PDA

View Full Version : Lawsuit brought against CF affiliate


Jeff Bixby
08-12-2008, 05:00 AM
New issue of Navy Times I got in the mail yesterday highlighted a story about a former sailor who has filed a lawsuit against a CF affiliate, blaming them for permanent physical damage caused to him by CF training (i.e. - rhabdo). It's not up on their website yet, but once it is I'll post the link.

oops - here is the story: from the new August 18th issue of Navy Times (navytimes.com)

CrossFit critique

Lawsuit alleges workout damaged health of former sailor
By Bryan Mitchell - bmitchell@militarytimes.com
Posted : August 18, 2008

MANASSAS, Va. — A lawsuit filed by a former sailor has raised concerns about the dangers of a workout regimen that is rapidly growing in popularity across the military.

The lawsuit, filed by former Information Systems Technician 1st Class Makimba Mimms in Prince William County, Va., Circuit Court late last year, seeks $500,000, as well as punitive damages, in connection with the permanent disability Mimms allegedly suffered as a result of performing the CrossFit workout under the direction of a trainer at a Manassas gym.

CrossFit, an intense strength and conditioning regimen, is practiced by thousands worldwide at dozens of ad-hoc clubs and is especially popular with military and law enforcement communities.

Neither CrossFit nor its founder, Greg Glassman, is listed as defendants in the lawsuit, but the word “CrossFit” appears dozens of times throughout the legal documents connected to the suit. Glassman could not be reached for comment.

The lawsuit is part of an emerging body of evidence that CrossFit may be damaging to participants’ health, perhaps even causing death — a possibility acknowledged by its founder as early as 2005.

Following a June story on the popularity of CrossFit in Military Times newspapers, Capt. Jonathan Picker, commander of the Navy’s Center for Personal and Professional Development, posted a story that raised concerns about CrossFit in the July issue of the center’s internal magazine.

“Several [experts] in the sports medicine field (military and civilian) have addressed a concern that the program has the potential for causing an increased incidence of musculoskeletal injuries and even muscle breakdown (rhabdomyoloysis) and therefore is not supported by [Navy Center for Personal and Professional Development],” the story states. “Granted, anyone can develop a program that’s very intense, but there’s a safer way of doing this for our sailors.” Picker could not be reached for comment.

Navy officials said studies are underway to examine CrossFit and its potential effects on service members, but those involved with the studies declined to discuss the specifics.

A section of Picker’s story was posted on a CrossFit Web site and subsequently mocked by some of CrossFit’s more strident advocates.

“You know what’s another excellent way to get a musculoskeletal injury?” one poster asked in reply to Picker’s assessment. “Getting shot because you can’t run fast enough with 50 [pounds] on your back!”

However, Glassman posted a warning on the CrossFit site in October 2005 labeled “CrossFit induced Rhabdo,” telling participants about the potential problems associated with the unforgiving workout, while Eugene Allen — a Washington State law enforcement officer who runs a CrossFit blog — posted an even less ambiguous warning in May 2005 titled “Killer Workouts.”

“With CrossFit, we are dealing with what is known as exertional rhabdomyolysis,” he wrote. “It can disable, maim and even kill.”

That’s what Mimms contends happened to him in one intense exercise session Dec. 11, 2005, in which, he said, he suffered injuries he has yet to recover from.

In the initial seven-page complaint filed Nov. 21, Mimms’ attorney, Phillip Walsh, contends that Manassas World Gym, Ruthless Training Concepts and Ruthless trainer Javier Lopez failed to exercise diligence before instructing an unprepared Mimms in performing CrossFit.

“The defendants, in concert with one another, entreated, promoted, encouraged and coached Mr. Mimms to perform and endure the extreme exertion prescribed by the CrossFit regimen,” court records state.

The suit claims Mimms suffered from rhabdomyolysis — which occurs when tiny shreds of muscle fiber are absorbed by the bloodstream and ultimately poison the kidneys — as a result of performing a CrossFit workout under the direction of Lopez, who worked as Ruthless Training Concepts trainer at the now-defunct Manassas World Gym.

Mimms, who was in the Navy for 11 years, got out in May and was not separated for medical reasons, declined to discuss the case, pending a trial slated to begin Oct. 6 in Manassas.

Lopez could not be reached for comment. However, statements made by Lopez to court officials during a pre-trial deposition indicate he was aware that “people who perform too intensely perhaps can undergo this rhabdomyolysis,” he said.

Ruthless Training Concepts, as well as attorneys representing Ruthless and Manassas World Gym, declined to comment on the suit.

Several physicians, including Walter Reed Army Medical Center neurophysiologist Lt. Col. Mark Landau, concluded that Mimms suffered severe injuries following his intense CrossFit workout, according to court records.

The injuries included rhabdomyolysis, lumbosacral spine strain and strain of the bilateral quadriceps, according to court documents. As a result of these injuries, Mimms was incapacitated, lost time from work and required surgery, court records show.

“[He] endured great mental and physical pain mental anguish and inconvenience,” court records state. “[He] has incurred and will in the future incur medical and related expenses, has sustained permanent disability.” The extent of his physical disability was not outlines in court documents.

Dr. Priscilla Clarkson of the University of Massachusetts contends that Lopez encouraged Mimms to perform exercises known to produce rhabdomyolysis. “Adequate precautions to prevent such a condition from occurring were not taken,” Clarkson wrote in documents prepared for the lawsuit.

Gray Cook, a physical therapist who consults with a host of NFL teams on strength and conditioning, said CrossFit is not dangerous unless performed by people not physically prepared for its intensity.

Cook stressed that he did not want to disparage CrossFit, and that the program has inherent benefits, such as keeping people active and preventing boredom by mixing up workouts. His concern is that novice participants don’t know what they’re getting into.

“Football players practice a lot more than they play for a reason,” Cook said. “You are not supposed to test drive the system as much as you tune it up.”

Mimms is certainly not the only service member to induce rhabdo with a strenuous workout. An article in the February/March 2008 issue of the Medical Surveillance Monthly Report, published by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, indicates the ailment is on the rise across the services.

There were 114 cases of rhabdo across the military services in 2004, four of which required hospitalization. The number rose to 159 in 2007, including 34 that required hospital visits.

No individual cause is provided for the rise in the number of rhabdo cases, and CrossFit is not mentioned in the four-page article.

The articles states that troops struck with rhabdo are more likely to be from Army and Marine units, that cases tend to occur in the summer, and that blacks and other non-white service members are at a higher risk of suffering from the ailment.

Jeff Bixby
08-12-2008, 05:40 AM
Here is a link to the MSMR publication from the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center talking about rhabdo.

http://afhsc.army.mil/msmr_pdfs/2008/v15_n02.pdf

Leonid Soubbotine
08-12-2008, 06:03 AM
It's actually a good and well thought out article.
Interesting read.

Andy Shirley
08-12-2008, 06:25 AM
This makes it very interesting:
http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=17862
wfs

Also note that Ruthless is no longer an affiliate(not sure when this happened), but they do appear to still be using similar concepts. Wonder if this was part of the reason for the split?

Casey Raiford
08-12-2008, 06:34 AM
If I know the Navy (and I like to think I do) the next step is going to be a hysterical over-reaction that uses the word "safety" about 90 times.

Andy Poquette
08-12-2008, 06:37 AM
If I know the Navy (and I like to think I do) the next step is going to be a hysterical over-reaction that uses the word "safety" about 90 times.


LMAO

And that will carry over to all branches of the service where here in the Army we will need to now attend a yearly class about the dangers of working out too hard.

Don't forget to sign the roster...

Casey Raiford
08-12-2008, 06:47 AM
Exactly!

And we'll all have to wear helmets to work out, have 19 corpsmen standing by and attend sensing sessions quarterly.

Robert D Taylor Jr
08-12-2008, 07:00 AM
That's all fine and good. The military is risk averse. My worry is when the signs get posted at my MWR gym. "High Intensity Workouts not allowed." Of course, high intensity for me might not look so bad...

Casey Raiford
08-12-2008, 07:32 AM
That's a very distinct possibility, actually. The problem will be a pretty standard one: who defines "high intensity workouts" and how do they do it? The answer will most likely be that the MWR staffers will just sort of eyeball it and tell people to quit doing anything that's suspicious.

This, despite the findings in the AFHSC report stating that:

Still, the findings of this analysis are informative and
potential useful for prevention. They confi rm that, in U.S.
service members, most cases of exertional rhabdomyolysis
occur in mid-to-late summer at basic combat/recruit training
installations and at home bases of major Army and Marine
Corps combat units.

Facts rarely impede safety.

Steven Bowser
08-12-2008, 08:10 AM
I wonder what kind of wavier they had at Ruthless. We really need a standard Waiver Form that helps protect us. Unfortuately I dont think there is such a animal.

Andy Shirley
08-12-2008, 08:12 AM
And don't think that a standard waiver would really protect you.

This is also getting some action on the main page rest day comments today.
http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/004003.html
unknown if safe, sometimes things get through the filters

John C. Brown
08-12-2008, 08:39 AM
Stephen,

Even if they had a rock solid waiver, some state courts do not acknowledge hold harm waivers as a waiver of the right to sue. Virginia is one of those states. When I was doing a lot of skydiving in Suffolk we would have guys/ girls come out to do tandem jumps, they would sign the waivers, go through training, jump etc... Then on landing when the jumpmaster asked them to pull their legs up to avoid dragging and breaking them they wouldn't(not necessarily on purpose but...) and then sue the drop zone. It is a tough break for the gyms in those states, but one that should be looked into before training people.

On another note, this is not the first time this has happened. The integrity that Coach has shown in addressing the Rhabdo issue is unbelievable, and necessary from the point of making sure the consumer is educated on what they are getting into, but it is still the responsibility of the trainer to gauge where their clients are with relation to GPP and continue to assess throughout the workout, scaling back as necessary. Still, the relative number of participants to the number of injury is striking, almost as striking as the number of previously injured participants compared with the now functional participants.

One final note (and this may seem very harsh, but sometimes the truth hurts). Natural selection is a sonofa "B" (sorry for the harsh use of letters), and some people do not qualify for procreation. While it is unfortunate that this gentleman (I was a former IT in the Nav, other quals notwithstanding) got injured, it is noteworthy that CrossFitters, regardless of their level are giants among men. Not that the population is putting up much of a fight in this regard, but the goals that we chase are amazing and not for the weak of heart, or for those that in previous times would have died along the way.

Daniel Fannin
08-12-2008, 08:45 AM
Facts rarely impede safety.

Yes. There have already been commanders here banning high-intensity workouts and sports, though not as a result of this article.

Robert D Taylor Jr
08-12-2008, 08:54 AM
This guy getting hurt might be partially on the trainer, but by suing he just about instantly gets a pansy pass. He was hurt after CF publicized it's rhabdo situation. He got free medical from uncle sugar, and his other injuries are probably fairly common in weight training, or from carrying boxes with poor form. Sometimes you have to look in the mirror and say I did this to myself in order to heal internally.

Bob Guere
08-12-2008, 09:01 AM
Yes. There have already been commanders here banning high-intensity workouts and sports, though not as a result of this article.

I was talking to a SEAL friend of mine and the teams are discouraging CF right now because of the increased injuries too. But to be fair, it's because of the high-intensity balls-to-the-wall competitive nature of the teams that tends to drive folks to the level of injury, IMHO. But I argue you want a little of that in this group of folks minus injury, of course.

I've brought my wife and two friends into the fray so far, and they have all started out slow (brand-X scaled) and we always learn the moves before we work them out. They have all made it to the "Pack" or higher on most occasions and go all out sometimes and we've only had minor aches and pains. My wife and I have both pulled muscles early on with bad form, but that was 100% our fault. No rhabdo.

I think most of us agree that some due diligence is all that is necessary (and leave the ego at the door) to prevent this from becoming a problem, especially in affiliates who have maybe received certs but do not stay active with their CF-sponsored follow-on training/certs.

Evan Fitts
08-12-2008, 09:12 AM
One final note (and this may seem very harsh, but sometimes the truth hurts). Natural selection is a sonofa "B" (sorry for the harsh use of letters), and some people do not qualify for procreation. While it is unfortunate that this gentleman (I was a former IT in the Nav, other quals notwithstanding) got injured, it is noteworthy that CrossFitters, regardless of their level are giants among men. Not that the population is putting up much of a fight in this regard, but the goals that we chase are amazing and not for the weak of heart, or for those that in previous times would have died along the way.

It's absolutely hilarious that you suggest this was a result of natural selection. First, Mimms is still alive. Second, the article states nothing about him losing his ability to procreate. Finally, the next time you have a friend or family member injured in a manner that forecloses their ability to procreate, try reassuring them that it's all a result of a certain anthropologist's theory on evolutionary science. Please report back how well that works out for you.

It's amazing how some people in this community act. Someone gets injured, and it's all a big joke because it flies in the face of doing things "rx'd." This is not the same situation as if Mimms had gone to the gym and pushed himself to injury. He had a "trainer" help him get there. It doesn't mean he is "weak of heart," it just means somebody dropped the ball.

Trainers, at least ideally, should have some form of specialized knowledge that assists them in helping their trainees avoid this situation. I do not know anything about this particular trainer, so I will direct my comment toward the crossfit trainer certification program more generally: $1,000, a plane ticket to California, and two days off work do not, in and of themselves, qualify anyone to train others, regardless of whether CF.com ordains it as so. And me saying this does not mean that I am saying that there is a better system out there, only that this one is not sufficient.

Bottom line: if you hold yourself out as having superior knowledge and ability in a particular area, and you allow others to employ you to assist them in that area, expect to be sued when things go awry.

Barry Cooper
08-12-2008, 09:25 AM
I don't have time to locate the article at the moment, but a while back I posted one indicating that something like 40% of recruits get mild rhabdo in Basic Training.

These things dont' help, to be sure, but they are not showstoppers either.

Aushion Chatman
08-12-2008, 09:43 AM
Whoa, some good points being brought up here...

To me it depends on the situation as to how much the trainer would be to blame. If it was an injury from poor form I'd be willing to harp more on the coach, but being it was rhabdo that's a hard sell for me. Was it because the kid had never done GHD situps and the coach had him jump up and do 150? Or was it the kid was given a WOD of which he was familiar with the movements, and he just went too hard...or didn't tell his coach he'd ran and swam earlier in the day and this was his third workout...etc...

Too much is not known to start throwing around accusations IMO.

I agree with what Evan said about the lvl I certs...but that is a different thread.

John C. Brown
08-12-2008, 10:43 AM
It's absolutely hilarious that you suggest this was a result of natural selection. First, Mimms is still alive. Second, the article states nothing about him losing his ability to procreate. Finally, the next time you have a friend or family member injured in a manner that forecloses their ability to procreate, try reassuring them that it's all a result of a certain anthropologist's theory on evolutionary science. Please report back how well that works out for you.

It's amazing how some people in this community act. Someone gets injured, and it's all a big joke because it flies in the face of doing things "rx'd." This is not the same situation as if Mimms had gone to the gym and pushed himself to injury. He had a "trainer" help him get there. It doesn't mean he is "weak of heart," it just means somebody dropped the ball.

Trainers, at least ideally, should have some form of specialized knowledge that assists them in helping their trainees avoid this situation. I do not know anything about this particular trainer, so I will direct my comment toward the crossfit trainer certification program more generally: $1,000, a plane ticket to California, and two days off work do not, in and of themselves, qualify anyone to train others, regardless of whether CF.com ordains it as so. And me saying this does not mean that I am saying that there is a better system out there, only that this one is not sufficient.

Bottom line: if you hold yourself out as having superior knowledge and ability in a particular area, and you allow others to employ you to assist them in that area, expect to be sued when things go awry.

