Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Don't like it but understand it. Part of the gamesmanship.  Chamizo doesn't want to give JB any more feel for his technique because a guy with quirky, crazy defense gets a little easier to adjust to each time you go with him.  

We've seen similar things at the Big 10 with guys getting so far and defaulting out (i.e., 184 finals this year).  As the rules are constructed, don't see much way you can "make" someone wrestle in these circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBar1977 said:

Go watch the Rudis Podcast where Dernlan interviewed Koll the Monday after Final X. He brings up lawyers and is very specific about it. 

Okay so I watched the podcast, and your are COMPLETELY misrepresenting the situation, in particular what Koll said and eluded to in that interview in regards to "lawyering up".  In fact I don't believe he used the word "lawyer" one time (he may have but I don't recall hearing it) but you are right, he was very specific on his feelings should this become a legal situation.  A couple points from when they discussed anything regarding "legal":  First is when Koll shows the document on his computer that HE is writing, which he states will be four pages (when did it grow to 18 pages?), and would be submitted that day.  He discusses getting some assistance from his associates (didn't say anything about lawyers but I am assuming those who he reached out to are in the profession) at Cornell in drafting the letter for the sake of correct terminology, etc etc. (How stupid of him).  Here are some quotes regarding anything "legal" throughout the interview....  "I'm not a fan of the profession I don't want to have to go there, but I have to fight for my athlete." (Doing everything one can to fight for their athlete, major character flaw)  When talking about the process ahead "so much legal crap that we don't even want to get into"    When asked another where Dernlan brought anytiime someone enters a legal process (in regard to timeframe)  "I don't want to go there but if it comes to that and I don't, then I'm not doing everything I can for my athlete.  (Again, huge character flaw for a coach).  And finally later, "We are not in a mindset to file an injunction or taking it to that level.  We got assistance in drafting the document to make sure for terminology, our argument was covered correctly, those things" (Again, how stupid of them)

So he did talk about the legal side of it somewhat specifically, and everything in there was that they have no desire to "lawyer up" and the document was four pages, not 18 (unless it grew to 18 pages by the time they submitted it I don't know), that they got assistance with before submitting.  That's what you are basing your extremely strong felt "lawyering up" campaign on?  Before hitting submit on this post I searched the Yianni situation and the Dake situation looking for any evidence that they have lawyers on the hire in these situations.  Not one single shred, not one.  What there is when you google the key terms, is a whole of Tbar on this forumn referencing something to the tune of "lawyering up".  A whole lot of it.  On multiple threads, in discussions completely off topic as well.

So once again, your uncontrollable inability to see things another way than your opinion/bias has you totally misrepresenting yet another situation.  

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of a depth chart on a team is the second man gets to go if the first can’t. I love it world team members are using these tournaments to stay sharp for worlds rather than sitting out everything.

 I doubt zain was hurt enough to not go to worlds. Sounds like pretty much nothing other than gum mashing by his psu fanboys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lurker said:

Okay so I watched the podcast, and your are COMPLETELY misrepresenting the situation, in particular what Koll said and eluded to in that interview in regards to "lawyering up".  In fact I don't believe he used the word "lawyer" one time (he may have but I don't recall hearing it) but you are right, he was very specific on his feelings should this become a legal situation.  

So once again, your uncontrollable inability to see things another way than your opinion/bias has you totally misrepresenting yet another situation.  

 

Nice try. Koll does use the word lawyer and the only one forcing this issue is Koll, and he is bringing lawyers to the table so HE is the one making it a legal situation. I will use Koll's own words to illustrate how wrong you are.

At the 14 minute mark: 

Koll mentions the USOC, USA Wrestling, UWW and Article 9. He brings up literally and every possible avenue to appeal this to. He talks about how "I don't speak legalese and I certainly don't write it". How this caused him to utilize "Cornell people" and "Cornell Associates" to assist with writing the documents (which are now up to 18 pages at last count).

Koll then goes on to say "I'm not a lawyer, my brother is one. I despise the profession, but at the same time its what you gotta do. If you go in and you think you are going to handle it by yourself then you are naive".  

