tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post5874222829045904878..comments2023-10-06T03:21:26.130-07:00Comments on trust but verify: Tuesday RoundupDBrowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-77915343485610903832007-06-20T07:04:00.000-07:002007-06-20T07:04:00.000-07:00The "contract's" 1 year salary provision would be ...The "contract's" 1 year salary provision would be an illegal "liquidated damages" clause in the US, for sure. The inability to work as a penalty for failing to sign the "contract" restrains trade in the US and is thus likely not enforceable. The EEU has even stricter restraint of trade laws than the US so enforcing the contract in Europe will be difficult.<BR/><BR/>Certain people have felt free previously to question my legal knowledge because I choose not to write legal treatices or Law Review Articles when asked questions in forums. I don't generally issue disclaimers nor do I draw distinctions or present counter-views to my own.<BR/><BR/>But,I will say my analysis here is purposefully shallow, given the non-legal audience to whom it is given. I am quite confident in the conclusions I have asserted, nonetheless.Laura Challoner, DVMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00606828463436614790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-60279926814700194412007-06-20T04:24:00.000-07:002007-06-20T04:24:00.000-07:00I have only read the synopsis of the reuters repor...I have only read the synopsis of the reuters report but if this is what they are asking the riders to sign i would have to agree with the other comments that McQuaid should be told to go to hell. How can they expect progress in the fight against doping if what they are asking for is essentially a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' document. It is absurd. No one is forced to sign but if you don't you are guilty. There is nothing that suggests and encourages a fresh clean start. If you dope from now on you should be banned - period. Not just forfeit a years salary. As long as the science is good then i have no problem with that approach and i am sure the cyclists wouldn't either. And as long as the cyclists rights are protected. But it seems that what McQuaid et al are doing now is perpetuating the witch hunt. It is disgraceful and the cyclists should protest.Luchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09912485343225694365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-21551377887170323972007-06-19T15:45:00.000-07:002007-06-19T15:45:00.000-07:00The agreement the riders are asked to sign seems v...The agreement the riders are asked to sign seems very one side. The riders should require something to balance the new risk.<BR/><BR/>How about:<BR/>1. Any and all in the WADA anti-doping program who becomes knowledgeable of wrongdoing (including testing and detection) are required to speak up and notify WADA management and the cycling team organization. Failure to notify both organizations requires a suspension and monetary penalty equal to that faced by the athlete. <BR/><BR/>2. Any leak connecting an athlete to a negative doping finding (directly of indirectly) requires that the athlete’s cost of defense is fully paid by the facing ADA. The ADAs then have the right to recover costs from WADA. <BR/><BR/>3. All verification testing must be done by a lab different than the one reporting the negative finding. If verification requires more levels of testing, the rule is that no lab can be used more than once.<BR/><BR/>4. Labs only report chemical findings to WADA. They do not make judgments about whether the findings indicate doping. WADA must connect the lab information to the athlete and his records (such as TUEs) and make the decision.<BR/><BR/>RichAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02940197576841523015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-84847888027793074972007-06-19T15:35:00.000-07:002007-06-19T15:35:00.000-07:00Anyone want to hazard a guess as to whether or not...Anyone want to hazard a guess as to whether or not this is an anti-trust violation? The international implications are rather interesting, but as to U.S. law, I wonder if this "pledge" requirement to participate with a pro-tour team is a violation of the Sherman and Clayton acts? <BR/><BR/>Judge Hue, any thoughts?Eightzerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02326301095221867947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-4466620149826048272007-06-19T11:28:00.000-07:002007-06-19T11:28:00.000-07:00I think UCI should go to hell and the cyclist shou...I think UCI should go to hell and the cyclist should tell them. Only when you get windbags like Pat McQuaid and Dick Pound and all WADA employees and labs to sign the same type of agreement stating that when a lab leaks information the director as well as the lab tech is to be suspended for 1 year and loss of one years salary then and only then a cyclist should feel safe to sign the same. If the Lab, UCI and WADA all point to each other as the leaker, all three director should be suspended/fired and fined.<BR/><BR/>Just my 2 cents. But then again I think the cyclist should have already organized a strike because of the B.S. they have been put through by the political blowhards.atown, tx.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06753948928025837869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-4430586922192492652007-06-19T10:53:00.000-07:002007-06-19T10:53:00.000-07:00Did McQuaid hire the Bush speech writers? This is ...Did McQuaid hire the Bush speech writers? This is a "my way or the highway" speech. It is scary to think that someone who doesn't know the science, doesn't care about the quality of their work can ruin your career, your integrity, your place in the world. I would hope the penalty of the salary paid comes after the the 18 months to get through the arbitration and CAS hearings. If funds for the LNDD became available they should go to 1) new equipment and 2) training.<BR/><BR/>But I digress, if a rider doesn't sign then they are automatically guilty.GMRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13827404930085676519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-58635506701383154282007-06-19T08:21:00.000-07:002007-06-19T08:21:00.000-07:00I wonder how many of the 600 followed the FL heari...I wonder how many of the 600 followed the FL hearing? I wonder how many of the 600 believe in the incompentance of LNDD demonstrated by the FL team? I wonder how many of the 600 believe in the WADA system (or any of the systems that represent them for that matter)? As an innocent, I would have to think long and hard about signing anything that would subject my family to systems that I do not trust. It is one thing to place oneself at risk for future earnings, it is all together different to place your past at risk as well. <BR/><BR/>I hope they collectively tell the UCI to "shove it".jbrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09891582036779942604noreply@blogger.com