First of all, natural selection is survival of the fittest, not that I need to explain that as you seem intelligent. In days past his weakness and lack of medical facilitation would have potentially left him dead, and thereby unable to procreate.

Second, I call my mom and dad each and every time I injure myself and thank them for the weak genes that they passed on to me. Often I am joking as the injuries are almost always a result of my ignorant pride (I fall into that SEAL group mentioned above), but almost as often I am just being honest. That honesty is never withheld from people because they are a family member and in fact I am (as I should be) most brutally honest with those I care about, regardless of the outcome or how I may hurt their feelings. And by the way, I don't have to report back to you about anything, but even if I did, I would do so with a clear conscience, because I would know that I spoke my mind instead of insulting my family or friends by lying to them about my feelings.

Finally, I agree with you that the trainer is ultimately at fault. This person trusted the trainer to keep them safe, the trainer failed and as a result will most likely pay the consequences. Trainers have a responsibility to their clients to provide a safe (relatively) training environment and if you would have read my whole post instead of just the controversial part at the end, you would have seen that I said that trainers must know when to back people off. By the way, the fact that Mimms was able to push himself that hard most likely indicates some level of disfunction somewhere, as most people will shut down before they reach the level of intensity that led to his rhabdo. I don't care if it was as Rx'd or not, hell, jumping pull ups yield one of the highest likelihood of rhabdo out there.

John Velandra
08-12-2008, 11:47 AM
Exactly!

And we'll all have to wear helmets to work out, have 19 corpsmen standing by and attend sensing sessions quarterly.

Don't forget risk assessment on all training and potential training.:rofl:

Daniel Fannin
08-12-2008, 12:55 PM
I think my biggest issue is that Crossfit is mention specifically, and it is implied that if Crossfit didn't exist, then these injuries never would have happened. Now the senior leadership of all of our Armed Forces are going to be forced to make a decision on whether or not this style of PT is safe (and therefore legal) for military members to participate in. I know there are also people "testing" the principals, but if these are the same people that said a bicycle test and non-weighted push-ups and sit-ups are fine for the Air Force in a not too distant past, then I'm not too sure I trust their methods or opinions. Especially when I may have to crawl out of a burning aircraft and sprint 400 meters or so to get away safely.

If this issue was between a sailor and his trainer it would be different. Considering that there are some senior leaders apparently already itching to get rid of the Crossfit program and it's principals altogether, it seems like just a ploy to accomplish just that. I'm worried that one bad apple will spoil it for everyone that uses it effectively, safely, and smartly.

If Mimms wants to take this up with his trainer, then fine. That's his right, and if I felt that a trainer decieved me into an injury then I would do it as well. However, there is a point where as an individual I'm going to say no to anyone who is trying to get me to do something that is causing the apparent severe physical pain this workout caused. Every time I get hurt I take responsibility for it...even when a PT leader told me to play a game that initiated my last injury. He didn't force me to step in a hole, I did that on my own. He just led me too it.

Andy Shirley
08-12-2008, 01:19 PM
Crossfit is mentioned specifically in the lawsuit because the fact that Rhabdo is a known potential adverse effect, and should be able to be prevented with proper oversight. This much has been acknowledged by CF/coach, and warnings are in place(although not prominently enough given the repeated cases under similar circumstances). The fact that it was a CF workout and CF has admitted to cause rhabdo is at the heart of the case.

That's not to say that this case hasn't been publicised by some in the military in order to deter the use of CF by its soldiers.

Jamie J. Skibicki
08-12-2008, 01:43 PM
If soliders can't handle a workout that thousands of everday people can handle, maybe we need new soliders. Apparently, our military commanders don't think much of the average solider.

John Frazer
08-12-2008, 02:35 PM
I sure hope everyone looking at this issue remembers that CF isn't the only way to get rhabdo.

The only person I know personally who's suffered from it is a 60-ish ultra-runner who found himself doubled over in pain a few miles before the end of a 100-miler. Of course, "everyone knows" distance running is good for you, and the more the better.

Derek Maffett
08-12-2008, 02:38 PM
This doesn't surprise me (the injury, that is). A guy who has been in the military for 11 years goes into Crossfit and gets rhabdo. They are very fit individuals who can push themselves too hard relatively easily.

Was the trainer to blame here? It's hard to say in regards to rhabdo because the qualification is simply that the person went "too hard." How hard is too hard? It varies from person to person. Deadlifts, thrusters, etc. with improper form are dangerous for everybody, but a specific level of intensity may or may not be too much for a given person. This is why I prefer to over-scale workouts for people.

Now, depending on the exercises selected and the amount of scaling used, the trainer may have been at fault here (a workout with a hundred jumping pull-ups and GHD sit-ups would be an example), but if it was scaled to half, no common rhabdo-risk exercises used (or used minimally), and warnings issued about not pushing the intensity as much as possible, it could just be one of those things - a very unfortunate "one of those things" that I hope he recovers from (though I find it somewhat odd that he still hasn't recovered completely after three years - maybe he hasn't been trying to regain his strength?).

Injuries are to be expected. They are to be avoided as much as possible, but they're going to happen - that's the price for not becoming molecularly bonded to the couch cushion.

Christian Gotcher
08-12-2008, 03:19 PM
We are entirely too ignorant as to the details of this situation to make an accurate estimation of Ruthless' guilt. Was the coach encouraging him to 'fight through the pain?' Was he performing the movements properly? Did the group adequately stretch/warmup, and if he was a beginner, was he offered a scaled down version of the exercise? I'm not a legal expert, but all these measures seem adequate to prevent rhabdo in anyone, and we might have to admit, when the case comes to light, that someone failed on the training side. Is that necessarily the case? No. I've worked out with a few midshipmen who expressed they were in incredible shape and didn't need a scaled down version only to be utterly crushed by Murph (and probably experienced mild rhabdo). Who knows? Not us.

Still, from the military side (because that's what distresses me most), the idea of 'banning' Crossfit workouts on site for one reason or another is both absurd and frightening... but I can see it happening, and soon. Someone drowns because they try to swim 50 meters underwater having never tried... ban underwater swimming. Somebody fell off the Obstacle Course Rope because they're fatigued when they tried it and didn't pay attention to the instructions they're given? Move the target 2/3 the way up the rope. The standard response to a 'safety hazard' is usually instruction and restriction rather than enforcing an expectation of basic maturity.

If I have to file an Operational Risk Management chit to do Fran, I swear I'll go ballistic.

Steve Rakow
08-12-2008, 03:37 PM
Since all the facts are unknown with regard to what actually caused the rhabdo, the attorney for Mimms will have to prove that the trainer caused it in order for the trainer to be liable for Mimms' injuries. Were I the trainer's attorney, I'd look into the following to see if Mimms had other risk factors at the time that could have precipitated Mimms' susceptibility to rhabdo. These include:
(1) dehydration
(2) taking cholesterol-lowering meds
(3) alcohol or drug consumption and the time since last ingestion
(4) contemporaneous viral illness
(5) time of day, temperature, and humidity
(6) fatigue level of Mimms at the time of the workout
(7) state of Mimms' conditioning
A good trainer would know and/or recognize these conditions and mitigate properly. If Mimms' suffered from any of 1 - 4, the trainer could probably win the case. Also, if Mimms claimed to be in a particular condition when in fact he was deconditioned, this would also help the trainer out, but it would have been obvious.

While the list is not all inclusive, it is easy to see that there are other factors than just a shoddy trainer who pushed Mimms before he was ready. That said, every rhabdo case is a good learning piece for all trainers and CrossFit trainers in particular. Constantly varied, functional movements, executed at high intensity is what we train people to do. As long as we continue to train ourselves (i.e. be professionals) then we won't hurt others in the process. If you're a CF trainer and you aren't aware of the rhabdo risks I noted above, then start doing some reading - there's plenty of info on the net. Safety is paramount, but if you never push the limits of your experience, you'll never improve beyond your comfort zone. The implied tasks we have as trainers is to push our CrossFitters, but recognize when we've pushed too far. With rhabdo, this is especially difficult because the symptoms of rhabdo rarely manifest while someone is being trained. Usually, it takes 12 to 24 hours for the swelling, pain, and often dark urine to set in. This is another reason to make sure that you know your people and make sure they know the symptoms of rhabdo as well.

Almost everyone who has pushed themselves and suffered extreme soreness afterwards hasn't just experienced DOMS, but has had a mild form of rhabdo.

We all need to be mindful (notice I didn't say careful) of the potential for rhabdo while CrossFitting. At the same time, all CrossFitters need to recognize the inherent safety of performing the functional movements correctly, while most other sports are inherently unsafe regardless of what the participant does. (I recently had a 33 year old CrossFitter suffer a torn rotator cuff from playing in his dodgeball league!) I'm surprised at the comment by an earlier poster with regard to the SEALS taking a step back from CrossFit as I've heard just the opposite from those who train at BUDS. CrossFit method is actually reducing injuries in BUDS. It would interesting if we could get some first-hand info from our fellow SEALS.

In light of the article, it would behoove everyone to educate others about CrossFit's benefits and the extremely rare instances of injury overall.

Chris Robinson
08-12-2008, 08:19 PM
Not trying to detract from the good discussion going on, but how was the article posted on August 18 when it's only August 12?

Daniel Freedman
08-12-2008, 08:48 PM
Many publications are dated days -- or even weeks -- after they are printed. Army Times is apparently one of them.

It's always been ridiculous. And it's even more ridiculous in the Web era.

John Frazer
08-12-2008, 08:50 PM
I just looked up the case on the county court info system -- it's scheduled for a 2-day jury trial in early October. I may have to sneak out to Manassas and look at the case file ...

One thing that may be of interest is that Virginia is one of the small remaining handful of "contributory negligence" states -- so if the plaintiff was even slightly negligent, he loses. Will be interesting to see if or how that affects this case.

Tim M. Davis
08-12-2008, 09:17 PM
If soliders can't handle a workout that thousands of everday people can handle, maybe we need new soliders. Apparently, our military commanders don't think much of the average solider.

Maybe I am reading into this statement too much, but 1st of all it wasn't a Soldier but a Sailor. Being a Marine myself I do not like to be called a Soldier or Sailor and I am sure respective branches will agree. Yes "thousands of everyday people" can handle this type of workout but do those people volunteer to defend their country? I am not defending this guy by no means, but before we go saying "maybe we need new Soldiers" lets take a look at who those Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors are. They are the men and women who are fighting for everyone's freedom, so unless you are serving or volunteering to be a "new Soldier" re-think your comment! Again I may be reading too much into this comment but it kind of made me mad that someone would have the audacity to say that.

Derek Maffett
08-12-2008, 10:53 PM
Maybe I am reading into this statement too much, but 1st of all it wasn't a Soldier but a Sailor. Being a Marine myself I do not like to be called a Soldier or Sailor and I am sure respective branches will agree. Yes "thousands of everyday people" can handle this type of workout but do those people volunteer to defend their country? I am not defending this guy by no means, but before we go saying "maybe we need new Soldiers" lets take a look at who those Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors are. They are the men and women who are fighting for everyone's freedom, so unless you are serving or volunteering to be a "new Soldier" re-think your comment! Again I may be reading too much into this comment but it kind of made me mad that someone would have the audacity to say that.

If his comment was aimed the way you seem to think it was, then it would seem that Jamie was insulting the soldier for being so weak as to get rhabdo. Not the case - I think he was commenting on the command structure's desire to stop its soldiers (I really don't care about distinctions between the branches - any military/law enforcement/whatever personel) from doing Crossfit, despite the fact that regular people handle it just fine. In other words, it's like they are saying "Our soldiers are too weak to handle what civilians handle," which, if true, indicates that the command structure thinks their soldiers are worthless or that the soldiers really are worthless (and if that's the case, then they aren't very much good as "soldiers," are they?).

And incidentally, you don't have to be a member of the armed forces to comment on them.

Robert D Taylor Jr
08-13-2008, 01:45 AM
Derek,
Because you don't care about the distinction doesn't make it not important. This man was a Sailor. Sailors (and Solidiers, and Marines, and Airmen, see we all have our own cool names) are regular people, some weak and some strong. The military is risk averse, that's a statement about it's characteristics not it's people. I also wonder what was meant by that comment, and agree that that kind of comment is best made by someone who has served or clarified.

Jeff Bixby
08-13-2008, 04:49 AM
Maybe I am reading into this statement too much, but 1st of all it wasn't a Soldier but a Sailor. Being a Marine myself I do not like to be called a Soldier or Sailor and I am sure respective branches will agree.

Hey Tim - take a look at your ID card...it says Department of the Navy....so doesn't that make you a sailor? :yikes: Just kidding!

On the surface, it seems to me that this is just one of those lawsuits in which a person is trying to blame everyone but themselves for an injury they cause. But on the other hand, just how much DID the trainer push him into rhabdo? This remains to be seen in court in October.

But being retired military, I also echo the previous comments that the military brass will WAY over react to this and try to ban Crossfit training for their members...the writing is on the wall. Two articles in military health journals and now a lawsuit will surely push them into a rabid frenzy to "do something" about this. Never mind that there are WAY MORE injuries and deaths due to combat, you don't see them banning combat do you? WAY MORE injuries and deaths due to driving, but they aren't banning their members from driving.

:ranting2:

Jamie J. Skibicki
08-13-2008, 07:37 AM
Sorry, I just saw the comments to my comments. Let me clarify.

I did not serve, though I tried on three seperate occasions to join; 1 as enlisted before college, 1 as officer and 1 as enlisted post college. On all occasions, I was rejected due to medical issues. So no, I did not serve, and this is something that bothers me. I have consoled myself by working for a defense contract directly supporting the War Fighter.

As far as the meaning of my post, I was critizing the command structure for their apparaent low opinion of the physical capabilities of the average military personel (a general term which I hope is not insulting to any particular branch). If the average civilian, who is not responsible for protecting other civilians from rough and dangerous men who would do us harm, can handle crossfit, and the average military personnel cannot handle this training, this is truely a sad state for our armed forces.

I would hazzard a guess that this is more a reflection upon the upper command that is so fearful and risk adverse, that they would eliminate anything that might possibly cause harm, regardless of the possible reward than the vast majority of military personnel. But, if it is the case the military personnel cannot, in general handle this kind of training, then it seems the bar has been lowered much to far in the attempt to replenish the ranks, and knew tactics must be employeed to recruit the men and women capable of defending this country. Again, a reflection on the upper command who instituted such a policy that allows such recruitment.

Amber Mathwig
08-13-2008, 09:52 AM
Hey Tim, that's funny, I was actually thinking about you while reading these posts.

From 6 years of experience, the Navy's PT standards kind of suck. It is a very basic and elementary gauge of physical fitness that tends to drive a lot of people to injury in the weeks preceeding the semi-annual fitness test. In line with Crossfit's philosophy, will someone please tell me when and where in my life I will need to crank out 60+ sit-ups (with my feet anchored by my buddy) in two minutes to alleviate a potential catastrophe? The command PT sessions never worked me the way Crossfit does. Additionally, this "culture of fitness" that the Navy has......why are there still so many people in tight uniforms?

Tim was the guy who introduced me to Crossfit. I signed the waiver papers, and then he pushed me way more than I ever would've pushed myself and I loved it. I never thought my body could've handled some of the stuff it did. There were times I was slow as he** and he would patiently wait, smile and encourage. There was one time when I just wasn't physically ready for the workout (bad nutrition choices) and had to call it a day. The thing is, I always had the option to slow down or stop what I was doing because only I can gauge what my body is feeling. Did Minns know this? Or did he push himself beyond his limits?