At the 21 minute mark:

Quote: "I just want to have legal representation to make sure we put our best foot forward. To make sure they look at the rules and interpret them the right way. I'm not saying we're taking this to a higher level, I'm just saying we are preparing documents for people to make it as clear, as concise, and as accurate as humanly possible". 

 

Not only does Koll mention lawyers, he ties the writing of the documents to his legal representation by mentioning both in the same sentence. I think it is obvious by his choice of words that the "Cornell Associates" are lawyers, even if he did not state so outright. Koll's own words clearly show your claim that he is not "lawyering up" to simply be false. 

I further stipulate Koll is disingenuous when he claims "I'm not saying we're taking this to a higher level" when, by definition taking it beyond the arena is taking it to a higher level. He even makes sure that everyone knows he is thinking of all possible higher levels because he named them. Geez,  open your eyes. Koll has indeed lawyered up. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were there as many forfeits in the finals of the other ranking series tournaments?  If not this might just be what happens when it gets to the point where the points difference cannot change seeding. 

Edited by Fishbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

 

Nice try. Koll does use the word lawyer and the only one forcing this issue is Koll, and he is bringing lawyers to the table so HE is the one making it a legal situation. I will use Koll's own words to illustrate how wrong you are.

At the 14 minute mark: 

Koll mentions the USOC, USA Wrestling, UWW and Article 9. He brings up literally and every possible avenue to appeal this to. He talks about how "I don't speak legalese and I certainly don't write it". How this caused him to utilize "Cornell people" and "Cornell Associates" to assist with writing the documents (which are now up to 18 pages at last count).

Koll then goes on to say "I'm not a lawyer, my brother is one. I despise the profession, but at the same time its what you gotta do. If you go in and you think you are going to handle it by yourself then you are naive".  

At the 21 minute mark:

Quote: "I just want to have legal representation to make sure we put our best foot forward. To make sure they look at the rules and interpret them the right way. I'm not saying we're taking this to a higher level, I'm just saying we are preparing documents for people to make it as clear, as concise, and as accurate as humanly possible". 

 

Not only does Koll mention lawyers, he ties the writing of the documents to his legal representation by mentioning both in the same sentence. I think it is obvious by his choice of words that the "Cornell Associates" are lawyers, even if he did not state so outright. 

I further stipulate he's full of crap when he claims "I'm not saying we're taking this to a higher level" when, by definition taking it beyond the arena is taking it to a higher level. He even makes sure that everyone knows he is thinking of all possible higher levels because he named them. Geez, open your eyes. 

So as I said, he may have used the word lawyer I just didn’t recall. Did you read that part or leave it out of your brain so you could use the “nice try” opening?

 Basically you didn’t rebutt anything I said, you just included more of what he said than I did. To sum it up, he wrote a letter (still don’t see where you get the 18 pages from. I searched that to, nada. Im very interested  to see where you are getting 18 instead of 4), and as he said repeatedly he doesn’t want to mess with any legal stuff but in order to fight for his athlete a legal process must go forth, whether it be a legal process in arbitration or beyond. There is basically no evidence that he/they “lawyered up”, particularly not in the context and extreme that you have regularly spewed all over this board. They got some advice from lawyers in writing their appeal. Big deal. Let’s get in a fit over it!

No need to get into another one of drawn out things where you take all these different twists and turns to try to save face.  I just wanted to point out yet another misrepresentation brought on by you and your heavy heavy bias. Not that anyone around here needs that pointed out for them. 

 

 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lurker said:

So as I said, he may have used the word lawyer I just didn’t recall. Did you read that part or leave it out of your brain so you could use the “nice try” opening?

Basically you didn’t rebutt anything I said, you just included more of what he said than I did. To sum it up, he wrote a letter (still don’t see where you get the 18 pages from. I searched that to, nada. Im very interested  to see where you are getting 18 instead of 4), and as he said repeatedly he doesn’t want to mess with any legal stuff but in order to fight for his athlete a legal process must go forth, whether it be a legal process in arbitration or beyond. There is basically no evidence that he/they “lawyered up”, particularly not in the context and extreme that you have regularly spewed all over this board. They got some advice from lawyers in writing their appeal. Big deal. Let’s get in a fit over it!

