Sorry Another Angry Rant...

[apwsearch]

Inexperienced lifters almost never stay with the weight when they are getting crushed.

They typically panic and dump. It happens so fast there is almost nothing you can do.

In particular partial rep douche bags b/c they are already handling more weight than they should be.

Once they initiate that movement, in particular overhead, trying to grab them and get them back to upright is actually a very dangerous thing to do because now the bar is on the neck or back of the head. All you can really do is let them go and try to keep them from ending up under the bar. In particular in the absence of competent side spotters.

Bottom line I overall agree the OP put himself in a tough spot but as they say, “hindsight is 20/20.”

In the absence of a willingness to tell the guy NFW, a better approach would be to grab two of your buddies and at least get a pair of side spotters given the weight on the bar.

Although, in this case you may have ended up with some smashed toes depending on the speed with which he dumped and the experience level of the spotters.

As a side line, I bet this jackass went home and described his workout to someone as if he were really killing the weight and ended it with “I just missed 600.”

[Scrotus]

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Joshua632 wrote:
I do accept that I am responsible for my actions, but as I already stated he was going to try it with or without me there, so I felt the risk of him failing and me having to help him up with it was better than the risk of him bottoming out and not having a spotter at all.

This was a kind sentiment. But you could have seriously hurt yourself. You let yourself get taken advantage of.

Why risk an injury to yourself for this guy?

If you see a guy drowning, jump in if you can swim. But if the guy tries pulling you down, get the hell away. And if someone is doing something so stupid as the guy you spotted was doing, you should either a) stop him or b) let him kill himself.

I would have either told him: “This ain’t gonna happen,” and started unracking the weights, or I would have called management. [/quote]

I agree with CL, let natural selection weed him out

[Scotacus]

We are who or what we choose to associate with. The OP identified the guy at the beginning as someone not serious and a show-off, bad form etc: a flake. My instinct in that situation would be along the lines of “would like to help you, but that’s fucked up”.

I mean, what do you do in similar situations (ie around heavy machinery, sharp instruments, live electrical wires etc) when someone youve already identified as a flake asks you to participate in something you KNOW is fucked up??

My advice to the OP – if you want to remain in the gene pool listen to your instincts better. Like it or not you are implicated alongside in this nonsense, for reasons I still fail to understand (see above paragraph) </unsolicited 2 cents>

[Mufasa]

This has been an interesting thread…

Mufasa

[DanErickson]

I would have never spotted that ass monkey.
You would have done him and yourself a favor by showing him how to do a proper squat with an empty bar.

Oh well though, life is full of should haves and could haves.
Guess you and your buds can go splits on a new bar to ease the pain.
Maybe then write on the bar in permanent marker “no dip shits allowed”.

[CaliforniaLaw]

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
However the human, compassionate part of me (the one that I try to nurture over the heartless part) can see why the OP did what he did.[/quote]

How much time and money have you given to charity this year? When was the last time you gave blood? Have you served in the military? When was the last time you risked your life to protect an innocent person from harm?

I will put my “compassion” record up against anyone’s. This doesn’t mean I suffer fools.

Being compassionate doesn’t mean I risk my life so that some phucktard can get an ego boost by loading too much weight on his back. I can and will let those people reap what they sow.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

[CaliforniaLaw]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
All in all I think the OP did the right thing. He honestly believed the guy was going to attempt the squat anyway.
[/quote]

So when someone is going to do something stupid and dangerous, fuck it, join 'em. Hey, I’m going to drive drunk tonight. I like to drive really fast when doing so. I’ll be by your house later tonight so we can take a spin.

Let me know when you’ll be ready.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
All in all I think the OP did the right thing. He honestly believed the guy was going to attempt the squat anyway.

So when someone is going to do something stupid and dangerous, fuck it, join 'em. Hey, I’m going to drive drunk tonight. I like to drive really fast when doing so. I’ll be by your house later tonight so we can take a spin.

Let me know when you’ll be ready.
[/quote]

A better analogy is:

You’re going to a party where you’ll drink till you get excessively drunk, and quite possibly drive when you shouldnt.

Do I

(a)
Just let you go to the party, whatever happens happens, and let you suffer the consequences of any actions. If you wanna drive drunk, fuck it, go ahead.

or

(b)
Go with you to the party, take your keys so you cant drive, make sure you dont pass out on your back, and otherwise keep you out of too much trouble?