Tobias W. Neal
08-13-2008, 01:01 PM
So, I saw this and had to post. I have a contract with the Army and train a new 30 every month. As trainers and owners of affiliates we hopefully understand that there exists a mutual responsibility. When my folks come in the first thing they are briefed on is Rhabdo, Passing Out, and throwing up...first two are no go and the last is encouraged...they are also briefed on personal responsibility. I as an attentive trainer am charged with watching and learning my folks and watch when they are going beyond what they should and push them when they are just giving up. At the same time they are grown men and women and are charged to let me know when they are about to pass out, didn't eat well for the day, did something insane before coming etc...As in all sports injuries occur and we must do our best to avoid them but they will and do happen. Coaches are as bad or good as they want to be...a level 1 cert and thats that is not good...on going learning etc...is needed. This article came out and I made an appointment with the leadership to address the importance of proper programming of their soldiers and the risks of Rhabdo. Being upfront and caring for our members goes a long way to keeping things to a minimum...If you have ego as a trainer you better learn to curb it...good quote I heard many years ago...take good care of our clients before they take care of you. Keep training my fellow warriors...we are all doing great work.

CrossFit Aspire

"We've done the impossible and that makes us mighty"

Casey Raiford
08-13-2008, 01:39 PM
From 6 years of experience, the Navy's PT standards kind of suck. It is a very basic and elementary gauge of physical fitness that tends to drive a lot of people to injury in the weeks preceeding the semi-annual fitness test. In line with Crossfit's philosophy, will someone please tell me when and where in my life I will need to crank out 60+ sit-ups (with my feet anchored by my buddy) in two minutes to alleviate a potential catastrophe? The command PT sessions never worked me the way Crossfit does. Additionally, this "culture of fitness" that the Navy has......why are there still so many people in tight uniforms?


Agreed. I can say from 20 years' experience (so far) that the Navy PT standards suck. Command PT usually sucks as well, but there are pockets of excellence. We've all seen those folks at one command or another who are good at motivating, know what they're doing and make a realy committment to their people.

Unfortunately what you usually get for PT in the Navy is:

10 minutes of stretching
15 minutes of VERY light calisthenics
30 minutes of jogging
15 more minutes of stretching

Two or three times a week, and volleyball or basketball on Fridays.

That's most fleet and shore commands. NSW, EOD and other specialized communities are different of course.

The main reason for that is that most of the Navy is pretty sedentary and has little to no institutional knowledge of fitness. If you try and whip them into shape much more than that, a lot of them will break. When they break, they go on Limited Duty and affect the command's readiness numbers that are reported up-echelon.

Then there's the safety gestapo. They get twitchy about anything that puts a strain on the lower back. 8 Counts? Nope. The front leaning rest, also known as the plank position, while a great midline stabilization hold, is similarly frowned upon.

There's just a confluence of cultural and organizational pressures that mitigate against real fitness and functional movement. That being said, there are individuals everywhere that get it. At Crossfit Ft Meade we have regulars from the Navy, Army and the Corps. No Airmen or Coasties so far, but it's not a month old yet.

John McBrien
08-13-2008, 02:08 PM
One of the coaches at CF Alexandria is a lawyer - I'll have to give him the article and see what he thinks about the case, based on the information we've been given!


Then there's the safety gestapo. They get twitchy about anything that puts a strain on the lower back. 8 Counts? Nope. The front leaning rest, also known as the plank position, while a great midline stabilization hold, is similarly frowned upon.

There's just a confluence of cultural and organizational pressures that mitigate against real fitness and functional movement.

Casey, what do you think the branches would replace CrossFit with? Or would they simply reinforce PT that consists of what you mentioned above? Didn't the Marine Corps recently switch to a Combat Fitness Test that better parallels CrossFit's "constantly varied, functional movement, executed at high intensity?"

Why ban something that is better preparing service members in general? It just seems counterproductive to me!

Sean Dunston
08-13-2008, 02:38 PM
I just looked up the case on the county court info system -- it's scheduled for a 2-day jury trial in early October. I may have to sneak out to Manassas and look at the case file ...

One thing that may be of interest is that Virginia is one of the small remaining handful of "contributory negligence" states -- so if the plaintiff was even slightly negligent, he loses. Will be interesting to see if or how that affects this case.

Thanks, John.
As a CF'er and an attorney in NOVA, I think I'll have to take a field trip to court that day. However, I'd actually be QUITE surprised to see this one make it to trial.
:whistlin:

Sean Dunston
08-13-2008, 03:34 PM
One of the coaches at CF Alexandria is a lawyer - I'll have to give him the article and see what he thinks about the case, based on the information we've been given!

Should be interesting, John.
I put it on my calendar -- Currently, I've got nothing else going on that day, so if it is still on the docket that Monday morning, I'm going to drive out to the courthouse to check it out.

I'm not a litigator -- I have a nice, quiet, transactional practice, so take my prognostication with a heavy dose of salt.

Let's say this thing actually goes to trial (but I do not expect it to do that).

From the docket, I see that this thing is scheduled for a Jury trial... you never know which way a jury is going to go... but they tend to be sympathetic to people who are harmed through no fault of their own. They also tend to be sympathetic to members of the military during times of war. So, that would seem to be leaning in his favor from the outset, right?

Well, then you have to also weigh the fact that most citizens think that members of the military are supposed to be in phenomenal physical shape because that's what the media feeds us with movies, the Military Channel, etc. So if this guy was not, I'd think he's going to have a strike against him. The trial is going to be based VERY heavily on his testimony and his background. If the guy comes off like a jerk (arrogant) on the stand, and has a history of being a show-off or a daredevil, juries don't tend to be very sympathetic -- it'll be a "he had it coming" type of thing. But if he was coming to CF thinking, "Wow, the SEALs are doing this. They are great. I'd like to be great," and he was wholly innocent in his intent and just wanted to improve himself with a workout - and this was his FIRST CrossFit type of WOD that ended up devastating him physically... look out! I don't expect that to be likely, because again, most folks are gonna think he SHOULD be able to handle these workouts anyway since he was already a member of the military and SHOULD have been able to handle more intense workouts than the Average Joe.

Just my $0.02

:shrug:

Denise Stuart
08-13-2008, 03:39 PM
RANT:

Okay let me get this all straight. A soldier/sailor whatever! got hurt during a crossfit workout and is now suing the instructor and gym? So when he gets deployed and hurt who does he sue?

I'm sorry; I happen to be new to the whole crossfit training program and canít believe this made it to the courts. I know this is the land of lawsuits but come on! At some point he knew that he couldn't do it and should have been "man enough" to say something. This is not the field of battle; his life was not in jeopardy.

Half of me wants to direct him to the OB/GYN clinic on postÖbut he might sue me because I hurt his feelings and then Iím sitting in the EOís office for my ďsensitive training.Ē

The other half wants to know if I can sue him for not knowing any better than to stop when he didn't think could do it. Or to I donít know ensure that he knew what he could physically handle his workout routines by attending one of those things they have at most installations, bases and stations called a physical and stress test.

Till then I request a common sense test.



With that said I will leave you with this. I'm not a runner. I hate running, Iím a slow runner. How slow? Turtles laugh while passing. But I know the only way to get better is to start slow and in time I will get better. Will I run in the Boston Marathon? Doubt it! But will I train for a marathon? ONE STEP AT A TIME!

I can't do pull-ups! But I will keep trying. Sooner or later after I MIGHT be able to knock them like in the video...who knows! I know that I'm not going to throw a k-bell around my waist and do an Angie!!

Strength and power is built by steps, not leaps and bounds. You must learn to walk before you can run.

....sorry had to get it off my chest.

John McBrien
08-13-2008, 06:33 PM
Sean if you do have the chance to visit the courthouse, let me know how it turns out. I hope this isn't a start of some sort of negative attack on CrossFit as more people who are ignorant jump on some sort of bandwagon. I guess we'll see.

Derek Maffett
08-13-2008, 06:39 PM
Denise, do you honestly believe that he expected this to happen to him? Crossfit demands high intensity. He wanted to do Crossfit. Most people will probably be forced to take it slow just because they won't be able to push themselves that hard, but this guy was fit enough to put in super-high intensity right off the bat, and it cost him.

I had a possible case of rhabdo a while ago (very mild, if it even was rhabdo at all), brought on by doing a scaled workout with pull-ups and KB cross-chops. I was coming back from pretty much no metcon and my biceps were out of order for about two weeks (I think). Lots of pain, restricted ROM - and it was just a regular scaled workout. Fortunately, the scaling I used kept the damage from being too much, and I'm back up to specs already. But anyways, the point is that I didn't see it coming. I wouldn't be too quick to blame this guy for overdoing it as he may not have realized it himself. Of course, that doesn't mean that the trainer was necessarily at fault, either.

But again, I wonder how he could still be suffering from the effects after almost three years.

Max Zerba
08-13-2008, 08:11 PM
There seems to be a lot of ****ing on military leadership, which until now hasn't really done anything to discourage crossfit. And I don't think they will. They have other real problems to deal with. Next, let's keep in mind that the mission of the DoD is to fight and win wars, not produce sub 5 minute Frans. Now, I'm not saying fitness is not important in the military, but every one doesn't need to be doing Murph with the weight vest to perform their duties. Anytime troops are out of commission, for rhabdo or any other reason, it jeopardizes that mission and they would be negligent if they did not look into causes. And that's all I have to say about that.

John Frazer
08-13-2008, 08:58 PM
But again, I wonder how he could still be suffering from the effects after almost three years.

Well, the article says he's claiming musculoskeletal injuries as well as rhabdo -- while my understanding from the CFJ articles is that you can come back from rhabdo in a few months, we all know back/spine/ligament/tendon injuries can plague you far longer.

Andy Shirley
08-13-2008, 10:14 PM
Denise, I don't think you understand how he got Rhabdo. The plaintiff's problem was that he COULD push himself through the pain and NOT quit. He was fit enough to push himself too far. At the time of the workout, there is no way to know whether you are pushing yourself into rhabdo or just into the usual post CF sweat angel.

Edited for my own rant.

Derek Maffett
08-13-2008, 10:53 PM
Well, the article says he's claiming musculoskeletal injuries as well as rhabdo -- while my understanding from the CFJ articles is that you can come back from rhabdo in a few months, we all know back/spine/ligament/tendon injuries can plague you far longer.

Well, in that case, he would have to prove that he suffered an injury during the workout, since there are three years of other reasons why he might be in pain. Probably with medical records from close to that time.

Of course, that's only my own naive opinion of what he should have to prove... the legal system doesn't always work the same way I think it should.

Matthew Barrett
08-14-2008, 01:26 AM
Wouldnt he have signed a waiver before he began to train with them that would have had a qualifier such as this

'I _______________ hereby accept the fact that training at x-facility involves dangerous activities such as rope climbing, olympic lifting gymnastics .... which may cause significant injuries including rhabdo, etc....'

As a result x-facility takes no responsiblity for any injuries incurred while training at this facility.

Signed __________________ Date __________

Isnt this this the standard sort of waiver used at crossfit facilities. The fact that it is going to court must mean that there never was such a contract signed.

Seemes like there is more to the story though.

Andy Shirley
08-14-2008, 04:08 AM
The fact that it is going to court must mean that there never was such a contract signed.

IANAL, but my understanding is that those contracts/waivers don't really offer that much protection, especially if there was negligence or some other culpability on the side of the trainer/facility. But there are enough lawyers around here that can answer this accurately.

Howard Wilcox
08-14-2008, 05:32 AM
So, how do you know someone is going into Rhabdo??

That seems quite important? You can see bad deadlift form...and correct it.

But how do you "debug" an oncoming case of rhabdo and stop it (avoiding lots of ghd situps would seem to be smart since that thing takes down a fair number of people)?


howard

Caleb Johnson
08-14-2008, 06:20 AM
I feel for the trainer in this suit. I've seen a case of full blown Rhabdo, and it seems pretty impossible to spot before hand. The individual in question had previously completed "Annie" and "Helen," as rx'd, with respectable times for a new CrossFitter, and a few days rest between the two workouts. (Annie in around 8:00, and Helen in around 12)
The workout that induced Rhabdo was a half-Cindy, just ten minutes of work. Having seen his 1st two workouts, I was as shocked as everyone else to hear that he'd gotten Rhabdo. He spent almost a week in the hospital, and by the time he had fully recovered a month later, he'd lost a lot of muscle mass. The affiliate was just lucky that he was cool about it and acknowledged that there was no way to tell.

Christian Gotcher
08-14-2008, 07:58 AM
Max, you make some good points in defense of the military establishment, all of which are true. Still, a few qualifications may be necessary.

There has been some hostility towards Crossfit in certain commands. People have mentioned some in this thread and others. I overheard an MWR trainer (not realizing, apparently, that I myself was doing Helen... or maybe because of it) saying that he would find any violation of gym rules as an excuse to kick out a Crossfitter because they were 'hard to handle.' The article from Capt. Pickers (sp?) on the mainpage is another such example. They have their reasons for dissent, and I respect that, but in some commands, it seems the writing is on the wall.

Crossfit is neither necessary nor sufficient for combat training, I totally agree with you. Mankind succeeded in waging war years before Glassman was born, and many commands, even special operations/forces commands, were perfectly successful doing their own grinder-style/unit PT sessions. Still, it would be a shame to see Crossfit banned.

How could you ban Crossfit? It'd be tough, but I've seen it done. PMO (physical missions officers) being chastised for including exercises that are not on an approved card, or 'seemingly unrelated' to the PRT test (the plank somehow has no bearing on a pushup). Phrases like "No High-Intensity Training Allowed," (vague enough for a monitor to determine what is HI). Allowing no running off a treadmill (not all that restrictive, but slows down a workout). The list goes on.

As for soldiers/sailors/marines getting injured in their training- it happens. More often than not, injuries and mishaps happen for much stupider reasons that going at a GHD too hard (alcohol being culprit number 1). We simply have to manage that risk. I'd rather someone dominate their body and be injured in return than never test themselves at all. Both are extremes and both are unfortunate, but it's easier to scale someone down and hold them back than to push someone beyond their comfort levels.

Max Zerba
08-14-2008, 08:43 AM
Banning crossfit in the military would be difficult and would require a very motivated fitness staff. You can't banned "high intensity workouts" because that is very subjective. I think most aerobic machines say "high intensity" at the top of the heart rate monitor scale. Also, "gassers" at the end of basketball practice would probably be considered high intensity, not to mention 100m sprints. The fitness center staff at the military gyms I have been to are really not that motivated. They could stop all "sanctioned" classes, but not the revolution. This would force it underground, viva la resistance!

Shane Rapp
08-14-2008, 10:12 AM
Does anyone have any idea how often soldiers get rhabdo during traditional basic training or something like BUD/S? I know it's happened but have no idea how often.

Peter Queen
08-14-2008, 10:28 AM
"Gray Cook, a physical therapist who consults with a host of NFL teams on strength and conditioning, said CrossFit is not dangerous unless performed by people not physically prepared for its intensity."

That pretty much sums it up right there.
That's why scaling for beginners regardless of their background is always emphasized!


There were 114 cases of rhabdo across the military services in 2004, four of which required hospitalization. The number rose to 159 in 2007, including 34 that required hospital visits.

With that said, not that I wish Mr. Mimms any ill health but, it seems that he would have perhaps fallen victim to rhabdo regardless of what exercise program he would have otherwise engaged in. It just seems that Crossfit is being used as the proverbial scapegoat here, IMHO.

Derek Maffett
08-14-2008, 11:23 AM
That's why scaling for beginners regardless of their background is always emphasized!

Actually, some backgrounds require more caution IMHO. Just like jumping pull-ups and GHD sit-ups, LEO/military are at greater risk of rhabdo due to their fitness level.

