consipiracy theory

[[email protected]]

After watching a bit of the coverage on VS over the weekend (don't
recall if it was Saturday or Sunday) it occurred to me just how
ludicrous it was to require the riders to sign away their rights to a
year's salary if caught doping.

Why... not only because you can't trust the LNDD lab, but there are
just too damn many ways to DQ a rider (or team, for that matter) with
a doping charge.

Specifically, the snippet with the T-Mobile team chef got me to
thinking. Up until the coverage, I assumed that the various teams did
all their own shopping for and preparation of the team's food.

Oh, no... according to Dieter or whatever his name was, every day he
faxes a shopping list/menu to the hotel where the team will be staying
in four days. The chef at the hotel sees to the purchase of the
ingredients and then the kitchen staff at the hotel assists the team's
chef in the preparation of the meals.

Geez-us H Christ, if there ever were opportunities for someone to
sabotage a rider or a team, it surely exists in the kitchens of the
host hotels.

I'm surprised there weren't more positives, all things considered.

Fred

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
:
> After watching a bit of the coverage on VS over the weekend (don't
> recall if it was Saturday or Sunday) it occurred to me just how
> ludicrous it was to require the riders to sign away their rights to a
> year's salary if caught doping.

My defense to this ridiculous penalty is to say, OK, take the salary for the
_next_ year. Given that it amounts to zero, not toooooo bad.

Besides, even with an arbitration clause in the employment contract, this is
as close to unenforceable as you can get. If laws counted, that is.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

"Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
- Louis Pasteur

 

[[email protected]]

On Jul 31, 2:22 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:[email protected],
> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
> :
>
> > After watching a bit of the coverage on VS over the weekend (don't
> > recall if it was Saturday or Sunday) it occurred to me just how
> > ludicrous it was to require the riders to sign away their rights to a
> > year's salary if caught doping.
>
> My defense to this ridiculous penalty is to say, OK, take the salary for the
> _next_ year. Given that it amounts to zero, not toooooo bad.
>
> Besides, even with an arbitration clause in the employment contract, thisis
> as close to unenforceable as you can get. If laws counted, that is.
> --
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>
> "Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
> - Louis Pasteur

thank you for missing the point

 

[Bill C]

On Jul 31, 6:29 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2:22 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dans le message denews:[email protected],
> > [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis adéclaré
> > :
>
> > > After watching a bit of the coverage on VS over the weekend (don't
> > > recall if it was Saturday or Sunday) it occurred to me just how
> > > ludicrous it was to require the riders to sign away their rights to a
> > > year's salary if caught doping.
>
> > My defense to this ridiculous penalty is to say, OK, take the salary for the
> > _next_ year. Given that it amounts to zero, not toooooo bad.
>
> > Besides, even with an arbitration clause in the employment contract, this is
> > as close to unenforceable as you can get. If laws counted, that is.
> > --
> > Sandy
> > Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>
> > "Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
> > - Louis Pasteur
>
> thank you for missing the point- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't think Sandy missed the point at all. By not commenting
directly on your observation, but criticizing the ridiculous agreement
he was bolstering it.
It is insane that teams in this day and age of match fixing, crooked
officials, do anything to win ethos, and the doping agencies stance
that they don't care how it ended up in your body, that the food chain
wouldn't be totally controlled and protected.
It's insane not to do this.
Bill C

 

[RonSonic]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:29:24 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Jul 31, 2:22 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dans le message denews:[email protected],
>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
>> :
>>
>> > After watching a bit of the coverage on VS over the weekend (don't
>> > recall if it was Saturday or Sunday) it occurred to me just how
>> > ludicrous it was to require the riders to sign away their rights to a
>> > year's salary if caught doping.
>>
>> My defense to this ridiculous penalty is to say, OK, take the salary for the
>> _next_ year. Given that it amounts to zero, not toooooo bad.
>>
>> Besides, even with an arbitration clause in the employment contract, this is
>> as close to unenforceable as you can get. If laws counted, that is.
>> --
>> Sandy
>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>>
>> "Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
>> - Louis Pasteur
>
>thank you for missing the point

Then what was the point?