I’d rather have people at the party(gym) pissed off at me because I let someone drink too much(try a lift he obviously shouldnt have tried), but I know I kept him from getting really fucked up (getting a serious spinal/hip/knee injury).

Just how I see it.

[CaliforniaLaw]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Go with you to the party, take your keys so you cant drive, make sure you dont pass out on your back, and otherwise keep you out of too much trouble?[/quote]

How is taking someone’s keys analogous to stepping into the squat rack with someone? In the first case, you prevent someone from doing something dangerous. In the second, you help the person do something dangerous.

Should the OP have stopped the douche bag from lifting the weight? Yes - That was my entire point. Unload the weight. Look the guy in the eye and say: "You’re not going to put this 600 lbs. on your back. If you have a problem with that, do something about it. In short, man up. Instead, the OP helped the phuck engage in a dangerous activity.

It’s like saying, “Dude, you are so drunk, but I’ll ride with you so that at least I can tell you to watch out for the kids we might see playing in the street.” If you died in such an accident, I would not consider it a loss. You don’t get into the car with drunk people. Period.

Thus, your analogy is false. More generally: You have a problem with trying to be too clever - here and in other threads. These “parlor tricks” might work on your lazy classmates, but they won’t work around here. So if you’re going to debate, you need to do a lot better than throw around false analogies. Honestly.

[SwampThing]

For the most part I agree with CA Law, and even the OP can see that CA Law has a valid point. The OP just disagrees. The rest of you who are flaming CA Law because he called the OP out and said, “Hey I think you were wrong”, should learn to put things in the proper perspective.

For one, you guys should give the OP little bit more credit, I’m sure he can take a little bit of criticism in stride. Second of all offer a valid argument, don’t just attack someone’s character because you think they are wrong. That shows a lack of maturity, and the inability to tolerate people who don’t see the world the same way you do.

I can’t offer any more arguments, most of the ones I had were already stated so I’m just going to say that I agree fully with what CA Law has said so far.

BTW Josh, good move on offering to replace the bar, I’m sure you earned some points with management.

[BF_Bullpup]

CaliforniaLaw is right. He didn’t need 20 ranting posts, but he is right. I’ve seen people do stupid things in the gym and simply informed management. It’s not worth it if somebody could get hurt and/or the equipment damaged. This is even more important for a “wellness center” trying to attract consumers.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]SwampThing wrote:
For the most part I agree with CA Law, and even the OP can see that CA Law has a valid point. The OP just disagrees. The rest of you who are flaming CA Law because he called the OP out and said, “Hey I think you were wrong”, should learn to put things in the proper perspective.
[/quote]

When did “disagree” become “flaming”?

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Go with you to the party, take your keys so you cant drive, make sure you dont pass out on your back, and otherwise keep you out of too much trouble?

How is taking someone’s keys analogous to stepping into the squat rack with someone? In the first case, you prevent someone from doing something dangerous. In the second, you help the person do something dangerous.

Should the OP have stopped the douche bag from lifting the weight? Yes - That was my entire point. Unload the weight. Look the guy in the eye and say: "You’re not going to put this 600 lbs. on your back. If you have a problem with that, do something about it. In short, man up. Instead, the OP helped the phuck engage in a dangerous activity.

It’s like saying, “Dude, you are so drunk, but I’ll ride with you so that at least I can tell you to watch out for the kids we might see playing in the street.” If you died in such an accident, I would not consider it a loss. You don’t get into the car with drunk people. Period.

Thus, your analogy is false. More generally: You have a problem with trying to be too clever - here and in other threads. These “parlor tricks” might work on your lazy classmates, but they won’t work around here. So if you’re going to debate, you need to do a lot better than throw around false analogies. Honestly.[/quote]

So you believe you have a right to tell someone how much weight they are or aren’t allowed to unrack?

And what if management came back and said “If this man feels as though he can lift this weight, do not tell him he can’t. You are not here to govern what others do.”?

Now you’re not even just talking about saying “I won’t spot you.” You’re talking about Unloading the weight. Much like saying “You aren’t allowed to go to that party and drink”, I dont think its within your rights to do so.

The difference between getting plastered/unracking the weight and driving drunk/unracking the weight is that unracking the weight did not put anyone else in direct danger (unless it was a particularly crowded gym, but I didnt get that impression). Its one thing to stop someone from doing something likely to hurt others, but, IMO, not anyones place to forcably stop others from doing something that will only harm them, if anyone.

