I got my NSCA-CPT cert by reading the source textbook twice. Not studying–reading. I could have never set foot in a gym in my life and passed that test. Pointing fingers at Crossfit as though they are somehow less stringent about who they certify is absurd.
Moreover, from what I’ve seen and heard about the certs (several of my friends are lvl 1 certified), that weekend course offers more in the way of practical training toward coaching than most of the other mainstream, base-level certifications.
Yes, the trainers in question should have better assessed Mimms’s level of preparedness beforehand. Yes, they should have done a better job of scaling the workout. There are good trainers and bad trainers within any organization.
It doesn’t necessarily speak badly as to the standards and philosophy of the organization as a whole.
Comments? I hope this does not portend a flurry of lawsuits against personal trainers, where every little ache or pain from a session is grounds for a lawsuit…
– jj
You realize of course that it will. Personal responsibility is out the window now.
I’m big on personal responsibility myself, but I find this particular case to be at least reasonably valid. I mean maybe it will cause more lawsuits to follow, maybe not - but at some point incompetency (regulations and standards regarding crossfit trainers) needs to be addressed.
If it takes a lawsuit to achieve this then so be it. The Crossfit Clan should know better then to churn out trainers that are under qualified, and let em loose on society.
I mean honestly how much knowledge can you demonstrate on sport science over a weekend in a group of 10+ people? Legally I feel Crossfit should be liable for calling people “trainers” simply for plunking down 1k and going to a glorified seminar. That also has to do with personal responsibility.[/quote]
That’s an argument you can levy at any fitness center. Trainers get better with experience. It’s a job that requires doing, no matter how long the courses take, unless as X says you want medical professionals to be trainers.
At the end of the day, you hire them and you decide whether or not to follow their advice…know your limitations. If something you’re doing doesn’t feel right, stop it, simple as that.
In response, I suppose the difference is not that personal trainers certified by NSCA or whatever organization you want as an example, are more qualified per se. Although I do think they test slightly more heavily on client evaluation.
It’s more that Crossfit has you doing blatantly unwise stuff sometimes, and while this particular case may not be an example of an inherently dangerous workout - the case remains its easier to be injured during a Crossfit workout, because the intensity is much higher than most other workout methodologies.
Emphasis is put on speed and the amount of work you get in, rather than form or technique. Therefore those that are “certified” to teach crossfit should have MORE education rather than equal or less education than a normal trainer.
Upon reflection maybe this doesn’t constitute a lawsuit (particularly one that wound up being $300,000), but it’s still something I feel should be addressed, and could easily be improved without causing tremendous increases in the cost of education.
[quote]3rdegreebyrne wrote:
In response, I suppose the difference is not that personal trainers certified by NSCA or whatever organization you want as an example, are more qualified per se. Although I do think they test slightly more heavily on client evaluation.
It’s more that Crossfit has you doing blatantly unwise stuff sometimes, and while this particular case may not be an example of an inherently dangerous workout - the case remains its easier to be injured during a Crossfit workout,[/quote]
You can be injured doing ANYTHING in the gym. In fact, if what you are doing has no risk attached, you will NOT be making any progress.
That means pay attention and know your own body. It isn’t anyone else’s responsibility in the gym to know your own body’s limitations BUT YOU.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
3rdegreebyrne wrote:
In response, I suppose the difference is not that personal trainers certified by NSCA or whatever organization you want as an example, are more qualified per se. Although I do think they test slightly more heavily on client evaluation.
It’s more that Crossfit has you doing blatantly unwise stuff sometimes, and while this particular case may not be an example of an inherently dangerous workout - the case remains its easier to be injured during a Crossfit workout,
You can be injured doing ANYTHING in the gym. In fact, if what you are doing has no risk attached, you will NOT be making any progress.
That means pay attention and know your own body. It isn’t anyone else’s responsibility in the gym to know your own body’s limitations BUT YOU.[/quote]
I submitted that prematurely by accident - please re-read revised statement.
This is bullshit. He’s a trained navy officer, he should know the risks of working out and he did the program volunteerily. He pushed himself too hard. He got injured. He gets a crapload of cash??
Thats it, next time I injure myself I’m suing everyone nearby for not stopping me. Especially if I piss blood.
[quote]ryanjm wrote:
Crossfit is definitely the most intense athletic conditioning program you can do. It is easy to overexert yourself, and that’s probably what happened to this guy.