Christian Gotcher
08-14-2008, 01:42 PM
True, Max. Regardless of the hostility, I doubt they'd really come out in force unless a Crossfitter was being belligerent.

With that said, not that I wish Mr. Mimms any ill health but, it seems that he would have perhaps fallen victim to rhabdo regardless of what exercise program he would have otherwise engaged in.

I'm not so sure of that. Sometimes, athletes and military professionals seen as very good at what they do and very fit succumb to Rhabdo because the type of work is different, regardless of the raw difficulty of it. I've seen guys who pretty much rock the PRT or excel at their sport get rocked by GHDs, goblet squats, deadlifts, and other exercises they're simply not accustomed to. If Mr. Mimms had continued on the Navy PT program, as easy and 'safe' as it is in most commands, he likely wouldn't have gotten rhabdo.

Crossfit's great, but we need to establish in every circumstance that regardless of prior athletic experience, one needs conditioning in GPP before engaging in a multi-modal program like Crossfit for the first time.

Mirza Besic
08-14-2008, 04:39 PM
Yes. There have already been commanders here banning high-intensity workouts and sports, though not as a result of this article.


One of the few ways I see somone getting injured is if their form sucks and because their form breaks down even more as they get higher in reps. Crossfit is SOOO intense that I have to scale like CRAZY if I'll be lifting at anywhere near intended intensity and bar speed.

I think its everyones responsibility to know their body! Trainers can't know one's entire medical history and exact level of fitness. This guy was probably doing horrible form + too much weight and got hurt.

Peter Queen
08-14-2008, 07:18 PM
Sometimes, athletes and military professionals seen as very good at what they do and very fit succumb to Rhabdo because the type of work is different, regardless of the raw difficulty of it. I've seen guys who pretty much rock the PRT or excel at their sport get rocked by GHDs, goblet squats, deadlifts, and other exercises they're simply not accustomed to.

I see and agree with this point.




If Mr. Mimms had continued on the Navy PT program, as easy and 'safe' as it is in most commands, he likely wouldn't have gotten rhabdo.[/I]

Actualy Christian, this was the point I was trying to make. I was basing my comment on the fact that some people are more predisposed, to having severe physical problems based on the intensity of their activities, than others. To reclarify, who is to say that Mr. Mimms would not have come down with rhabdo had he engaged in some other "high intensity" physical program. Perhaps, had he been involved in some lower intensity activity, this entire issue may have been non-existent.

John Tuitele
08-14-2008, 07:43 PM
There were 114 cases of rhabdo across the military services in 2004, four of which required hospitalization. The number rose to 159 in 2007, including 34 that required hospital visits.

With that said, not that I wish Mr. Mimms any ill health but, it seems that he would have perhaps fallen victim to rhabdo regardless of what exercise program he would have otherwise engaged in. It just seems that Crossfit is being used as the proverbial scapegoat here, IMHO.

Rhabdo, or worse conditions, will occur with demanding exercise, be it CF or marathon running. From a 1997 British Medical Journal article:

Up to and including 1993 there were two deaths from coronary heart disease in 14 London marathons. On the basis of an estimated total of 275 000 runners who competed during this period (85% of whom were male with a mean age of 39 years) and with extrapolation from an average time of 3.75 hours, the derived annual death rate from coronary heart disease during the London marathon can be estimated to be 2% (this value is derived by multiplying the death rate per 100 000 male runners per hour by 24x365). Furthermore, there have been three sudden deaths during the past 25 New York marathons. On the basis of similar assumptions to those for the London marathon this works out at a derived annual death rate of 1.68%. In comparison, the annual death rate from coronary heart disease for men in England and Wales in 1992 was 0.03% for age 35-44 years, 0.14% for age 45-54 years, and 0.47% for age 55-64 years. Despite the small numbers, this suggests that the death rate from coronary heart disease during a marathon may be considerably greater than expected. However, as proposed more than 15 years ago, a proper epidemiological survey is needed to settle this issue.

Full article, WFS, here: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7086/1023.

That is not at all to make light of his medical issues, not at all, I wouldn't wish any level of rhabdo on anyone.....but any strenuous activity will carry risk, and it can't always be prevented or predicted. Marathons raise the risk of serious injury or even death (just this year, for instance, in New York) compared to sedentary activity, but alot of folks will continue to run marathons, and my hat is off to them for the training and suffering they engage to meet their goals. CF is similarly a difficult and uncomfortable activity with risk, but I'm not seeing evidence for 1 to 2 percent death rate, not even close.

This community, I'll offer, should not rush to find blame or excuses for rhabdo or injuries - they are just going to occur. I feel bad for the guy, but, on the other hand, it seems his risk of injury and/or death from CF is much, much lower than running a marathon, which is almost universally embraced as a relatively safe, even healthy pursuit.

Casey Raiford
08-15-2008, 05:15 AM
Banning crossfit in the military would be difficult and would require a very motivated fitness staff. You can't banned "high intensity workouts" because that is very subjective. I think most aerobic machines say "high intensity" at the top of the heart rate monitor scale. Also, "gassers" at the end of basketball practice would probably be considered high intensity, not to mention 100m sprints. The fitness center staff at the military gyms I have been to are really not that motivated. ...

I agree. This issue may[I] get some limited play at the senior leadership level, like the NPC Physical Readiness staff. I wouldn't expect much beyond that. I've seen the Navy knee-jerk more than a couple of times in the past and in my experience the speed at which an issue comes up in the first place is directly proportionate to the speed and extent of effort expended in dealing with it. CF [I]might get banned, but the enforcement end of any decision to that effect will be limited to base/unit facilities and the staff at them.

Given that most bast gyms have a small permanent staff which is supported by members temporarily detailed to them, I expect the actual impact of any decision regarding CF to be very diluted. And that's only at funded gyms, not off duty/off base facilities.

Cory Wilemon
08-15-2008, 08:41 AM
At a recent Quarters, or meeting a captain breifed on a navy message that had come out blasting crossfit, saying personel were were exposing themseleves to danger, and that the workouts were named after women only which goes against the navy core values. I almost fell out. I was more mad about the lack of information being provided then the fact that he was completly wrong.

Bryan Veis
08-15-2008, 01:06 PM
* * *

and that the workouts were named after women only which goes against the navy core values. I almost fell out. I was more mad about the lack of information being provided then the fact that he was completly wrong.

This sort of politically correct sensitivity seems a bit misplaced (unintentionally ironic?) in an organizaton that still refers to ships as "she," as in "I serve in the USS Ronald Reagan, she's a good ship, I like her." (I am assuming, of course, that they didn't start referring to ships as "it" sometime after I left the Navy.) And, how do strong women conflict with Navy core values? (We didn't have "core values" when I was in -- we just did our jobs.)

Max Zerba
08-15-2008, 05:42 PM
What are the Navy core values?

Mark Reinke
08-15-2008, 05:49 PM
What are the Navy core values?

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=193 (WFS)

and

www.google.com (WFS)

Robert D Taylor Jr
08-16-2008, 07:55 AM
Honor, Courage, Commitment.

I don't know how they are violated by naming a WOD after a girl though.

Casey Raiford
08-16-2008, 10:05 AM
I've been trying to figure that out myself. Still stumped.

Bryan Veis
08-16-2008, 11:43 AM
Not that I subscribe to this thinking, but ---

Maybe the statement that "I did [insert girl name of workout here]" is considered suggestive and disrespectful of women, and, in particular, female sailors?

I left active duty 30 years ago, so maybe I'm out of touch with the thinking in today's Navy, but we didn't used to be quite that sensitive.

John C. Brown
08-16-2008, 01:13 PM
so Bryan are you suggesting that breaking a bottle of champagne over "her" bow is less disrespectful...

Bryan Veis
08-16-2008, 04:46 PM
so Bryan are you suggesting that breaking a bottle of champagne over "her" bow is less disrespectful...

Uh, no. See post 64.

I'm suggesting that people who get exercised about this stuff need to get a life -- or maybe some exercise. Now breaking a bottle of champagne at the christening could be wasteful depending on the quality of the champagne. On the other hand, the symbolism of striking her with a hard object that breaks into sharp pieces and splatters liquid all over her could be found offensive . . . by someone, I suppose, someone I'd really prefer not to meet.

I think the whole think is silly, except for the fact that a four-striper is running around spouting off, which makes it much less silly for those in his immediate vicinity, most of whom, most likely, have to listen to him, whether they like it or not, and at least pretend to take it seriously.

Then again, I was a WestPac sailor in the mid-70's, so my views of propriety might not really fit the modern Navy's sensibilities. What is a shellback initiation like these days, I wonder?

Robert D Taylor Jr
08-16-2008, 08:25 PM
NOT what you remember, I don't want to give it away for the wogs, but as I understand it there's no garbage involved, nor shileleghs either.

Michael Ricketts
08-17-2008, 01:16 AM
Of course this article would come out the weekend I find out about the Certification Seminar in Japan, I was going to ask the skipper for funding to get some of the ACFL's certified on Monday. Lol, Maybe I will wait a week or two. :ranting2:

Bryan Veis
08-17-2008, 04:42 AM
NOT what you remember, I don't want to give it away for the wogs, but as I understand it there's no garbage involved, nor shileleghs either.

Surely, they've kept the Royal Baby around for the affectionate attention of the Pollywogs, though, haven't they? Grease and all?

Gary Wimsett
08-17-2008, 07:08 AM
Waivers/releases are not good for much. Better to have them than not.

* More important, I think, is to properly organize your Crossfit business as a business - LLC, C Corp, S Corp, whatever works best for you.

* Then, make sure your business is properly insured.

* Insist that clients schedule an appt with their physician before starting Crossfit.

* Get properly certified.

* Educate your clients as to potential for Rhabdo, handout literature on point, make safety part of your affiliate's ethos.

* But don't be shy about reminding people that they are adults and need to take responsibility for themselves after the proper checks are in place.

Howard Wilcox
08-17-2008, 07:56 AM
* Educate your clients as to potential for Rhabdo, handout literature on point, make safety part of your affiliate's ethos.




While this is a good idea, of course, it still seems like there is little that can be done in advance...but rather you can only help people recognize it faster after it already has occurred.

Or is this not correct?

howard

John C. Brown
08-17-2008, 08:20 AM
Bryan,

This was mostly meant as a smart a$$ remark. Regarding the other thread concerning what Capt. Pickler said, I was having a conversation with someone high up in the CF chain and made my observations clear about the Core Values. I even think that I posted a rather well thought out definition of the core values in that thread. The bottom line is that the Navy is behind the times when it comes to things they don't understand or like... like exercise (sorry about the sweeping generality, I hate using them but it feels appropriate here). And John Tuitele's post suggesting the regular occurrence of Rhabdo in places like bootcamp/ basic training should be enough to get this trainer a pass.

I think my overwhelming concern is that people in the higher up (again with the generalities) use things like the Core Values when they suit their needs and then seem to forget them when it it their turn to make the tough decision.

John Tuitele
08-17-2008, 12:38 PM
While this is a good idea, of course, it still seems like there is little that can be done in advance...but rather you can only help people recognize it faster after it already has occurred.

Or is this not correct?

howard

I think you're right - and, based this medical journal article, not only is it practically impossible to predict/risk model, but eludes accurate diagnosis when present, even among highly trained and specialized emergency care professionals.

Exertional rhabdomyolysis has been previously reported in adult patients following such strenuous activities as military basic training, weight lifting, and marathon running.....characterized by the classical triad of myalgias, muscle weakness, and darkened urine. This classic presentation, however, is not noted the majority of patients, especially early in the disease course when the patient may complain only of myalgias or weakness. Thus, the emergency physician must have a high index of suspicion for this entity based on the appropriate clinical setting. We report a classic case of exercise-induced rhabdomyolysis complicated by acute renal failure in a previously healthy adolescent athlete, whose initial presentation was nonspecific, prompting the diagnosis of overexertion.

From a 1997 journal for emergency care at the WFS link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9434995?dopt=Abstract.

Jamie J. Skibicki
08-17-2008, 12:45 PM
If highly trained doctors with tools designed to give specific infomration about the body have difficulty is diagnosising rhabdo after is occurs, what chance does a trainer have in stopping it before it happens? Especially if the person being trained is really gung ho. I know I've run at rugby prcatice till I threw up, and then did more. Wasn't the coaches fault, even though he encouraged it, it was still my choice.

Bryan Veis
08-17-2008, 12:45 PM
Bryan,
I think my overwhelming concern is that people in the higher up (again with the generalities) use things like the Core Values when they suit their needs and then seem to forget them when it it their turn to make the tough decision.

Well, at least that part of the Navy hasn't changed. :rofl:

Howard Wilcox
08-17-2008, 01:01 PM
If highly trained doctors with tools designed to give specific infomration about the body have difficulty is diagnosising rhabdo after is occurs, what chance does a trainer have in stopping it before it happens? Especially if the person being trained is really gung ho. I know I've run at rugby prcatice till I threw up, and then did more. Wasn't the coaches fault, even though he encouraged it, it was still my choice.


And so, how can trainers be negligent at all if this is the case (whether or not this is the specific situation in the lawsuit or not)?


howard

Lewis Dunn
08-17-2008, 01:54 PM
And so, how can trainers be negligent at all if this is the case (whether or not this is the specific situation in the lawsuit or not)?
howard
Because the best definition of negligence in our legal system doesn't revolve so much around the idea of reasonable judgement as it does around a lawyer's ability to steer a jury's thinking.

John C. Brown
08-17-2008, 03:04 PM
Well, at least that part of the Navy hasn't changed. :rofl:

No Bryan, as of the last phone conversation that I have had with friends still in(today) it hasn't changed, and won't change. And the biggest part of the reason that it won't is because the machine feeds itself.

Howard,
If the plaintiff's lawyer can prove any link to the trainer or the exercise program, in other words "if not this than what," then the court will hold the trainer culpable.

If the defendant(s) can prove that the decision to go to that level rested solely on the participant, and whether or not a "reasonable" person would have stopped before the issue at hand occurred then the trainer MAY be exculpated, keeping in mind that this is all based on a judge or jury's opinion based on their interpretation of the "facts."

John Tuitele
08-17-2008, 06:53 PM
If highly trained doctors with tools designed to give specific information about the body have difficulty is diagnosising rhabdo after is occurs, what chance does a trainer have in stopping it before it happens?

From the 1997 British Med Journal article posted earlier - this is how it opens.....

The notion that participating in strenuous physical exertion could be hazardous to health dates from 490 bc, when Pheidippides allegedly dropped dead after running 39 km to Athens and delivering news of victory over the Persians on the battlefield at Marathon.

A 61 year old physician volunteered to run in the 1993 London marathon to raise money for a medical charity. He trained for the previous four months, running an average of 35 km a week, and in the marathon he completed the 42.2 km in about 4.5 hours. His race was uneventful apart from a brief spell of dizziness towards the end, which was relieved by carbohydrate and which he attributed to hypoglycaemia. Earlier in the race he had passed a middle aged runner who was being resuscitated unsuccessfully after sustaining a cardiac arrest.

Apart from myalgia in his legs he felt well after the race and dined out with friends and relatives that evening. He went to work as usual the next day, but in view of the persistence and severity of his myalgia he had blood taken for measurement of serum creatine kinase activity. The results showed a total creatine kinase activity of 1800 IU/l (normal <200 IU/l) and a creatine kinase MB of 38 ng/ml (normal <6 ng/ml). The chemical pathology registrar on duty regarded these values as pathognomonic of myocardial infarction. However, in view of his general wellbeing and lack of cardiorespiratory symptoms the physician discounted this diagnosis. His myalgia gradually subsided, and he was jogging again within a week.