No need to get into another one of drawn out things where you take all these different twists and turns to try to save face.  I just wanted to point out yet another misrepresentation brought on by you and your heavy heavy bias. Not that anyone around here needs that pointed out for them. 

 I mean who needs accuracy when trying to prove a point?  

My reaction to your post wasn't because of your inability to recall that Koll has indeed (lawyered up) mentioned the word lawyer, it is because you claimed I misrepresented his comments when I clearly did not. And, I included more of what he said because it proves the point. Duh. 

At this point you are now acting as a group of Cornell undergrads did a few years ago in their blind support for Charlie Tan, the drug dealing student who his second judge stated clearly murdered his father. Those students witnessed and read plenty of the evidence that could have easily led them to understand the truth in that matter, but they didn't want to see it so they blindly supported him despite the evidence of his guilt. 

I am not comparing anyone to Tan here, but I am comparing you to Cornell students who when shown evidence of a fact pattern were just unwilling to see it. 

I stand by what I said before. Koll has obviously brought lawyers into the equation. By his own words this is so. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GoNotQuietly said:

Can someone please tell me why skipping a match is worse than skipping a tournament?

Because no one is expecting to see you wrestle at that tournament. OTOH, if you enter a tournament, make it to the semis and win, everyone expects you to wrestle in the finals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh twist number one “brought lawyers into the equation”. Far cry from spewing “lawyered up” all across the board. I guess it depends on one’s take on what it means to be “lawyered up”. For me it is hiring a lawyer and having them represent you in the matter (which has not been done in either situation). I think most people, normal, unbiased people, would not consider getting some advice in writing a letter as “lawyered up”

And now you’re even creating an agenda for me with this “blind support of Koll”. I think you will see in many of my comments on this topic throughout the weeks, I don’t want to see this go this route, Zain deserves and should get that spot. I’ve said it could go the other way, and given my reason why I see it possibly could, but again have stated multiples times I don’t want to see that. I guess there goes your blind faith theory. 

The only evidence of any fact pattern is they are appealing the procedures in the match and had assistance in drafting a letter. There is ZERO evidence that they have hired and and been represented by a lawyer...I.e. lawyered up. Just because one gives no credence to the stories you create doesn’t not mean one is ignoring any evidence. Actually quite the contrary. Even though Koll is fighting for something I am against, just trying to make sure I’m seeing things for what they are, not making them into what I want them to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "lawyered up" comes, I believe, from "NYPD Blue." It refers to a criminal defendant invoking his right to counsel and not answering questions from the police. Koll is not a criminal defendant and he has not refused to answer questions. Thus he has not lawyered up. He may have hired a lawyer to help FLWC or Cornell draft an appeal letter. Why does anyone have a problem with that?

The only problem I have is his rather ignorant bashing of the legal profession even as he seeks its aide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NJDan said:

The term "lawyered up" comes, I believe, from "NYPD Blue." It refers to a criminal defendant invoking his right to counsel and not answering questions from the police. Koll is not a criminal defendant and he has not refused to answer questions. Thus he has not lawyered up. He may have hired a lawyer to help FLWC or Cornell draft an appeal letter. Why does anyone have a problem with that?

The only problem I have is his rather ignorant bashing of the legal profession even as he seeks its aide.

I don’t imagine they hired anyone to draft the letter. They have plenty resources there they can get assistance in writing a letter without hiring someone. The lawyer bashing I took as friendly little digs at his brother, but could be wrong. Didn’t care for the things he said about tucci though. The man has given a whole lot to the sport around the world. We all have errors in judgement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, NJDan said:

The term "lawyered up" comes, I believe, from "NYPD Blue." It refers to a criminal defendant invoking his right to counsel and not answering questions from the police. Koll is not a criminal defendant and he has not refused to answer questions. Thus he has not lawyered up. He may have hired a lawyer to help FLWC or Cornell draft an appeal letter. Why does anyone have a problem with that?

The only problem I have is his rather ignorant bashing of the legal profession even as he seeks its aide.

