Seat Tuning Klub z Zagłębia

zvswgogna

He won't lose medals
The agent for history's most decorated Olympian Michael Phelps says his client is not as risk of losing his Olympic medals from this summer's London Games after photos for a new Louis Vuitton ad campaign leaked early. Athletes were barred from plugging goods for companies that are not Olympic sponsors from July 18 until August 15.
These ads for luxury designer Louis Vuitton leaked online before their August 16 release date while the games were still ongoing. The wording of the International Olympic Committee rule was laid out by the San Francisco Chronicle:
Rule 40 states competitor or a team may lose the benefit of any ranking obtained in relation to other events at the Olympic Games at which he or it was disqualified or excluded; in such case the medals and diplomas won by him or it shall be returned to the IOC. In other words, Phelps could theoretically be stripped of his medals from London.
The Washington Post has the response Phelps' agent gave to the speculation that his client could lose his medals for this:
didn violate Rule 40, it as simple as that,[url=http://www.sport.fr/smartphones/moncler.asp]femmes moncler[/url], Carlisle said in a telephone interview. that matters is whether the athlete permitted that use. That all he can control. The images hadn even been reviewed, much less approved. It as simple as that. that matters is whether the athlete permitted that use. That all he can control. The images hadn even been reviewed, much less approved. It as simple as that. he didn't pose for the photo?
So he did not notice, the brand of his luggage matching the association of the sponsor and the photographer?
So he did not think it strange to be in a bath tub with a speedo and goggles?
This in "legal terms" might mean he had a contract for the photo session that included provisions to protect the act of posing, to be places in a "setting", to prevent the prerelease of any material gathered, and the ability to deny that had to have taken place ahead of time?
So from a "legal" perspective, nothing happened, very odd, but with "legalism" you can indict a ham sandwich, or can free it from become stale.
It cannot go without saying that such an extraordinary effort, over such an extraordinary time, with such extraordinary dedication, etc. should come with it just rewards. The achievement is unbelievable in so many ways, and nothing "legal" owe any due at all.
The "rules", and "laws", and "contacts" are much like thin transparent pretenses that can change meaning with casual use, then it is the after the fact judgment of their meaning that we sometimes need for the "pretense". If rules etc., are like water then every different use of water determines the meaning of that water, pools of water or bathtubs of water depend on their use to define their meaning. Laws as well change according to application of judgment.
Here the judgment is the greater good, rules, laws matter less.
There are rules and laws that when applied produce no such thing as the "greater good". Capitalism, advertisement, sponsorship, support for heroic athleticism, promotion, sales, profit are always promising "greater good", but only in a fantasy world to not see the failures, the waste, and the collateral damage. We can judge, but we cannot claim high and holy ground.