Because of his secretary's success in raising sponsorship money the physician won a free trip to participate in the New York marathon later that year. He again completed the race uneventfully but afterwards learnt that two other runners had sustained fatal cardiac arrests.

After publication in a newspaper of an item describing his experiences, the physician received a letter from a runner who, several years previously, had been admitted to hospital after falling and sustaining concussion during a 16 km race. "The enzyme test suggested that I had indeed had a heart attack. But I did not seem to have any of the regular symptoms–breathlessness and the like–and I did not feel unwell. The doctor in charge told me `marathon running is not for you, old boy.' I celebrated that by winning the National Veterans over 55 marathon in 2 hours 54 minutes ... only 14 months after my `heart attack."' The runner subsequently ran several more marathons including the London marathon, which he completed in less than three hours at the age of 60 years.

Given that, it provides one more reason to believe that medical science is limited to the information we've discovered thus far....just as it would have been arrogant in the 1990's to claim that high CK levels conclusively indicated a cardiac event, it is just as ignorant today to claim a complete, authoritative grasp on rhabdo diagnosis and pathoetiology. That being said, I'm in agreement with the comments here about jury perception and attorney's ability to steer that perception, particularly in this litigious society.

My limited reading on this tells me that not much is really understood about this condition - either within the medical community or training community.

Larry Cox
08-17-2008, 08:22 PM
RANT:

Okay let me get this all straight. A soldier/sailor whatever! got hurt during a crossfit workout and is now suing the instructor and gym? So when he gets deployed and hurt who does he sue?

I hear you Denise. But unfortunately many Americans do not believe in bad luck (or personal responsabilty for that matter). This is the price we pay for having a peaceful means of conflict resolution; that is a overly litigious society.

I'd like to hear/see this Sailor's record and more details about this person before saying more.

Denise Stuart
08-18-2008, 04:07 PM
Denise, I don't think you understand how he got Rhabdo. The plaintiff's problem was that he COULD push himself through the pain and NOT quit. He was fit enough to push himself too far. At the time of the workout, there is no way to know whether you are pushing yourself into rhabdo or just into the usual post CF sweat angel.

Edited for my own rant.

So if I understand you correctly then most military members shouldn't being doing this work out? I assumed that most people where fit or have completed the strength test. I was under the impression that everyone got did the test to figure out where everyone should start out. So does this mean that anyone working out can get rhabdo while doing crossfit. Maybe I need to reassess urging members of my unit implementing this workout. Thanks for explaining the other side of the story.

George Mounce
08-18-2008, 04:19 PM
So if I understand you correctly then most military members shouldn't being doing this work out? I assumed that most people where fit or have completed the strength test. I was under the impression that everyone got did the test to figure out where everyone should start out. So does this mean that anyone working out can get rhabdo while doing crossfit. Maybe I need to reassess urging members of my unit implementing this workout. Thanks for explaining the other side of the story.

This has nothing to do with military members doing CrossFit or not - I took a detachment of 6 people, changed them into doing solely CrossFit, had a good sit down about the dangers and told them straight up they needed to watch for the signs of rhabdo, scale appropriately (often times I did this for them), and know their own limits. In one year of those 6 doing CF, nobody got rhabdo (and two were really out of shape) and all of them were scoring over 95% on their annual physical before I left (and one was recovering from Hodgkin's).

Anyone can get rhabdo from ANYTHING that goes beyond their limits. My buddy got it from doing multiple sets of dumbbell curls and pull-ups (he does not do CrossFit). A person lifting a car in an act of heroism can burst every muscle belly in their entire body because of the adrenaline rush.

I wouldn't knee-jerk reaction this and all the sudden tell people to stop. I would though educate people on the correct way to do things, encourage people to trust what their body is telling them, and be smart about pushing people to go beyond what is a psychological limit, and a physical limit. A good trainer knows the difference and will help people break psychological barriers, but will ensure safety by not letting clients bust through physical ones.

Andy Shirley
08-18-2008, 06:17 PM
So if I understand you correctly then most military members shouldn't being doing this work out?

Not at all. You just need to ease people into it, particularly people with a high level of non-CF fitness, or those who are detrained from a prior high level. Also avoid the usual triggers(eccentric movements, GHD).

Also what George said.

Lewis Dunn
08-18-2008, 09:40 PM
A person lifting a car in an act of heroism can burst every muscle belly in their entire body because of the adrenaline rush.
Really? Citations?

Andy Shirley
08-18-2008, 10:58 PM
Article on Rhabdo I hadn't seen before(that also publicly available): good overview.
http://www.residentandstaff.com/issues/articles/2007-06_03.asp
wfs

another good one:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n2_v52/ai_17281983
wfs

George Mounce
08-19-2008, 04:55 AM
Really? Citations?

Here is an example - I watch a lot of Discovery Channel - Human Body: Pushing the Limits (one of the most amazing shows thats been on TV). Specifically the episode on strength, where the man basically bench presses a 1200 pound rock and ruptures his arms and chest and doesn't know it until the endorphins give out.

All links (wfs).

I found it on youtube :

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb-SZXtGbb0&feature=related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV5KrF4fTxo&feature=user
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ5nd4ueVMU&feature=user
Part 4:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0xmCFYK9wc&feature=user

It was after watching this epidsode that I knew my lifts could go a lot more, it was just a matter of CNS training.

Do more searching on your own, I have to work. And next time try, "Could you give an example?" Its much more friendly when it comes to debating a topic or a claim.

Donald Clarkson
08-19-2008, 07:10 AM
George,

Those were COOL! :D

Lewis Dunn
08-19-2008, 07:43 AM
And next time try, "Could you give an example?" Its much more friendly when it comes to debating a topic or a claim.
Uh, that's exactly what I wanted. You may have read more into my completely serious inquiry than was intended??? Thanks for the links. Those are fascinating. I don't have cable and never watch Discovery. I had no idea this stuff makes it onto YouTube.

John Tuitele
08-19-2008, 02:45 PM
Article on Rhabdo I hadn't seen before(that also publicly available): good overview.
http://www.residentandstaff.com/issues/articles/2007-06_03.asp
wfs

another good one:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n2_v52/ai_17281983
wfs

Thanks Andy - Great cites, stored both articles away for reference/lectures - particularly tight quote from the first one, illustrating the difficulty in catching rhabdo clinically....

No consensus exists about which is the most reliable marker for assessing the presence and severity of muscle damage. Furthermore, no standard creatine kinase values that conclusively diagnose rhabdomyolysis have been established, although various values have been postulated. Some experts speculate that a level of ≥10,000 U/L is indicative of "clinically significant rhabdomyolysis." Others suggest a creatine kinase level of 5000 U/L as the critical value at which serious muscle injury occurs, and yet others cite 5000 U/L as the level at which the risk for renal failure increases significantly. In contrast, some studies have shown a poor correlation between the level of creatine kinase elevation and the degree of muscle damage.

Denise Stuart
08-19-2008, 06:28 PM
Thanks for the input. I assumed that most people wouldn't push themselves too hard and start slow by learning the exercises before doing a full workout. I wanted to get a group of the guys from work that were interested and slowly start and work our way into doing full WODs after everyone knew the exercises and knew not to kill themselves doing this.

The last thing I need is my 1SG busting my @lls for requesting to do this as part of our unit pt. The only ammo I would to have to back up my thoughts on the crossfit lawsuit was the crossfit journal on it and what I assumed was the common sense factor of working out. So thanks! Really thanks!:thanx:

Will Kimmins
08-19-2008, 07:26 PM
Banning crossfit in the military would be difficult and would require a very motivated fitness staff. The fitness center staff at the military gyms I have been to are really not that motivated. They could stop all "sanctioned" classes, but not the revolution. This would force it underground, viva la resistance!

Good point, also I haven't been to a Military facility yet where there wasn't either an affiliate nearby or a local group of Crossfitters you can link up with. G'head and try to stop me working out at whatever intensity I choose on my off hours, just g'head.

Joe Shininger
08-19-2008, 08:50 PM
This isn't going to go anywhere. The duty owed to the plaintiff here are:

1. To exercise ordinary care
We all know what goes into a CF warmup, and what instruction is like in a CF workout. "Ordinary" is defined by what the ordinary reasonable person would have done in the situation-not hard to show that the trainer probably went ABOVE that.

2. A duty to refrain from injuring Plaintiff
It depends on what "injuring" means. If it means actively TRYING to hurt him, that's obviously not what happened. If it means acting negligently so that harm resulted, we only need to look to whether the conduct is "reasonable" in this context. Not the case in either situation, since the jury will see that there were steps taken that an ordinary reasonable person in defendant's position would have taken.

3. A duty to give proper and reasonable instruction
The whole idea behind a coach is that they motivate you when you are lagging. Here, it is likely that the trainer was encouraging Plaintiff to keep pushing, just like any other trainer would. Plus, this was a CrossFit workout, so it is reasonable to assume Plaintiff knew the caliber of workout he was getting. Additionally, Plaintiff is a wrestler-it can be easily argued that it was reasonable for Defendant to assume that a wrestler can handle a strenuous workout (which the hilariously awesome video posted today shows that even little kids can handle)

4. A duty to refrain from exposing Plaintiff to unreasonable risks
This is problematic. A jury could be convinced that a CF workout is unreasonably dangerous by highlighting some of the more extreme examples of what we do. This would likely work in our favor though, b/c we could show that, relative to other workouts that we do, this was a relatively mild, simple one with a low risk of injury compared to something like Fran of Murph.

5. A duty to observe and monitor Plaintiff to prevent injury.
Defendant was probably right there the whole time. Encouraging him, yes, but we all know that no one can make us keep going if we are tired and want to stop. Here, it cannot be argued that Defendant failed to prevent Plaintiff's injury, because Defendant cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of Plaintiff's internal physical state. Again, Plaintiff is a wrestler and in the military-it is reasonable assumption that an ordinary reasonable person would make that that person could handle this workout. The fact that he ended up injured is not the fault of Defendant, who cannot be expected to be aware of Plaintiff's internal well-being.



In summary, Plaintiff will lose hard, and this is a waste of time.


(Note: not a lawyer, only a student. None of the above is intended to constitute legal advice. It is only my own reasoning, and should be read as only an opinion.)

Gant Grimes
08-20-2008, 07:53 AM
Correct essay answer, Joe. You'll soon find out it doesn't always work that way. Judges and juries take liberties with black letter.

This cause of action possibly has small legs. On its face, it's probably 70/30 in CrossFit's favor, not enough for a verdict.

However, give me twelve out-of-shape people in a jury box, an arrogant community that prides itself on going to the edge (Infidel, Pukey, Rhabdo t-shirts), a comments section (using real names) ridiculing the plaintiff, and, finally, a ****ING workout named after the plaintiff and a film of kids doing it (the lawyer will also point out the music selection and plaintiff's name), and I could work with that.

Remember the video article "Don't Talk to Cops?" That applies to clients, too. Affiliates, this does not help you.

Camille Lore
08-20-2008, 08:42 AM
Let's hope this does not hurt CrossFit as a whole.
Personally, I think the guy is a loser.
But, the lawsuit obviously has potential to cause problems.
Best of luck to the affiliate and CFHQ. Let's hope sanity prevails.

Joe Shininger
08-20-2008, 01:40 PM
Correct essay answer, Joe. You'll soon find out it doesn't always work that way. Judges and juries take liberties with black letter.

This cause of action possibly has small legs. On its face, it's probably 70/30 in CrossFit's favor, not enough for a verdict.

However, give me twelve out-of-shape people in a jury box, an arrogant community that prides itself on going to the edge (Infidel, Pukey, Rhabdo t-shirts), a comments section (using real names) ridiculing the plaintiff, and, finally, a ****ING workout named after the plaintiff and a film of kids doing it (the lawyer will also point out the music selection and plaintiff's name), and I could work with that.

Remember the video article "Don't Talk to Cops?" That applies to clients, too. Affiliates, this does not help you.

But...but...essay answers are all I know!!!!

Dan Hollingsworth
08-20-2008, 01:58 PM
Gant -

I thought the exact same thing when i saw the video named in his "honor". Seems to me there are still lots of details that we, the CF community, don't know. Until all the details are out there, I think we need to sit back and keep our fingers crossed on this one.

Bryan Veis
08-20-2008, 02:30 PM
I second Gant's point. As a general matter, litigants and their lawyers are ill-advised to make public statements about a pending case. The only thing that counts is what is said in the courtroom UNLESS they say something outside the courtroom that puts them in a bad light somehow -- then the other side can bring that in as an admission. So, don't talk to cops, or TV cameras, or reporters, or internet discussion boards. No good can come of it, but some bad might. Another thing -- nuance is never reported accurately. What you think is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the finer points of Crossfit may be reported as something entirely different. You may think of Pukie as a joke; others may interpret it differently, as some form of hazing, for example. Perception is, as they say, reality.

That being said, unless I missed something (which happens at my age), all of the comments on the message board have been by third parties, not by the defendant in the lawsuit. Unless the plaintiff decides to amend his complaint to claim that all of the nasty posters are part of a conspiracy and/or that he is being harassed by crossfitters, it seems unlikely that any of the comments here are likely to be admissible in court.

However, it was probably unwise for crossfit.com to openly mock the plaintiff. I am not their legal counsel, and would leave it to counsel to advise them, but while the various commenters on the lawsuit are just that, the folks that run Crossfit, the company, have some form of business relationship with the affiliates. There may be some circumstances in which the plaintiff could assert that the affiliate relationship would be a basis to add Crossfit, the company, as a defendant. Why tempt fate?

John Alston
08-21-2008, 07:59 AM
So, I saw this and had to post. I have a contract with the Army and train a new 30 every month. As trainers and owners of affiliates we hopefully understand that there exists a mutual responsibility. When my folks come in the first thing they are briefed on is Rhabdo, Passing Out, and throwing up...first two are no go and the last is encouraged...they are also briefed on personal responsibility.
CrossFit Aspire



Seriously? It happens, sure, but isn't it a sign of poor planning, either in workload or eating too soon before or something? How's that help your recovery? Or is it part of some secret ab training?
Puking is not sign of good training. Nausea is one thing that happens, encouraging vomiting is another. Sorry to bust on your hardcoreness.

Gant Grimes
08-21-2008, 09:20 AM
When my folks come in the first thing they are briefed on is Rhabdo, Passing Out, and throwing up...first two are no go and the last is encouraged...

Yeah. Why is this?

That being said, unless I missed something (which happens at my age), all of the comments on the message board have been by third parties, not by the defendant in the lawsuit. Unless the plaintiff decides to amend his complaint to claim that all of the nasty posters are part of a conspiracy and/or that he is being harassed by crossfitters, it seems unlikely that any of the comments here are likely to be admissible in court.

However, it was probably unwise for crossfit.com to openly mock the plaintiff. I am not their legal counsel, and would leave it to counsel to advise them, but while the various commenters on the lawsuit are just that, the folks that run Crossfit, the company, have some form of business relationship with the affiliates. There may be some circumstances in which the plaintiff could assert that the affiliate relationship would be a basis to add Crossfit, the company, as a defendant. Why tempt fate?

CF probably wasn't added because of jurisdiction and venue considerations.

As far as admitting the statements, certain things are admissible if they can be authenticated (much easier to authenticate statements on this board than a MySpace page). Beyond that, the CF forums and especially the blog comments are a wonderful resource for plaintiff's counsel to use for discovery, historical information, and potential witness lists. I wouldn't be surprised if the plaintiff moved for a continuance so he could reopen discovery using this wonderful resource recently made available to him.