I took you at your literal meaning that the latest pledge was ludicrous. And I
read Sandy as agreeing with that.

Ron

 

[Kyle Legate]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de
> news:[email protected],
> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
> :
>> After watching a bit of the coverage on VS over the weekend (don't
>> recall if it was Saturday or Sunday) it occurred to me just how
>> ludicrous it was to require the riders to sign away their rights to a
>> year's salary if caught doping.
>
> My defense to this ridiculous penalty is to say, OK, take the salary for the
> _next_ year. Given that it amounts to zero, not toooooo bad.
>
> Besides, even with an arbitration clause in the employment contract, this is
> as close to unenforceable as you can get. If laws counted, that is.

As soon as Vino, or Moreni, or Mayo takes it to court, laws will count.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Kyle Legate <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>> Dans le message de
>> news:[email protected],
>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>> déclaré
>>>
>>> After watching a bit of the coverage on VS over the weekend (don't
>>> recall if it was Saturday or Sunday) it occurred to me just how
>>> ludicrous it was to require the riders to sign away their rights to
>>> a year's salary if caught doping.
>>
>> My defense to this ridiculous penalty is to say, OK, take the salary
>> for the _next_ year. Given that it amounts to zero, not toooooo bad.
>>
>> Besides, even with an arbitration clause in the employment contract,
>> this is as close to unenforceable as you can get. If laws counted,
>> that is.
>
> As soon as Vino, or Moreni, or Mayo takes it to court, laws will
> count.

Court you say? Court!?
TAS is as far from a court of law as you can imagine. For those of us who
meddle in such affairs, it has the most laughable structure, hierarchy and
rules. It takes a brave, very brave aribitrator on such a panel to suggest
that justice and law come into play. The entire UCI base rider contract is
legal swiss cheese, given EU labor law. Law will only come into play when
the organized professional riders withdraw from UCI and refuse all
cooperation with WADA. It's bad enough to respond to national anti-doping
laws, without giving away all hope to a TAS arbitration. It goes without
saying that national federations are either toeing-the-line punitive, or if
they dare to deal fairly, they are appealed to TAS.

One can hope, but that takes energy.
--
Sandy
--
Il n'est aucune sorte de sensation qui soit plus vive
que celle de la douleur ; ses impressions sont sûres,
elles ne trompent point comme celles du plaisir.
- de Sade.

 

[Kyle Legate]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> Kyle Legate <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> Sandy wrote:
>>> Dans le message de
>>> news:[email protected],
>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>>> déclaré
>>>> After watching a bit of the coverage on VS over the weekend (don't
>>>> recall if it was Saturday or Sunday) it occurred to me just how
>>>> ludicrous it was to require the riders to sign away their rights to
>>>> a year's salary if caught doping.
>>> My defense to this ridiculous penalty is to say, OK, take the salary
>>> for the _next_ year. Given that it amounts to zero, not toooooo bad.
>>>
>>> Besides, even with an arbitration clause in the employment contract,
>>> this is as close to unenforceable as you can get. If laws counted,
>>> that is.
>> As soon as Vino, or Moreni, or Mayo takes it to court, laws will
>> count.
>
> Court you say? Court!?
> TAS is as far from a court of law as you can imagine.
>
I'm not sure what TAS is, but they don't have to challenge the contract
within the confines of sport. They can challenge it in a real court,
using real contract law, with a real judge presiding. With a whole
year's salary on the line, it would be worth challenging the contract as
seriously as possible.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jul 31, 7:40 pm, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:29:24 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Jul 31, 2:22 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Dans le message denews:[email protected],
> >> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
> >> :
>
> >> > After watching a bit of the coverage on VS over the weekend (don't
> >> > recall if it was Saturday or Sunday) it occurred to me just how
> >> > ludicrous it was to require the riders to sign away their rights to a
> >> > year's salary if caught doping.
>
> >> My defense to this ridiculous penalty is to say, OK, take the salary for the
> >> _next_ year. Given that it amounts to zero, not toooooo bad.
>
> >> Besides, even with an arbitration clause in the employment contract, this is
> >> as close to unenforceable as you can get. If laws counted, that is.
> >> --
> >> Sandy
> >> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>
> >> "Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
> >> - Louis Pasteur
>
> >thank you for missing the point
>
> Then what was the point?
>
> I took you at your literal meaning that the latest pledge was ludicrous. And I
> read Sandy as agreeing with that.
>
> Ron- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The point was how easy it would be to sabotage a rider or even an
entire team through the meal preparation process. How have you
people made it through adulthood so far with such poor comprehension
skills?