I disagree that crossfit doesn’t produce any impressive male physiques:
Almost all the competitors at the crossfit games are impressive. However, don’t think that they got into that kind of shape just doing the workout of the day posted on the cfit website. You have to add in strength conditioning before you do the WoD, like the gym I went to did.[/quote]
I mean honestly how much knowledge can you demonstrate on sport science over a weekend in a group of 10+ people? Legally I feel Crossfit should be liable for calling people “trainers” simply for plunking down 1k and going to a glorified seminar. That also has to do with personal responsibility.[/quote]
I’d assume just about all of these Crossfit trainers probably have more experience and varied backgrounds than just their weekend seminar.
Now I’ve never looked into a Crossfit cert but IF you can only go to a weekend seminar and be labeled a trainer then that is just pure ridiculous.
Regardless of background there are still going to be a whole lot of fuck ups in the industry.
So, I take it the plaintiff is being medically retired from service? Not having any military experience I take it that’s what happens to someone when they become permanently disabled.
I’m guessing the 300K was actual damages and not punitive ones. Am I correct on this?
Regardless of certification they just need to do more screening of participants.
If anyone here has been a trainer, then you know full well the broad range of “issues” clients can bring to gym.
What I find interesting is that Coach Glassman doesn’t even do Crossfit workouts because of a past injury he sustained. Now would you just try and throw someone like him into the mix without screening if you had a gym that performed Crossfit classes?
If someone had a previous injury and engaged in activity that aggravated that past injury is that the trainer’s fault? Especially if that someone came to crossfit.
People aren’t exactly forced into crossfit concentration camps, and from the few I’ve seen they can stop/take a breather/leave at any time.
[quote]dday wrote:
Bauer97 wrote:
dday wrote:
Let me guess, this dumb shit hit himself in the face with a db?
Even if he did, how much damage could one possibly do with a 10lbs dumbbell? Probably not $500k worth, I’d bet.
In a related story, I once had a personal training client bet me that a 5lbs dumbbell dropped from waist height would break something if it landed on your foot. I took that bet, and earned myself $20 and a sore toe.
Exactly, non of those exercises done by my improperly by grandfather would have done $500k worth of damage, you’d have be a total moron to hurt yourself that bad with a 10lb db.
5lb db dropped had to hurt like a bitch.
[/quote]
The only way I could see someone injuring themselves that bad with a 10 lb dumbbell would be if they were to build a high powered slingshot and then shoot it at themselves. and that takes deliberate thought.
On a serious note, rhabdo isn’t exactly a walk in the park. I think this case has a modicum of validity to it, although I think it might cause more people to bring lawsuits against trainers for nonsense.
“A Virginia man, Makimba Mimms of Bristow, a former Navy information systems technician first class…”
He wasn’t really an officer as most people would think. He was a First Class Petty Officer, an enlisted E-6. And an IT to boot. Not that any of that really changes much…our PT program in the Navy is pretty much crap.
[quote]Aggro wrote:
If someone had a previous injury and engaged in activity that aggravated that past injury is that the trainer’s fault? Especially if that someone came to crossfit.
People aren’t exactly forced into crossfit concentration camps, and from the few I’ve seen they can stop/take a breather/leave at any time.
[/quote]
Depending on the state, there may be what is called a “thin skull rule.” This means that, for instance, if I hit someone on the head with a frying pan (or do something negligent as opposed to intentional that causes injury), and that person has a congenital deformity that I didn’t know about that causes his skull to shatter, I am responsible for the damages even if the blow wouldn’t have caused the same amount of damages on another person.
I’d bet there are probably all sorts of waivers and such that the gym requires trainees to sign that are used to try to get around this sort of thing. I’m surprised he won, but it never counts as a win until the appeals are exhausted.
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
Aggro wrote:
If someone had a previous injury and engaged in activity that aggravated that past injury is that the trainer’s fault? Especially if that someone came to crossfit.
People aren’t exactly forced into crossfit concentration camps, and from the few I’ve seen they can stop/take a breather/leave at any time.
Depending on the state, there may be what is called a “thin skull rule.” This means that, for instance, if I hit someone on the head with a frying pan (or do something negligent as opposed to intentional that causes injury), and that person has a congenital deformity that I didn’t know about that causes his skull to shatter, I am responsible for the damages even if the blow wouldn’t have caused the same amount of damages on another person.
I’d bet there are probably all sorts of waivers and such that the gym requires trainees to sign that are used to try to get around this sort of thing. I’m surprised he won, but it never counts as a win until the appeals are exhausted.[/quote]
“Thin Skull Rule”…really? As I’ve thought about this more, I realize it’s the Jury not the plaintiff that’s fucked up. We need a better system. I bet if they polled that jury, none of them have seen the inside of a gym.
Not that any of that really changes much…our PT program in the Navy is pretty much crap.