What about the video? Besides using "Hakunah Matata" for a workout named after Makimba, this is electronic evidence showing a controlled workout with strict supervision. It's the benchmark, and it's a great example of reasonable care and instruction. This attempt to mock the plaintiff may save CF while hanging the affiliate out to dry (assuming that's not how the affiliate conducted the workout). Regardless, it would have been better left off the public forums.

Brian De Mio
08-21-2008, 10:35 AM
I strongly agree with Gant. Lawsuits are serious stuff. You (meaning all business associated Crossfitters) should be very professional about this and not invite this kind of attention. It isn't looked upon favorably in the legal world and can be detrimental to your side. It takes nothing for a lawyer to use a comment about a "cavalier" attitude concerning someone's health. This is a case to determine if a fitness trainer was negligent in the care of their client. If they rule in the clients favor you will have no choice but comply with the law no matter what is decided. There are too many factors involved to be judging either way. Let the courts decide. Learn from the experience and make a better Crossfit.

Chris Miskowiec
08-21-2008, 12:43 PM
Seriously? It happens, sure, but isn't it a sign of poor planning, either in workload or eating too soon before or something? How's that help your recovery? Or is it part of some secret ab training?
Puking is not sign of good training. Nausea is one thing that happens, encouraging vomiting is another. Sorry to bust on your hardcoreness.

I took it to mean "if you feel like you have to puke, go ahead and puke" rather than "do your best to puke every workout, more than once if possible".

James Forbes
08-21-2008, 01:42 PM
For those military guys and gals: be ready. The commanders may try to outlaw Crossfit and its workouts, but it will be next to impossible. If they say you can't do Fran, then don't! Do 22-16-10 of Thrusters and Pullups. It is no longer a Crossfit workout. Nowhere on Crossfit will you find a 22-16-10 of Thrusters and pullups. Heck you won't even find 22-16-10 of any combo.
Also, they will need to specify what they are outlawing. By saying no to Fran, are they saying no to pullups, thrusters, or the combo of the two. For certain pullups will not be outlawed. They would have a hard time outlawing thrusters without also outlawing front squats and press/push presses. If they outlaw the combo of thrusters and pullups, just do thrusters and burpees, or cleans and pullups. The commanders will only hang themselves. Be creative and you will be able to do Crossfit no matter the stance of the military.

Commentator 1: ...And the award for most ridiculous and frivalous lawsuit of 2008 goes to.....Drum roll.....Makimba Mimms. This is Mimms second award. Don't forget his earlier award for most pathetic fitness pansy of 2008 awarded to him by Richard Simmons and that lady from the movie "What's eating Gilbert Grape.".....And here comes our next group of presenters--the class of average elementary students who easily completed the workout which caused Mimms permanent and life-altering damage.

Commentator 2: Don't be too harsh on Mimms. Let's not forget his doctor has had him on a constant dose of midal and vagisil to manage the pain of his vaginitis since receiving his injuries from those 10 pound thrusters.

Commentator 1: Ah, yes. He was diagnosed with acute mangina syndrome, if I'm not mistaken. :smiley_ev

Derek Maffett
08-21-2008, 03:10 PM
And what was that commentary for, might I ask?

Making fun of somebody for having a hard time with a kid's workout is one thing, but his life was potentially at risk here. He may have been highly predisposed to rhabdo, and I can hardly see that as his own fault.

However, you might wonder how he could have gotten lumbosacral spine strain from 30 burpees and 60 air squats (10 thrusters might as well be air squats).

Chris Walls
08-21-2008, 03:11 PM
Is that REALLY the wod that did the guy in? To that scale and everything?

Derek Maffett
08-21-2008, 03:18 PM
If it isn't, then whoever posted that PDF is going to look really stupid.

David Gray
08-22-2008, 03:52 AM
Well, yeah, lawsuits are serious. But for gawd's sake stop being such pansies about this. The plaintiff's attorney would be inviting the jury to heap ridicule and abuse on the plaintiff were he to show this at the trial (if it could even be introduced, given that Crossfit isn't named). Hell, the defense certainly should introduce the video, and maybe even bring in a class of schoolchildren, or have the jury do "the makimba." Or show it to the judge, so the judge can offer the plaintiff a chance to withdraw while he's ahead, before he becomes a national laughing stock.

For the simple humor value, we should show this to Rip and ask him what he thinks of anyone who could claim he was permanently damaged by this workout.

Makimba has made himself the perfect object for ridicule and abuse by claiming that this workout ruined his life. Maybe something did, but it wasn't this workout. This video won't change a thing in court, but it serves the purpose of protecting Crossfit's reputation. Others want to tar Crossfit as dangerous, and Crossfit's name is used in the press as a bogeyman, as something that should be scary to people, like Navy Captains. This video puts the lie to that slander in an undeniable way, and if poor makimba feels ridiculed by it, good, the shoe fits.

Sean Dunston
08-22-2008, 06:53 AM
For the simple humor value, we should show this to Rip and ask him what he thinks of anyone who could claim he was permanently damaged by this workout.



Your Honor, the defense would like to call Coach Mark Rippetoe to the stand...

:yikes:

James Forbes
08-22-2008, 02:46 PM
However, you might wonder how he could have gotten lumbosacral spine strain from 30 burpees and 60 air squats (10 thrusters might as well be air squats).


3 options. He is either a liar, the worst kind of pathetic, or both.

Derek Maffett
08-22-2008, 03:47 PM
I suppose another option is that he could have been about as fragile as glass that day or for those particular exercises... but you'd figure that between military service and wrestling, he'd have adapted somewhat to such a scaled workout... or was he so fit yet lacking in metcon that he could push through everything so incredibly fast as to give him rhabdo? I suppose it's possible, but I actually hadn't discounted "liar," which is why I wonder if he has hospital records of the rhabdo.

Tobias W. Neal
08-25-2008, 12:49 PM
Well hello, I realized someone posted to my stuff, sorry it took so long for me to respond. We are not hardcore per se if you look at my website I think you will see it. I love all of my clients and would never look to harm them, I also encourage them to eat something small before they come and workout but caution eating big because they will puke. CrossFit is high intensity and hardcore, the timid walk away from this and those that stay create truly strong people and strong spirits...we are warriors and therefore train harder than some of those that live in a treadmill induced coma. It was tongue in cheek humor and folks on the board take things a bit seriously. If you train so hard you need to puke than puke just not on my floor or sink hahaha. Any further comments please don't hesitate to post. As for this lawsuit either it is frivolous, the coach messed up, or a whole host of other things. I train a large portion of the military and this article and lawsuit was posted in their paper and I had to answer to it. Stuff happens...be good to your folks, be a good trainer, don't get to caught up in this stuff, and try to avoid bad karma...:D

Chip Moore
08-25-2008, 07:21 PM
Let me first say that I fully recognize the potential of rhabdo and what it has done to many people in the past.

Understand, this is simply the cop in me thinking outloud:

December 2005: Makimba does workout. Nearly dies. Permanently disabled.

January 2007: Makimba and his wife buy a house in the Washington DC metro area for $360,000 (I Googled his name and it came up).

"Early last year" (couldn't find exact date, maybe someone else saw it??): Lawsuit filed for minimum $500,000 alleging said permanent disability.

So my question: Who goes out and buys a $360k home when your work force future is in doubt??? And why $500k? Timing/Amount of the lawsuit bother me on this one...

Again, just thinking outloud... and I completely acknowledge that I wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to CF.

Frank DiMeo
08-26-2008, 06:20 AM
When this type of stuff surfaces, as it will, none of us should be surprised.
I make sure my new clients are briefed about rhabdo during their orientation.

Steven Bowser
08-26-2008, 06:51 AM
Not only do I inform them about Rhabdo - I give them a handout and have them initial it.

Travis Gillum
09-01-2008, 11:10 AM
3 options. He is either a liar, the worst kind of pathetic, or both.
James,

I know PO Mimms, he and I served together during the years in question. I don't know much about his case of Rhabdo but I do know PO Mimms is an upstanding shipmate and a sailor who is/was in fantastic shape. Unless you know the guy, you have no right to comment on his manhood or throw insults his way. He's not the type of guy who would cry wolf.

Travis

Bart Hodlik
09-01-2008, 03:30 PM
James,

I know PO Mimms, he and I served together during the years in question. I don't know much about his case of Rhabdo but I do know PO Mimms is an upstanding shipmate and a sailor who is/was in fantastic shape. Unless you know the guy, you have no right to comment on his manhood or throw insults his way. He's not the type of guy who would cry wolf.

Travis

And yet, for someone who was an "accomplished" wrestler, he claims that a childrens workout did this. I find it very, very, very hard to believe. I have a client who is probably 100 pounds overweight, and does workouts harder than this. And she's only been at it for about two months.
I'm active duty Navy, and have had the distinct pleasure of tasting just how badly the idea of fitness is rejected. Every other branch of service is beginning to incorporate some form of CF, and yet the Navy continues to brand it as dangerous and un-needed. The recent publicity that CF has gotten in the Navy lights, has not exactly been positive. This lawsuit only contributes to this. He may not be blaming crossfit outright, but stating that it was the trainer and gyms fault for him suffering rhabdo, is a bit much. A wrestler doing a kids workout, and somehow burning out on 10 pounds plus body weight, just seems a little unreasonable. Its not like the trainer was physically moving his body, or threating him with a taser or something to move faster. And from what I understand, it was also not his first workout. There had to be other factors involved in this, and if Chip's observations are substantiated, then it does question the credibility.

Jason Dury
09-02-2008, 07:10 AM
Does anyone know if this went to court yet and the outcome? If not, is there a scheduled date you can provide and location?

I'm asking because as a new affiliate in Northern Virginia, I should be aware of this and stay on top of it.

Jason Dury
CrossFit Northern Virginia

Sean Dunston
09-02-2008, 07:49 AM
Jason-
I'll be there.
10:00 a.m., October 6, 2008.
Prince William County Courthouse
Case #CL78584

As a local attorney and CrossFitter, I am very interested to see how this thing turns out.

Jason Dury
09-03-2008, 05:11 AM
Thanks Sean.

Alicia Michel
09-03-2008, 07:32 AM
Jason-
I'll be there.
10:00 a.m., October 6, 2008.
Prince William County Courthouse
Case #CL78584

As a local attorney and CrossFitter, I am very interested to see how this thing turns out.

Hey Sean, could you post in this thread what happens?

Sean Dunston
09-03-2008, 09:14 AM
Hey Sean, could you post in this thread what happens?

I'll "try" to do that... but I am still betting that it never actually makes it to trial.
If it settles, no details will be available from the court.
If it does go to trial - it is scheduled for 2 days and as of right now, I am not sure I will be able to make it for the second day.

Manuel DeLeon
09-07-2008, 02:19 AM
ok, let me get this straight. a kids WOD hurt this guy? I am not being cynical towards the plaintiff, just curious. If this was the case, then shouldn't we have Rhabdo injury reports by the thousands? I mean, think about it. Crossfit gets its exercises from many arenas of fitness. Even then, shouldn't those areanas be just as vulnerable to this injury by large numbers? All I can say is wow!, I better do some research on this Rhabdo stuff. Was he, makimba, a long standing crossfit member?

John Tuitele
09-13-2008, 11:27 PM
The last thing I need is my 1SG busting my @lls for requesting to do this as part of our unit pt.

That abbreviation must not mean what I thought it meant......

:confused:

David Wood
09-14-2008, 01:50 PM
That abbreviation must not mean what I thought it meant......

:confused:


John, I think he (deliberately) left off a leading "b" . . . (or, at least, that leads to one reasonable interpretation).

John Tuitele
09-18-2008, 09:43 AM
John, I think SHE (deliberately) left off a leading "b" . . . (or, at least, that leads to one reasonable interpretation).

Post fixed (correction in bold).......

Sean Dunston
09-18-2008, 10:25 AM
Does anyone know if this went to court yet and the outcome? If not, is there a scheduled date you can provide and location?

I'm asking because as a new affiliate in Northern Virginia, I should be aware of this and stay on top of it.

Jason Dury
CrossFit Northern Virginia

I just checked the Court's docket and this case is still scheduled for jury trial on the 6th & 7th of October.

They have motions in limine scheduled for Sept 26th. These motions are typical used just like they sound -- to limit the use of certain evidence or keep out certain terms or evidence from the case. It would be really interesting (to me) to know what the subject of these motions and the subsequent rulings on them are -- but we'll likely never know.

I'm still planning to make it to Court to watch this case.

Chris Scott
09-18-2008, 11:47 AM
Thanks for the update, Sean. Very interested to hear your take on events when things get rolling.

David Wood
09-18-2008, 07:57 PM
Post fixed (correction in bold).......

Dang, another bonehead mistake by a rookie.

Thanks, John, and my apolgies to Denise.

Sean Dunston
10-03-2008, 12:54 PM
As far as I can tell - this case is still on for Monday.
I'll be there.
Anyone else going to attend?
I'll be easy to pick out - the short guy in the pin stripe suit (that doesn't fit him anymore because he's lost 35# since it was purchased and tailored).

:)

Arturo Garcia
10-03-2008, 01:25 PM
Kindof an off-topic comment, but....

While I heal my left wrist, I've been doing lower body stuff, and here and there some right-arm-only stuff. The other day I invented a WOD: 10 rounds for time of, 15 reps 40# db snatch (right only) and 15 reps GHD-sit-ups. When, in round 6, the sit-ups looked like 6+3+3+3, I remembered about the whole rhabdo thing and decided to call it quits at 6 rounds, hopefully a good choice... :D

Chris Scott
10-04-2008, 03:18 AM
As far as I can tell - this case is still on for Monday.
I'll be there.
Anyone else going to attend?
I'll be easy to pick out - the short guy in the pin stripe suit (that doesn't fit him anymore because he's lost 35# since it was purchased and tailored).

:)

Won't be attending, but I'll be very interested to hear your report....

(congrats on the 35 lbs!)

Bryan Veis
10-07-2008, 05:16 AM
This morning's Washington Post (WFS):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100603032.html

Camille Lore
10-07-2008, 05:41 AM
Ugh. Sean, how'd it go?

Jennie Yundt
10-07-2008, 06:19 AM
This morning's Washington Post (WFS):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100603032.html

"the instructors of the CrossFit classes at the Quantico Marine Corps base got together to review their practices, Vengoechea said. But they determined that they were safe because the instructors work mostly with Marines, who are already in great shape."

I think that's the Marine's way of saying the Navy boy is a sissie. :)

This lawsuit is terrifying to me as an affiliate owner. I truly care about each CrossFitter that trains with me, and if someone got seriously, permanently injured after a workout it would break my heart. I hope (for CrossFit's sake) that this just gets flushed out. Affiliates already have so many obstacles to overcome, I can't imagine what this would do to the reputation of our beloved CrossFit.

Ryan Jones
10-07-2008, 02:44 PM
This morning's Washington Post (WFS):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100603032.html

"Officials with CrossFit could not be reached to comment yesterday"

Ahhh, Coach shoulda sent them the video of the little kids doing the workout.

Sean Dunston
10-07-2008, 07:09 PM
Okay guys-

I sat through BOTH days of trial on this case and I am unhappy to report that no verdict was reached today and I will NOT be there tomorrow when the jury returns with a verdict (sorry, but my own livelihood requires that I do some work "on the clock").

I do not feel comfortable commenting on the facts or law of this case at the present time even though the Jury was admonished to not do any research on the case on their own, so I am SURE none of them will be reviewing this website, and more specifically this thread. ;)

I will also not comment on the fact that the attorneys for Mr. Mimms contacted the press and gave them interviews for an article to be published in the newspaper of widest circulation in the DC Metro area (The Washington Post) DURING the trial, knowing that it was scheduled to be a two day trial and only one day had passed... and while knowing full well that the Jury might by chance see the article in the paper while drinking their coffee this morning prior to coming back to the courthouse. :rolleyes:

But I digress.

