhere showing that the type of workout done was "banned" or "illegal"
3. "Questionbable" and "not provable" throw most of your "blog post" (anyone can write a blog these days) and supporting argument out the window. Given what the word "supplement" means, one would think its purpose would be to make one LESS susceptible...
4. "Widely condemned" came AFTER the fact

All that said, the kid can sue whoever he wants. If he wins, good for him on the payday. If he loses, good for him for having the conviction to see it through. My guess, though, is that he is looking for a settlement...
 
MeatMan said:
didn't Prater and Bernstine get rhabdo too? would you call them pansies?

again, you're missing a lot of info in jumping to that conclusion. i suggest you do some research first.
Click to expand...

Thus proving another point: for every kid that was affected "long-term", other were apparently NOT affected.

If the kid suffered long-term damage because of the workout, his case should be heard. But "proving" his case is a ways off.
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
1. There is no (to my knowledge) "down" period with regard to lifting. A kid can lift any time he/she wants
2. If they had done it before, then there is no reason it couldn't have been done again. There is no information ANYwhere showing that the type of workout done was "banned" or "illegal"
3. "Questionbable" and "not provable" throw most of your "blog post" (anyone can write a blog these days) and supporting argument out the window. Given what the word "supplement" means, one would think its purpose would be to make one LESS susceptible...
4. "Widely condemned" came AFTER the fact

All that said, the kid can sue whoever he wants. If he wins, good for him on the payday. If he loses, good for him for having the conviction to see it through. My guess, though, is that he is looking for a settlement...
Click to expand...

you are quite the apologist for KF, huh?

of course widely condemned came after the fact. it's not like Iowa was telling the world "here's a crazy thing we make our kids do in lifting!" the way the S&C community found out about it was after the fact. also, you didn't read my blog post, it had links to the report done after the event.

no use arguing with someone who doesn't want to learn.
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
Thus proving another point: for every kid that was affected "long-term", other were apparently NOT affected.

If the kid suffered long-term damage because of the workout, his case should be heard. But "proving" his case is a ways off.
Click to expand...

i'm sure you're just trolling, but i'll answer this part. newsflash, they have tests to show that you have liver damage. crazy, huh?
 
MeatMan said:
good God, still so much misinformation out there. there definitely was negligence on the side of the coaching staff. i wrote a blog post about it, you can read it if you like.

http://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum/blogs/meatman/286-rhabdo.html

here's a quick summary:

1) It was coming off a down period, where kids hadn't been lifting.
2) It was a type of workout that they had done before, but certainly not every year, and never at the start of a training period.
3) It is questionable, though not provable, that some of the kids may have been on supplements during the down period. And while that doesn't mean they were doing anything shady, it does mean that they could have been much more susceptible, or been taking supplements that were of low quality.
4) The workout itself was widely condemned by the Strength Coaches associations, with some qualified individuals equating it with ignorance of the science or negligence.

also: 1 in 4 will develop long term liver damage. maybe he's showing signs that he will eventually need a liver transplant. pretty serious stuff, so let's not throw the kid under the bus, mmmkay?
Click to expand...

1) I think Meat's blog post is fair, and the links he provides are must-read.
2) I think Doyle is a terrific S&C coach on balance, and the NSCA agrees.
3) I think Doyle made a mistake in this case, and the NSCA agrees: "This workout is not common and has no scientific basis to be used to train college athletes."
4) It's disturbing that our own report admitted Doyle was unaware of rhabdo as a risk.
5) I hope Chris has learned from this and coaches here for a long time.
6) I hope no athletes received permanent damage, but any who did should be compensated generously.
 
Settle with all the athletes and make this go away. I don't think the University wants to drag this out in the courts and have every little detail of the events and happens played out on ESPN. I also don't think it would be right to have Chris Doyle put on trial here. Doyle made mistakes, however unintentional, and the kids were put in danger. If you want to settle, which I believe the University does, offer to settle with them all and quietly let this pass and everyone moves on.
 
WinOneThisCentury said:
Settle with all the athletes and make this go away. I don't think the University wants to drag this out in the courts and have every little detail of the events and happens played out on ESPN. I also don't think it would be right to have Chris Doyle put on trial here. Doyle made mistakes, however unintentional, and the kids were put in danger. If you want to settle, which I believe the University does, offer to settle with them all and quietly let this pass and everyone moves on.
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable enough, but extent of long-term effects is probably too varied to make it equitable. But...that's a matter for the attorney types on here, not me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top