 

[RonSonic]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:28:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Jul 31, 7:40 pm, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:29:24 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> >On Jul 31, 2:22 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Dans le message denews:[email protected],
>> >> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > After watching a bit of the coverage on VS over the weekend (don't
>> >> > recall if it was Saturday or Sunday) it occurred to me just how
>> >> > ludicrous it was to require the riders to sign away their rights to a
>> >> > year's salary if caught doping.
>>
>> >> My defense to this ridiculous penalty is to say, OK, take the salary for the
>> >> _next_ year. Given that it amounts to zero, not toooooo bad.
>>
>> >> Besides, even with an arbitration clause in the employment contract, this is
>> >> as close to unenforceable as you can get. If laws counted, that is.
>> >> --
>> >> Sandy
>> >> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>>
>> >> "Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
>> >> - Louis Pasteur
>>
>> >thank you for missing the point
>>
>> Then what was the point?
>>
>> I took you at your literal meaning that the latest pledge was ludicrous. And I
>> read Sandy as agreeing with that.
>>
>> Ron- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>The point was how easy it would be to sabotage a rider or even an
>entire team through the meal preparation process.

Oh that. That is only one of the myriad ways in which "The Pledge" is idiotic. I
was so overwhelmed by so many other aspects of this exercise in extreme
silliness that that point was somewhat overlooked.

Ron

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Kyle Legate <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
>> Kyle Legate <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>> Dans le message de
>>>> news:[email protected],
>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>>>> déclaré
>>>>> After watching a bit of the coverage on VS over the weekend (don't
>>>>> recall if it was Saturday or Sunday) it occurred to me just how
>>>>> ludicrous it was to require the riders to sign away their rights
>>>>> to a year's salary if caught doping.
>>>> My defense to this ridiculous penalty is to say, OK, take the
>>>> salary for the _next_ year. Given that it amounts to zero, not
>>>> toooooo bad. Besides, even with an arbitration clause in the employment
>>>> contract, this is as close to unenforceable as you can get. If
>>>> laws counted, that is.
>>> As soon as Vino, or Moreni, or Mayo takes it to court, laws will
>>> count.
>>
>> Court you say? Court!?
>> TAS is as far from a court of law as you can imagine.
>>
> I'm not sure what TAS is, but they don't have to challenge the
> contract within the confines of sport. They can challenge it in a
> real court, using real contract law, with a real judge presiding.
> With a whole year's salary on the line, it would be worth challenging
> the contract as seriously as possible.

TAS = CAS = unmitigated abomination stillborn monster pseudo-arbitration
institution.

Most courts in most countries will enforce an employment contract that
provides for dispute resolution by private arbitral panels. Sadly, somehow
the TAS is recognized as such. Courts will seldom find it interesting to
deprive parties of the right to settle matters outside the court. Yet there
remains the final element - confirmation of an arbitral award - that can
allow for some play in courts.

It will take a fullly developed TAS matter, then its aftermath, and tons of
money, before any court will even begin to consider the law involved.
However, my sense is that riders think too individually and so won't
consider challenging the overall structure collectively.