I took COPIOUS notes during the two days of trial (probably in excess of 20 pages). It will take me quite some time to distill those notes into something comprehensible to anyone but me. The notes are of witness testimony, attorney argument, judge's ruling and instructions to the jurors, and my own thoughts about what I was seeing and hearing. I will give you a taste of one of my notes....

During the Plaintiff's opening remarks, while discussing just how difficult and taxing the WOD of 15-10-5 burpees, squats and thrusters was, and the fact that no person should ever be expected to do as many as NINETY (90) - yes NINETY (90) squat type moevements - in a work out that is 20 minutes long... I wrote the following in the margin of my note pad:

"All I want to do right now is tell Plaintiff's counsel to shut up, push him out of the way and do the entire WOD in front of the Jury WHILE WEARING MY SUIT, TIE AND DRESS SHOES."

Okay- I'm tired and will give a more complete report later this week when I learn the verdict.

Emily Maisannes
10-07-2008, 08:22 PM
During the Plaintiff's opening remarks, while discussing just how difficult and taxing the WOD of 15-10-5 burpees, squats and thrusters was, and the fact that no person should ever be expected to do as many as NINETY (90) - yes NINETY (90) squat type moevements - in a work out that is 20 minutes long... I wrote the following in the margin of my note pad:

"All I want to do right now is tell Plaintiff's counsel to shut up, push him out of the way and do the entire WOD in front of the Jury WHILE WEARING MY SUIT, TIE AND DRESS SHOES."

That is spectacular. I wish I had known that the verdict was going to come out tomorrow. I would have gone and given my report at the end. Just for curiosity's sake, when and where is it, exactly? Feel free to shoot a PM.

David Gray
10-08-2008, 12:23 AM
Sean, thanks. Your observations confirmed that a) the Makimba workout was indeed what he claimed broke him, and b) his lawyers are shysters, regardless of whether Makimba suffered real injury. I'm intrigued that the reported rhabdo came from his quadriceps, not the usual site of rhabdo that we're familiar with.

For the rest of us, note the shysters' use of the Navy captain's silly statements. This is exactly what Glassman was concerned about back in that very long thread regarding the captain's ignorant statements--he becomes cited as an "authoritative" source on Crossfit by virtue of his rank and position, and his reckless comments left unchallenged or unmocked can and will be used to damage the reputation of Crossfit.

Chris Scott
10-08-2008, 02:38 AM
Okay guys-

I took COPIOUS notes during the two days of trial (probably in excess of 20 pages). It will take me quite some time to distill those notes into something comprehensible to anyone but me. The notes are of witness testimony, attorney argument, judge's ruling and instructions to the jurors, and my own thoughts about what I was seeing and hearing.

Very interested to see these. Thanks in advance, Sean.

Sean Dunston
10-08-2008, 04:03 AM
Emily-
The case is being heard in Prince William County Circuit Court, in Old Town Manassas.
9311 Lee Avenue, Manassas, Virginia 20110.
The Jury is supposed to begin deliberations at 10:00.
When they have reached a verdict, they will return to Judge O'Brien's courtroom which is courtroom #2, on the third floor.

Sean Dunston
10-08-2008, 04:17 AM
For those of you who are interested, I do not take a position on Mimms and whether he got Rhabdo. It is undisputed that he did have Rhabdo and that it was a pretty bad case.

The real issue of the case is whether the trainer (and by extension the Affiliate, and further extension, the Globo in which the Affiliate was located) should have known and warned him that the workout could have given him Rhabdo. And if so, then whether the injuries he received as a result of the workout were proximately caused by the trainer conducting the workout (and everyone else involved), or if Mimms contributed to his own injuries by not stopping the workout when he felt fatigued, even fell down, but made the conscious decision to continue the workout on his own because he "only had one more set [round] left."

I'll get more into that later.

Sean

Stephan Marcella
10-08-2008, 05:28 AM
Sean - Thanks for following this case and giving us updates...it is greatly appreciated.

It will be interesting to see where personally accountablity comes into play.

Chris Walls
10-08-2008, 08:38 AM
Personal Accountability? What's that? Do they still have that these days? I sorta remember something like that when I was a kid but haven't seen it in years...

Emily Maisannes
10-08-2008, 10:23 AM
I wasn't able to make it out there today. It would have been interesting.

And personal accountability? Yeah, right! That only happened in the olden days.

Bart Hodlik
10-08-2008, 10:44 AM
hey hey hey... if everyone was personnally accountable, then how would any money be made?? I mean... you have to earn a living somehow.....

Sean Dunston
10-08-2008, 01:04 PM
I just got off the phone with counsel for Javier Lopez and Ruthless Training Concepts, LLC.

The jury returned its verdict and it is in favor of Mr. Mimms, finding Javier Lopez, Ruthless Training Concepts, LLC and the World Gym in which Ruthless was located, liable for damages in the amount of $300,000.

I will be putting my notes together from the trial and plan to submit it to the CF Journal as an Article.

Ryan Jones
10-08-2008, 01:40 PM
For those of you who are interested, I do not take a position on Mimms and whether he got Rhabdo. It is undisputed that he did have Rhabdo and that it was a pretty bad case.

The real issue of the case is whether the trainer (and by extension the Affiliate, and further extension, the Globo in which the Affiliate was located) should have known and warned him that the workout could have given him Rhabdo. And if so, then whether the injuries he received as a result of the workout were proximately caused by the trainer conducting the workout (and everyone else involved), or if Mimms contributed to his own injuries by not stopping the workout when he felt fatigued, even fell down, but made the conscious decision to continue the workout on his own because he "only had one more set [round] left."

I'll get more into that later.

Sean


And what about proving that the rhabdo was caused by the workout, considering that it can be caused by any number of other things such as drug use, alcohol use, virus, and crushing trauma (if I remember the other causes correctly), all of which are more common causes of rhabdo than exercise.

Sean Dunston
10-08-2008, 01:47 PM
And what about proving that the rhabdo was caused by the workout, considering that it can be caused by any number of other things such as drug use, alcohol use, virus, and crushing trauma (if I remember the other causes correctly), all of which are more common causes of rhabdo than exercise.

For some reason the cause of his Rhabdo did not seem to be in dispute during the case - this may have been settled in pre-trial motions or some other agreement between the parties of which I was note privy. I say this because there was not a lot of evidence put on to PROVE he got Rhabdo from it, nor was there much of a defense to say the work out COULD NOT have caused it or might not have caused it.

There were party admissions early on, stating that Rhabdo can occur from CrossFit workouts... of course, this was told to Makimba's wife AFTER she called the gym and told the head trainer Makimba was in the hospital.

John Frazer
10-08-2008, 01:55 PM
Did anyone else notice this comment from Coach in the Mike Boyle thread? Was he misstating which side he was asked to help on?



There are two lawsuits involving CrossFit. In one we've been asked to work with the plaintiffs lawyers as experts. Our Rhabdo awareness pieces are listed among the expert witness documents for the case. This is the one that Boyle and friends are referring to. Mike Boyle's insinuation that this is a case against CrossFit is unethical, incorrect, uneducated, and irresponsible. It's also typical of Mr. Boyle. (As an aside, I also suspect that the case is fraudulent and entirely inspired by the NY Times article.)

The second case involved a kid who hurt his knees doing back flips ...



(Emphasis added.)

Was the first one the Mimms case? Doesn't seem to make sense.

Sean Dunston
10-08-2008, 02:20 PM
Did anyone else notice this comment from Coach in the Mike Boyle thread? Was he misstating which side he was asked to help on?

Was the first one the Mimms case? Doesn't seem to make sense.

John-
I don't know the particulars, but I am familiar with what you are quoting and the fact that Coach indicated in several places (including CF Radio interview) that he was contacted by Plaintiff's counsel to be experts in the case.

CrossFit was not a party in the case. No person from CFHQ (or any other place in an official capacity on behalf of CF) was present at the case testifying as an expert, nor were any articles from the CF Journal allowed to be introduced as evidence by the parties - having been deemed that the probative value of the articles was outweighed by the potential prejudicial effect of Uncle Rhabdo and Pukie the Clown (and the Skull and Crossbones) would have on the Jury, and the Journal was deemed to not be authoritative because it was not a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

Hey - I have to get back to work guys. I am probably not going to post much more on this thread. I told Coach I would work on an article, and I am going to do that. Any time I waste here, I could be using to write the article instead. I am going to write an article as soon as possible and submit it for publication in the CrossFit Journal. I am not offended or dissuaded by the fact that the Prince William County Circuit Court does not think highly of the publication. I think it is great, and I am happy to try to contribute to it.

John McBrien
10-08-2008, 05:46 PM
Sean, thanks. Your observations confirmed that a) the Makimba workout was indeed what he claimed broke him, and b) his lawyers are shysters, regardless of whether Makimba suffered real injury. I'm intrigued that the reported rhabdo came from his quadriceps, not the usual site of rhabdo that we're familiar with.

For the rest of us, note the shysters' use of the Navy captain's silly statements. This is exactly what Glassman was concerned about back in that very long thread regarding the captain's ignorant statements--he becomes cited as an "authoritative" source on Crossfit by virtue of his rank and position, and his reckless comments left unchallenged or unmocked can and will be used to damage the reputation of Crossfit.

David, where was the thread where Coach talked about the Captain's comments? I never had a chance to see his response.

David Gray
10-09-2008, 03:58 AM
John, not to stiff-arm you, but it was back in April or May, IIRC--within a month of the cover story on Crossfit on Navy Times. Hit the archives and scroll through, you won't miss it when you see it. There were 700+ comments on it, too, but I think if you do a page search for "coach" you'll find his comments pretty quickly. At least, I assumed "coach" on this board was Coach Glassman, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Darrell E. White
10-09-2008, 05:55 AM
The lawsuit in which CF was witness for the plaintiff was a different case, not the Mimm case.

Russell Mullen
10-09-2008, 06:15 AM
I wonder how much he actually gets after the lawyers take their cut.

Jeff R Tucker
10-09-2008, 06:43 AM
I hate the wussification of America! I would fight this crap through the courts all the way to the highest court.

Personal accountability has got to come back to the American fold on every level!

Sean Dunston
10-09-2008, 07:45 AM
I wonder how much he actually gets after the lawyers take their cut.

I have no idea Russell.
I used to share office space with a small firm that did some PI work.
They would take 1/3 of the $$$ if it settled before trial or 1/2 of the $$$ if it went to trial.

Based on that (which could be off base, of course) the Plaintiff's attorneys could have received $100,000 to $150,000 for this verdict - leaving Plaintiff with either $200,000 or $150,000.

David Meverden
10-09-2008, 08:58 AM
I have no idea Russell.
I used to share office space with a small firm that did some PI work.
They would take 1/3 of the $$$ if it settled before trial or 1/2 of the $$$ if it went to trial.

Based on that (which could be off base, of course) the Plaintiff's attorneys could have received $100,000 to $150,000 for this verdict - leaving Plaintiff with either $200,000 or $150,000.

That's messed up! Will the plaintiff really get any money though? If the gym was founded as a Limited Liability Company (or L.C.C.) couldn't the gym just declare bankruptcy and therefore not pay up? I suppose it depends on their insurance. I've heard some small box gyms don't even GET insurance because 1 lawsuit, with or without insurance, will END them.

BTW, Sean, I want to just say how much all of us on the message boards appreciate the time you're putting into this. We really appreciate having someone in the field on top of this and keeping us plugged in. Great stuff!

John Frazer
10-09-2008, 10:13 AM
The lawsuit in which CF was witness for the plaintiff was a different case, not the Mimm case.

But when the Mimms documents were posted on the homepage, there was a letter from a DC law firm that referred (IIRC) to Coach's deposition. The attorney who signed the letter wasn't listed as counsel of record for either side in the Mimms case on the Prince William County courts site, so I couldn't tell which side that was.

Todd Lynch
10-09-2008, 01:54 PM
The lawsuit in which CF was witness for the plaintiff was a different case, not the Mimm case.

Unless I read the thread wrong and misinterpreted the CrossFit Radio podcast... It WAS the Makimba Mimms case that Coach was referring too.

Does anyone know if a liability waiver was signed? I know they don't stop someone from suing you (or winning) but was curious if he had signed one or not.

Sean Dunston
10-09-2008, 02:05 PM
Unless I read the thread wrong and misinterpreted the CrossFit Radio podcast... It WAS the Makimba Mimms case that Coach was referring too.

Does anyone know if a liability waiver was signed? I know they don't stop someone from suing you (or winning) but was curious if he had signed one or not.

Yes-
They had the original waiver admitted as an Exhibit at trial.

Derek Maffett
10-09-2008, 02:34 PM
NINETY (90) - yes NINETY (90) squat type moevements - in a work out that is 20 minutes long...

So one squat every fifteen seconds almost killed him? Seriously? I figured that for that workout to hurt someone, it would have to be stormed through in... two to three minutes?

Chris Walls
10-09-2008, 02:42 PM
NINETY (90) - yes NINETY (90) squat type moevements - in a work out that is 20 minutes long...

And what about tabata squats? even a score of 15 (which is the first benchmark we shoot for here to 'qualify' for group classes) would rack up 120 squats in 4 minutes... Once you get above 20 per round? yikes... how are we all still alive?

Justin Z. Smith
10-09-2008, 02:47 PM
Ouch.

Justin

Emily Maisannes
10-09-2008, 03:00 PM
And what about tabata squats? even a score of 15 (which is the first benchmark we shoot for here to 'qualify' for group classes) would rack up 120 squats in 4 minutes... Once you get above 20 per round? yikes... how are we all still alive?

It's called fit, which it appears to me the plaintiff was not.

Derek Maffett
10-09-2008, 03:30 PM
It's called fit, which it appears to me the plaintiff was not.

Nah. Rhabdo generally happens to people who can push themselves really hard and are fit enough already to do damage to themselves. I (as well as multiple other people) have gotten a relatively minor version of rhabdo before. Would you say that it's just because we were all just a bunch of unfit losers? (Not trying to pick a fight here. I'm not accusing you of saying that - just trying to make a point).

I don't understand this case myself. Medically, I just don't understand how someone could get rhabdo from 90 squats in 20 minutes. It sounds more like an endurance event than high-intensity. I would suspect other factors such as those mentioned previously, and maybe he was just incredibly susceptible to this anyways.

Emily Maisannes
10-09-2008, 04:32 PM
Nah. Rhabdo generally happens to people who can push themselves really hard and are fit enough already to do damage to themselves. I (as well as multiple other people) have gotten a relatively minor version of rhabdo before. Would you say that it's just because we were all just a bunch of unfit losers? (Not trying to pick a fight here. I'm not accusing you of saying that - just trying to make a point).

I don't understand this case myself. Medically, I just don't understand how someone could get rhabdo from 90 squats in 20 minutes. It sounds more like an endurance event than high-intensity. I would suspect other factors such as those mentioned previously, and maybe he was just incredibly susceptible to this anyways.

I sit corrected. The problem was that it was the jury who had to be convinced of everything. They are going to make their decisions based on their own experiences. It's a tough situation.

Kawika Bennett
10-10-2008, 05:25 PM
That guy is a PUSS plain and simple.

George Mounce
10-10-2008, 07:29 PM
That guy is a PUSS plain and simple.

Amazingly ignorant comment.

