I hope this thread doesn't get deleted... at the very least I think this is an interesting topic for discussion.
Having followed the events relating to the recent PDI Night of Champions contest and the ensuing repercussions with much interest, I must admit that I find myself simultaneously both ashamed of the IFBB's practices and impressed of the quality of character exemplified by Lee Priest throughout the whole debacle.
Henceforth, in the twin interests of both the comraderie all iron brothers share (or should share) and the anarchic meddling I so enjoy, I have (mis)used every point of my 140 IQ in order to put together a list of obstructionist tactics Mr Priest can employ as he sees fit to thwart the IFBB's evil machinations...
#1... PROOF OF INFRACTION
...the basis of Mr Priest's suspension is the IFBB's assertion that he competed in an unsanctioned bodybuilding event, namely the PDI NoC contest. The burden of proof then falls on the IFBB themselves to prove to the standard of proof required by the civil courts (preponderance of the evidence) that Mr Priest did in fact participate in the aforementioned unsanctioned event.
This presents several problems for the IFBB...
-the testimony of IFBB members present at the event would not suffice as it could easily be countered by the contradictory testimony of other witnesses nominated by Mr Priest, and by it's nature would be biased.
-the testimony of IFBB officials who were witness to the infraction would not suffice as it could easily be countered by the assertion that attending the contest (buying a ticket) is also a breach of the same regulations regarding the suport of other organisations. Unless said official was also suspended and facing similar disciplinary actions to Mr Priest, his/her/it's testimony would be considered biased and/or coerced.
-the testimony (or affidavid/deposition) of the promoter (Wayne DeMilia) would not suffice (not without corroborating proof) as the argument could be made that Mr DeMilia, a former employee of the IFBB who is well versed in it's rules and regulations who is now in competition with same is attempting to scupper Mr Priest's status as an active IFBB pro competitor in good satnding thereby leaving Mr Priest no other option but to compete in Mr DeMilia's rival PDI organisation in order to continue to earn a living. (Assuming that Mr DeMilia would in fact testify on behalf of either party)
-videotape evidence would have to be of exceptionally high quality and attested to as being unaltered/unedited by a photographic expert agreed upon by both parties (the IFBB and Mr Priest). Mr Priest's image is widely available in the public domain and with the advent of and ubiquitous nature of advanced graphics software, easily manipulated/modified/edited. Most likely, two high-definition continuous (unedited) videotapes taken from differing angles would be necessary to confirm Mr Priest's participation in the aforementioned unsanctioned event. The IFBB would have to present these, assuming they could procure them.
-evidence of Mr Priest's assertions that he did in fact compete in the aforementioned unsanctioned event would also not suffice in the face of Mr Priest denying any such involvement in court as there is no rule in the IFBB regulations forbiding active members of the pro division from CLAIMING to have competed in unsanctioned events, only against their PARTICIPATION... should Mr Priest deny any such involvement the onus of proof then shifts to the IFBB to prove such.
#2 VERIFICATION OF SUSPENSION
Having recieved his letter of suspension from the IFBB, Mr Priest has the right to make enquiries with the IFBB in order to officially confirm his suspension. Should Mr Priest claim to have made such enquiries then once again the burden of proof would be on the IFBB to PROVE that they had in fact confirmed Mr Priest's enquiries.
This also presents certain problems for the IFBB...
-the verification of the suspension would have to be proven: recorded minutes of a meeting or a recorded telephone call or even a registered letter.
-a registered letter confirming Mr Priest's suspension would have to contain reference to Mr Priest's enquiries regarding his suspension in order to establish that Mr Priest was under no assumption that his original letter of suspension was a hoax/prank perpetrated by a malicious/mischevious third party.
-the verification of suspension (if done by letter) would have to be issued by the same office and signed by the same person as the IFBB rules and regulations stipulate that only the President of the IFBB can suspend an active athlete from the professional division.
-if Mr Priest can prove that attempts to verify his suspended status went unanswered then it could be deemed reasonable for him to have assumed his suspension a joke/hoax perpetrated by an uninvolved third party. Should Mr Priest find himself at financial loss (contest purses/lost endorsements) as a result of the IFBB's delay/failure in responding to his enquiries... then the IFBB could be found liable for said financial losses.
After all of this is sorted out Lee could then continue to obstruct the IFBB by means of tackling the more thorny issues...
-membership entitlements of the pro division
-refunding of his pro card dues
-agreement on the compliment of the disciplinary panel
-agreement on the compliment of the appeal panel
-postponement of his suspension till the date his paid dues expire
I could list the semantic complications of each but you get the gist of my argument.
The Luke