Sorry, but the phrase "lawyer up" exists well beyond the criminal defense world. From yourdictionary.com.

lawyer-up

Verb

(third-person singular simple present lawyers up, present participle lawyering up, simple past and past participle lawyered up)

  1. (intransitive, chiefly US, informal) To exercise one's right to legal representation, especially on the occasion of refusing to answer law-enforcement officials' questions without the presence of such legal representation.
    Lawyer up, delete Facebook, hit the gym.
  2. (intransitive, chiefly US, informal, business) To conduct matters in accord with legal formalities or so as to avoid legal risk.
    Whenever we do business with those guys, we lawyer up to protect ourselves.
  3. (informal, business) To arrange in a way reflecting legal advice.
    By the time we finished lawyering up the agreement, we didn't want to sign it.
     
    https://www.yourdictionary.com/lawyer-up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"lawyer up": to get someone experienced to argue on your behalf because you are smart enough to know when you need help. considered unsporting by people who inevitably lose arguments to better prepared opponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lurker said:

Ahhhh twist number one “brought lawyers into the equation”. Far cry from spewing “lawyered up” all across the board. I guess it depends on one’s take on what it means to be “lawyered up”. For me it is hiring a lawyer and having them represent you in the matter (which has not been done in either situation). I think most people, normal, unbiased people, would not consider getting some advice in writing a letter as “lawyered up”

One, see the post above for the broad use of the phrase "lawyer up". Two, he stated as fact he was not going in there without representation and to do so would be naive. You are clearly missing some things here. 

"I'm not a lawyer, my brother is one. I despise the profession, but at the same time its what you gotta do. If you go in and you think you are going to handle it by yourself then you are naive".

 

EDIT: Btw, you asked where I got the 18 pages in an earlier post. It wasn't the interview with Dernlan, because at that time he spoke of 4 pages. The 18 pages comes from something more recent. I can't find it easily, but assure you that number is not made of whole cloth nor arbitrarily made up. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NJDan said:

Because no one is expecting to see you wrestle at that tournament. OTOH, if you enter a tournament, make it to the semis and win, everyone expects you to wrestle in the finals.

So maybe its a problem that we have a system where we can't expect wrestlers to wrestle at a certain amount of wrestling tournaments throughout the year because they don't think it is worthwhile to do so...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All which involve representation. As do all of the definitions from the various online dictionaries, speak to “hiring” “retaining the services of” or “being represented”. Again, there’s no evidence to them hiring legal representation. Unless you consider asking some law buddies at work as hiring legal representation. Which for the sake of this argument I’m sure you do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

One, see the post above for the broad use of the phrase "lawyer up". Two, he stated as fact he was not going in there without representation and to do so would be naive. You are clearly missing some things here. 

"I'm not a lawyer, my brother is one. I despise the profession, but at the same time its what you gotta do. If you go in and you think you are going to handle it by yourself then you are naive".

 

EDIT: Btw, you asked where I got the 18 pages in an earlier post. It wasn't the interview with Dernlan, because at that time he spoke of 4 pages. The 18 pages comes from something more recent. I can't find it easily, but assure you that number is not made of whole cloth nor arbitrarily made up. 

One, I saw the post above and responded to it.  Two I’m not missing anything, I’m accounting things as they are. You’re quote was one that if this appeal got to that point where it would be needed (which he said repeatedly he did not want to see it go that way.  The fact that you don’t believe him doesn’t make your opinion a fact).  You, again, have been spewing all over these boards that he lawyered up from the get go. So, once again, you have repeatedly misrepresented the truth because it doesn’t fit your world.  Which I guess in your world asking some work associates for a little help is retaining legal representation.  

As for the 18 pages, Well I mean it was four pages the day of the interview and he stated he was close to submitting it so. Would be done that day. I mean if someone just threw 18 pages out there in a message board or something and you want to go with that as fact ..that’s fine. I’ll wait until I see it is actually a fact before claiming it so. But I searched all over and didn’t see one mention anywhere of 18 pages, except from Tbar. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lurker said:

One, I saw the post above and responded to it.  Two I’m not missing anything, I’m accounting things as they are. You’re quote was one that if this appeal got to that point where it would be needed (which he said repeatedly he did not want to see it go that way.  The fact that you don’t believe him doesn’t make your opinion a fact).  You, again, have been spewing all over these boards that he lawyered up from the get go. So, once again, you have repeatedly misrepresented the truth because it doesn’t fit your world.  Which I guess in your world asking some work associates for a little help is retaining legal representation.  