Dustin Standel
10-11-2008, 03:09 AM
For those of you who might not of seen the results, this was on the Navy Times website a couple of days ago:

Ex-sailor wins lawsuit over CrossFit workout

The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Oct 9, 2008 12:23:59 EDT

MANASSAS, Va. ó A former Navy information systems technician has been awarded $300,000 after suing a Manassas gym over an exercise program he says left him permanently disabled.

Makimba Mimms, 29, of Bristow says the CrossFit workout he did in 2005 caused him to urinate blood and his legs to swell.

Mimms sued Manassas World Gym, where he did the workout; Ruthless Training Concepts, a CrossFit affiliate at the time; and a Ruthless employee who administered the workout. A Prince William County jury found all three defendants liable Wednesday.

The CrossFit program is popular in law enforcement and military circles but has been criticized as dangerous. It involves timed, high-intensity strength training with little or no rest or water between sets.


Being in the USN and involved in CrossFit for a couple of months, I tangentially followed this case whenever I saw it in the news. For my two cents, it seems the guy was fairly unconditioned and probably had a higher susceptibility to this kind of condition than the general population. However, we also don't know what he did around the same time as the WOD that may have contributed to this condition. None of this waives the trainer from his responsibility to be vigilant and aware of the condition of the guy being trained. I wasn't in the courtroom and didn't hear the evidence that the trainer was in anyway negligent of his responsibilities, so I won't take sides.

John Frazer
10-11-2008, 04:18 AM
Sean,

Was the jury instructed on contributory negligence?

Brian De Mio
10-11-2008, 08:30 PM
It would be nice to see the actual facts of this case to help current and future trainers. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people that train and compete in Crossfit. That being said I think its critically important that legal and ethical issues are further strengthened within this system. What are some potential complications associated with the decision in this case? How are affiliates going to protect themselves and their clients to avoid these issues in the future?

Remember that it makes no difference how you feel about this gentleman who brought up a lawsuit. There are many things that can predispose a person to rhabdo. Not just exercise. What matters is that the jury or judge ruled that the affiliate and its trainers were liable and had a responsibility to this individual.

There are many dedicated and devoted members to Crossfit and its a closeknit community unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime. It appears to me that many see this as a betrayal to the community.

Personally I believe that knowing the facts in this case and not hearsay or rumor would better benefit the Crossfit realm.

There is also another issue that should probably be addressed with affiliate members. In the beginning there was essentially a smaller unique group of people willing to do this program. Crossfit is exploding across the country right now and its pulling in a lot of folks who have no experience, knowledge, or training in fitness. This changes things. They are even more susceptible to injury and fatigue than the elitist groups or even the basic fitness individual. I'm not sure that training even in a scaled down manner is appropriate in all cases. That is not to say that they can't be trained. Certainly a body can adapt but you take an individual with years of inactivity and he has to be even more careful. Teaching them that pushing their limits is a good thing but starting out probably needs more than a scaled down workout. A medical history and physical would be a good start. Knowing all the causes of rhabdo and the other potential problems that could occur are essential to help avoid a lawsuit.

Most of us know that rhabdo occurs as a result of excessive muscle use. But what if it occurs in your workspace due to another cause? How many of you know what conditions and medications may contribute? I can promise you that if you question each and every client a fair percentage of them will have some of the conditions or be on the medications listed below. How many of you insist on a physical exam and medical history? Even a specific questionnaire can help tremendously.

Example:
John Doe is a 30 something male who, through friends, has heard about Crossfit. He has tried some of the workouts with friends but wants some structured training. His past medical history is significant for hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. He is taking Hydrochlorothiazide (diuretic) and zocor.
He is about 20 pounds overweight and has never really been an avid fitness buff. His day consists of 8 hours of computer work with the evening spent watching televesion. His diet is based mostly on restaurant foods and snacks at the machines. He is fairly stressed in his life and wants a change. Now, you have an unfit individual taking two drugs which can contribute to rhabdo. Do you exert him/her and see what happens? What are your policies concerning these folks? What if you found out that his father and grandfather died of a sudden heart attack in their mid 30's? Do you even question family medical history too?

Here is a condensed list of Rhabdomyolosis etiology. The actual list is even more comprehensive than this.

Rhabdo causes:

1. crushing injuries
2. shock
3. long periods of confinement such as hospitalizations (various causes)
4. overexertion
5. electrolyte abnormalities
6. several inherited genetic abnormalities
7. thrombosis
8. pulmonary embolism
9. alcohol use
10. alcohol withdrawal (how many folks have drank heavy the night before a workout?)
11. sepsis
12. cocaine, XTC, pcp, methamphetamines
13. high cholesterol medications called statins (lot of folks take these meds)
14. some antipsychotic meds (many folks on these meds)
15. any drug that interferes with potassium (particularly some blood pressure medications called diuretics can do this)
16. Infections (multiple different contributors)
17. autoimmune disorders

How many folks ask their clients if they have or had these conditions or medications? What about all the other medical syndromes and diseases out there? Are those addressed?

Today the world of the athletic trainer is very complex. I believe that the majority that choose to athletically train others have a genuine respect for and care about others. Protecting them requires more than just knowing how to do an oly lift or a proper pullup. It requires knowledge in multiple realms. The athletic trainer needs to know medical, legal, ethical, and fitness issues. It can't be done alone and requires teamwork. This community has a wealth of knowledge and backgrounds. It will be interesting to see how it goes.

George Mounce
10-11-2008, 08:53 PM
^ Excellent, excellent post Brian.

Emily Maisannes
10-11-2008, 11:30 PM
I still don't understand why the trainer/affiliate/gym were ultimately found liable for the rhabdo. I have been me for 29 years. When I first walked into my affiliate, Steve and Sue had known me for 10 minutes. Sure, they're the fitness professionals, but all they can do is encourage me to lift more and remind me to complete the workout safely. Ultimately, I make my own decisions, and I make those decisions based on how I feel. Nobody is holding a gun to my head. There have been times when I have heard, "Keep pushing!" but I still stop to take a 10 second break because my body is telling me I need it. What gives?

Jay Cohen
10-12-2008, 02:53 AM
Brian;

Very well stated.

I recommended a close friend to a very respected strength coach that trains out of an Orthopedic rehab center. After chatting a few minutes, he had a staff member take his blood pressure(was some ridiculous high #), found out he'd hadn't been taking his BP med's, told him to come back when his personal physician approved via writing his OK to start.

As to Lawsuits, it''s inevitable, wait until CF trainers start filing Disability claims for on the job injuries and the CF affiliates have to purchase and maintain that added cost to their operating expenses.

Welcome the the world of the small independent business owner just trying to provide a great service and make a few bucks. Very hard to do today.

Howard Wilcox
10-12-2008, 07:20 AM
In a similar vein as Emily, this is mind-boggling to me as there is no real warning sign that it is happening, right?? If you can't know in advance and it is very random (apparently), how can you be negligent??

I don't get it.

howard

Kawika Bennett
10-12-2008, 08:29 PM
Amazingly ignorant comment.


Yes it is an amazingly ignorant comment, on the surface. But i know the very intricacies of the case. So it is not an ignorant comment.
Have a nice day.

Ryan Jones
10-15-2008, 12:32 PM
Rhabdo causes:

1. crushing injuries
2. shock
3. long periods of confinement such as hospitalizations (various causes)
4. overexertion
5. electrolyte abnormalities
6. several inherited genetic abnormalities
7. thrombosis
8. pulmonary embolism
9. alcohol use
10. alcohol withdrawal (how many folks have drank heavy the night before a workout?)
11. sepsis
12. cocaine, XTC, pcp, methamphetamines
13. high cholesterol medications called statins (lot of folks take these meds)
14. some antipsychotic meds (many folks on these meds)
15. any drug that interferes with potassium (particularly some blood pressure medications called diuretics can do this)
16. Infections (multiple different contributors)
17. autoimmune disorders


What he said about other causes...I'm willing to bet rhabdo was caused by any number 1 through 17 except #4 strictly during the crossfit workout. A bunch of 8 year olds did this workout in 1/2 -> 1/4 the time he took. Are you kidding me? This guy obviously got rhabdo from something else shortly after this workout, heard about the crossfit/rhabdo connection, and saw dollar signs. As much as I'm a fan of George, I agree with what the other guy said, he's a total 'puss.'

Jay Adams
10-15-2008, 01:29 PM
It baffles me that anyone is surprised. I saw on several affiliates who were doing the exact WOD and stating the reasons for doing so were to show what a pus Makimbo is. That is not the issue. VERY VERY strong and fit people get rhabdo. CFHQ was not listed in the suit, a trainer was who by the way has been trounced on threads prior to this suit for sucking up a storm as a trainer and an affiliate. I read somewhere that he was removed/rejected as an affiliate and no one has even mentioned the fact that he may have been reckless. These suits make me wanna puke, but I can honestly see why they happen. Every day affiliates show pix of clients puking after work outs. Everything you ever read has statements akin to "i thought i would die" "it hurt so bad" "i have never felt such pain" Go on the boards and comment posts and see trainers talk about "smoking" someone, "when a globo trainer visits we blow him out to show him what crossfit is all about". I don't think anyone at CFHQ did anything actionable, but you will see suit after suit with the "your a big pus%#" attitudes of trainers". Waivers are a joke, if someone wants to sue you they will. If I were suing an affiliate I would dig up all the reckless comments about intentionaly hurting people and all the puke pix and videos and beat you with them in court. Coach is VERY VERY serious about rhabdo in Level 1. I was surprised at how clear he was on the dangers of rhabdo and the necessity of scaling. I assumed he would nudge and wink over it. I have been to numerous affiliates who took me at my word that i do cf and threw me to the wolves in a group. Last week I was working out with a HS senior at an affiliate while traveling. It was her 3rd cf wod and she was getting owned by the weight and intensity. Her form went to nothing and she was shaking from the work load. Never encouraged to stop. She was wrecked and on the final round was dry heaving and still being cheered to "get some". This is where these suits will continue to happen.

Ryan Jones
10-15-2008, 05:16 PM
VERY VERY strong and fit people get rhabdo.

From going too hard on very very intense workouts that your average joe, let alone your average 8 year old, can't accomplish...especially not in 1/4 the time. I'm still not buying it.

I also think you're completely overreacting and exaggerating the meaning of when people mention getting 'smoked' or 'wanting to die.'

David Wood
10-15-2008, 06:08 PM
I also think you're completely overreacting and exaggerating the meaning of when people mention getting 'smoked' or 'wanting to die.'


But . . . he's probably not exaggerating what a jury of average (lardass) Americans would think when presented with the "evidence" he described.

Alex Europa
10-16-2008, 04:31 AM
I think Jay makes a good point about Javier Lopez; to the best of my knowledge, it has never been made public as to why Ruthless is no longer an affiliate (nor should it be, just making an observation). I also have to give the author of the newspaper article credit for creativity: "Ruthless trainer."

I'm no lawyer (clearly, I'm not nearly smart enough) but I would have to demonstrate to the jury what 90 reps in 20 minutes looks like (seriously, imagine watching a guy do 1 air squat every 15 seconds for 5 minutes-there's no time to take a sip of water in the 14 seconds you're just standing around?), and then follow it up with the CF Kids video. Then, pick up any exercise magazine off the shelf and show them a bodybuilding type "legs day" workout: 4 x 12 back squats and 4 x 12 leg presses (w/ 60 sec of rest) is 96 reps in less than 20 minutes and uses much heavier weights than Mimms was using. The argument that there wasn't any rest is silly - given the cycle time of those exercises for the average person (not average CrossFitter), the work to rest ratio was like 1:5 (burpees), 1:10 (thrusters), and 1:15 (squats) - the rest was clearly built into the workout if it took him the 20 minutes that he claims. I mean, really, call to the jurors' common sense...damn, nevermind...:ranting2:

It's interesting that the cause of the rhabdo was never called into question, it seems like a critical piece of the puzzle to me, considering all the possible causes.

This lawsuit sets a scary precedent for affiliates and gives the naysayers some powerful ammunition. I really hope this doesn't spread more fear through the military too. :(

- Alex

Christian Gotcher
10-29-2008, 10:26 AM
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/10/ap_crossfitlawsuit_100908/ (wfs)

Discuss.

Derek Maffett
10-29-2008, 06:47 PM
... discuss what in particular?

Christian Gotcher
10-29-2008, 06:56 PM
I was specifically wondering if anyone had been to the case and had any information as to the reasoning behind the court's decision and whether it's being appealed. Would anyone know where to find that?

I'm not an affiliate, so I'm not aware of the legal/business implications of this, but those who have more knowledge than I do, do you think it'll impact the way affiliates train in the future?

I personally find it disheartening, but I'd like to know the findings of the court and any evidence that came out over the course of the trial.

Tate Rivera
10-30-2008, 03:02 AM
I was specifically wondering if anyone had been to the case and had any information as to the reasoning behind the court's decision and whether it's being appealed. Would anyone know where to find that?

I'm not an affiliate, so I'm not aware of the legal/business implications of this, but those who have more knowledge than I do, do you think it'll impact the way affiliates train in the future?

I personally find it disheartening, but I'd like to know the findings of the court and any evidence that came out over the course of the trial.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I ever wish to become one, but Sean Dunston is a lawyer and a CrossFitter. He was at the trial and has said that he took notes. He has posted many times throughout this thread. He has said he would like to submit his notes into an article for the CFJ. And also, the sticky about rhabdo under the affiliates section was spurred out of this thread as well.

Jason Lopez-Ota
10-30-2008, 03:24 AM
I don't think that his performance in one workout necessarily makes him a "puss". I can do the workouts, but I'm sure having a wife and being in the military is a lot bigger challenge than lifting weights. He served our country, have more respect for the man. ****ing blood isn't something I'd like to do either. Being physically disabled will effect him for the rest of his life.

Plenty of tough people don't do crossfit.

Christian Gotcher
10-30-2008, 07:57 AM
Whoops. I somehow completely skipped 2 pages of the thread where Sean pretty much answered my question. I am shamed and thoroughly chastised. :censored: I can't wait for the journal article, though.

John Frazer
10-30-2008, 10:11 AM
I was specifically wondering if anyone had been to the case and had any information as to the reasoning behind the court's decision and whether it's being appealed. Would anyone know where to find that?


In Virginia, you have 30 days to file a notice of appeal after the trial court enters its final order. I'm not sure if there's been a final order yet, but either way the time limit hasn't run out.

Sean Dunston
10-31-2008, 05:15 PM
Folks-

Work on the article is slow going, but rest assured... we're working on it!

Last I chatted with the defense counsel (a few days ago), they were still working on post judgment filings.

Pete Nadeau
10-31-2008, 06:43 PM
I'm looking forward to reading it

Brad Miles
11-28-2009, 07:47 PM
I did not read all of this thread but wanted to share what the wod was for all of this to go down.

Three rounds of each of the following, performed for 15, then 10, then 5 reps:

* 10 pound dumbbell thrusters (a thruster is a combined squatting and pressing movement)
* Burpees
* Bodyweight Squats


I found this when searching the web for what it is worth.

Camille Lore
11-29-2009, 08:16 AM
The workout was mentioned in this thread. If you had read it, you wouldn't be posting information we already have and bringing up a thread that's been dead for how long now? Honestly, this looks like a bit of ****-stirring on your part.

Tobias W. Neal
11-29-2009, 08:42 AM
The workout was mentioned in this thread. If you had read it, you wouldn't be posting information we already have and bringing up a thread that's been dead for how long now? Honestly, this looks like a bit of ****-stirring on your part.

Camille, I looked at all his other posts, he doesn't seem to a pot stirrer. Overeaction maybe...

Camille Lore
11-29-2009, 09:18 AM
Dragging up a year old thread, last post was about a Dan John video and since February he hasn't been on here?
Looks a bit suspicious in my book.