Look, we just disagree. I think he did the right thing by running damage control. A few posts ago I would have said “You think he should have ignored the guy”, but now, apparently, you think he should have stepped in and took the weight off the bar.

[Joshua632]

Wow, I’m really surprised this tread has had so much life. After having time to think about what happened (I wrote the original post as soon as i got back from the gym and was still pissed) I must say that I’m at least partially to blame for the bar and seriously embarrassed for not as CL said Man Up and refuse to allow this dipshit to even attempt the squat.

I realize that I could have been hurt spotting such and lift and am very relieved that it didn’t go horrible wrong that way! I can honestly say if that situation ever arises again I will think about this thread and do the right thing. There is nothing I can do to change what already happened but I can be sure to learn from my mistakes and not repeat them.

Thanks everybody for your responses both supportive and critical they both helped me see my responsibility isn’t just spot, but to make a logical decision whether a lifter can or can not safely complete the lift they want to attempt, and if not stand in there way to not just prevent them from killing themselves but preserve my gym too.

[SwampThing]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
SwampThing wrote:
For the most part I agree with CA Law, and even the OP can see that CA Law has a valid point. The OP just disagrees. The rest of you who are flaming CA Law because he called the OP out and said, “Hey I think you were wrong”, should learn to put things in the proper perspective.

When did “disagree” become “flaming”?[/quote]

Either you did not read the whole post, or didn’t completely understand what I said.

If you were not flaming, then the comment was not directed at you.

There is flaming that goes on, on these boards simply because people disagree and have no tolerance for a point of view that differs from their own.

The difference between getting plastered/unracking the weight and driving drunk/unracking the weight is that unracking the weight did not put anyone else in direct danger

You are seeing the situation through tunnel vision.

A.) By saying the OP did a good thing, you are saying that it is OK to endorse the behaviors of a kid like that. That kid would then teach other people to act in that way. Those other people could go a crowded gym and hurt someone else.

B.) The kids behavior OBVIOUSLY affected not only himself but another person.

C.) He broke a bar, it was a great possibility that the gym would be short one more bar. Not only that he cost the gym money by breaking it.

Unless you live in a hole you have to realize that EVERYTHING you do, has the possibility to affect other people.

Look, we just disagree. I think he did the right thing by running damage control.

So I smoke, when I can send you my bill for my lung cancer treatment? Sense it’s right ya know, to help me.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]SwampThing wrote:

Either you did not read the whole post, or didn’t completely understand what I said.

If you were not flaming, then the comment was not directed at you.

There is flaming that goes on, on these boards simply because people disagree and have no tolerance for a point of view that differs from their own.
[/quote]

Point taken, sorry for misunderstanding.

You are seeing the situation through tunnel vision.

A.) By saying the OP did a good thing, you are saying that it is OK to endorse the behaviors of a kid like that. That kid would then teach other people to act in that way. Those other people could go a crowded gym and hurt someone else.

B.) The kids behavior OBVIOUSLY affected not only himself but another person.

C.) He broke a bar, it was a great possibility that the gym would be short one more bar. Not only that he cost the gym money by breaking it.

Unless you live in a hole you have to realize that EVERYTHING you do, has the possibility to affect other people.

I think the OP did the best he could considering the situation and the circumstances. Yes, were he given several weeks to consider the issue from every angle, etc, he probably would have (and should have) made a different decision. But he was put on the spot (no pun intended) and based his decision on trying to keep the other guy from getting hurt - perhaps not the “best” option, but certainly his intent was in the right place.

Maybe I would have been better off saying “I think the OP was trying to do the right thing” instead of “I think the OP did the right thing”, since its more an issue of his reasoning and intent that I agree with?

[quote]
Look, we just disagree. I think he did the right thing by running damage control.

So I smoke, when I can send you my bill for my lung cancer treatment? Sense it’s right ya know, to help me.[/quote]

No, I’m not gonna pay for your cancer treatment… but if you’re going to smoke anyway, I may get you a cup with some water in it so you have a place to throw the butt and dont risk burning the house down. I may get you an ashtray so you dont get ashes everywhere and mess the place up. Etc.

[Scotacus]

I dont see any point on ragging on the OP for his decision. Obviously, at least through what he has communicated through this, he isnt a jerk or stupid. Like most of us he simply has a problem with saying no sometimes.

On the spur of the moment our reluctance to appear rude or uncooperative often outweighs our initial instinct to say exactly that. And Im sure that likely alot of casualties from stupid actions resulted from people overriding their initial instinct to say no.