As for the 18 pages, Well I mean it was four pages the day of the interview and he stated he was close to submitting it so. Would be done that day. I mean if someone just threw 18 pages out there in a message board or something and you want to go with that as fact ..that’s fine. I’ll wait until I see it is actually a fact before claiming it so. But I searched all over and didn’t see one mention anywhere of 18 pages, except from Tbar. 

So since I was the only mention of it, you thought I just made it up? Lol.  I got it from Christian Pyles at the 34 minute mark on FRL 389. 

This is the episode where they smack Kyle Dake around for the first 30 minutes, then transition to Yianni-Zain. Witness Pyles remarks at about the 34 minute mark. 18 pages. 

https://www.flowrestling.org/video/6525141-frl-389-how-kyle-dake-is-taking-advantage-of-the-system

 

You can believe what you want. You heard him talk about lawyers. You heard him mention that to go in there without representation would be naive. That you gotta do what you gotta do. You still won't believe it. Now the 4 page document has expanded to 18 pages and you don't think lawyers wrote that either. I guess a Cornell "associate" who is a member of the bar could walk up to you and acknowledge it and you'd still deny it. 

The Charlie Tan Denial of Fact Pattern Effect on full display here. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do appreciate you looking and finding it, Spey says on a talk show “apparently there’s an 18 page document”, with no insight where that information come from.  I have searched the web far and wide for any mention of 18 page document, in all the articles about this situation, and there’s nothing, excepts Spey’s anonymous apparently. You just accept that “apparently” as rock hard truth? Come on. Gonna have to do better than that. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 1032004 said:

 

I think the question is, “if there is nothing to gain” from wrestling in the finals, why enter at all?

I get why it’s “smart,” but this is setting a horrible precedent.   Ducking (and Chamizo apparently bragging about doing so on instagram) is now a worldwide phenomenon, even happening in high school and D2/D3 now.

he determined that his seed was sewn up, nothing more to gain. perhaps there was something to gain by just making the finals.

idk.

it's called freedom.

many wanted yanni to duck another chance at zain.

he chose not to.

 

Edited by GockeS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lurker said:

While I do appreciate you looking and finding it, Spey says on a talk show “apparently there’s an 18 page document”, with no insight where that information come from.  I have searched the web far and wide for any mention of 18 page document, in all the articles about this situation, and there’s nothing, excepts Spey’s anonymous apparently. You just accept that “apparently” as rock hard truth? Come on. Gonna have to do better than that. 

I think it is 10x more likely that such an 18 page document exists than that Koll has not consulted with lawyers. One, when you make any legal argument you start to think of things to bolster your case, and your documents start to expand. That's just the nature of argument. Two, he stated he was not going in there without representation. I am on solid ground here whether you agree or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBar - if one of Cael’s Wrestler’s entered into a formal appeal process related to the Olympics or World Championships, do you feel he and the wrestler should not talk to a lawyer to ensure they follow the process well and avoid being rejected due to a procedural formality or misstatement?

Please - a simple question.  Simply answer it.

 

No need to bring up this Tan fellow.  You are trying to divert attention as you lose the argument.  We will seek to avoid bringing up Penn State administration heinous behaviors.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NJDan said:

I assume the forfeiters had their own best interests at heart. I guess the problem is the incentives created by UWW or whoever. Because an unjustified (that is, not injury induced) is bad for the sport, they should create a rule that penalizes such conduct such as be deducting ranking points, a financial penalty or a suspension. Having a system that encourages forfeiting is just sad.

incentives...there has to be money available.

someone mentioned grade school tourney's that had more attendance... well... those are lil kids... parents aunts uncles etc.

overseas... not so much... and even the hometown doesn't know all the guys... was the whole Turkish team there?

i noticed the stands were full for akgul...but other than that... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fishbane said:

Were there as many forfeits in the finals of the other ranking series tournaments?  If not this might just be what happens when it gets to the point where the points difference cannot change seeding. 

interesting question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×