Quote:

I think the most fundamental issue here is how to assign what is "good faith" and what is not.

I'm not a lawyer, so my main question is why isn't each contract clause treated equally? That is, why even discuss "green light" or "red light" or "yellow light" or some blurred combination thereof for each clause.

I would argue that each clause set forth within a contract has with it an assigned marginal utility-type operator. Kinda like If...then statements. They exist on both sides and apply to both parties. Thereby, each action is met with an appropriate, and agreed-upon, reaction.

It doesn't work that way in practice b/c a contract cannot account for every contingency. In addition, many contracts do not contain damages clauses. So, it isn't as simple as saying, "if you do X you get Y" and "if you do not to x you have to pay Z."

In a breach of contract case, the offended party is entitled to be put back into the position in which they would be in had the breach not occurred. Sometimes that means the court orders "specific performance" which means the other party is ordered to perform per the contract. However, that is rare, often times b/c it is not possible. So, in most breach cases, the court assigns a dollar value as a "make whole remedy."

It gets quite difficult. Let me give you a common issue I face:

Employee A works for Company X and has a contract with X. Company Y goes after Employee A, gets Employee A to leave Company X, and gets Employee A to work for Company Y. In this case, Company X may have a claim against Employee A for breach of contract and Company Y for tortious interference with a contract. But, how do you assess the damages? If Employee A is a great employee and makes life easy for his/her boss, how do you assign a value to that?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

We are engaging in a discussion regarding the nuances of contractual law- amongst other things. Let me remind you that this is a forum.

Our "bull shit speculation" is not totally fact-less. While we don't have them all, we do have some

1. Crowie rode a P4 at Vegas.
2. Crowie is sponsored by Orbea.
3. Orbea released a statement that Crowie breached his contract.

What we don't know:

1. Why did Crowie breach his contract?
2. Did Orbea potentially breach their contract by not producing a promised bike?
3. What will happen next?

Minus special circumstances- like coercion or negligence- contracts are signed by all effecting parties. Therefore, they are fair.

You made a fatal jump in logic there.

You correctly state:

3. Orbea released a statement that Crowie breached his contract.

Then you state:

1. Why did Crowie breach his contract?

But, we do not KNOW that Crowie breached his contract. All we have is a statement by Orbea. We do NOT have a breach of contract as a fact.

Remember, that Orbea's statement was likely released by a PR guy. So, did Crowie really, LEGALLY, "breach" his contract? We do NOT know this to be a fact.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Agree. Theory is easy, and practice is murky. Definitely agree.

I'm an academic economist, so my approach here is attempting to reduce certain entities, like humans actions, into mathematical operators. I would have advised Orbea to think of certain actions, apply a marginal utility argument, and draft a clause. I would say the same to Crowie.

Although, being that you're a lawyer and I'm an academic, I'm sure we could agree that mathematical operators are far easier to handle than clients :)

With that said, and while it is impossible to cover all contingencies- b/c there are infinitely many- I would argue that measuring morality does not assist in constructing a objective argument.

While unlikely IMHO, I think any lawsuit or even PR war would be interesting to watch from a financial angle. I have no idea how much Orbea was paying Craig. I'd be reasonably confident the contract was worth WAY more to Orbea than they were paying though. In general, I bet the same could be sad of most top tier pro's sponsorship contracts. Just a guess, but I suspect most bike manufacturers profits have never looked better, and that the margins for these super bikes we drool over are likely VERY fat. Is anyone aware of any publicly traded bike companies? To the best of my knowledge, they're all private companies. It would be very interesting if Orbea goes after Craig for millions worth of damages, as it will shed some light on how many bikes they've been selling, and what the profit margin on these bikes is. I recognize there's a big difference between incremental sales resulting from positive endorsements, versus the more disastrous potential effect of a "negative endorsement". Still, if Orbea tries to tries to assign a multi-million dollar price tag to the damages in this case, you have to think it will make some pros scratch their heads and wonder whether they're endorsement checks should have an extra 0 at the end.

You're right- good point.

A better question would be, "Why did Crowie ride a P4?"

"I suspect most bike manufacturers profits have never looked better, and that the margins for these super bikes we drool over are likely VERY fat."

Really? Do you have anything in support of these fat margins? I don't think they are as hefty as you may think but mine is just an unqualified opinion.

There are several flaws in your theories:

• Margin is only one side of the equation. Volume enters into it as well, as does tooling costs, R&D, etc. So even if we assume that the margins on superbikes are VERY fat, the volumes are pretty low. That does not equate to huge profits.
• Why do you say that most bike manufacturers profits have never looked better? The reality is that raw material costs are increasing, labor is increasing exponentially in China and the retailer base is shrinking. I would wager that profits for most companies are being squeezed right now. Moreover, sales of high end bikes comprise a small portion of total sales for most bike companies. (i.e. Trek sells a helluva a lot more 820's than they do Speed Concepts)
• The "damage done" to Orbea would not be measured in terms of lost sales, but to the brand as a whole form a marketing and PR perspective.

It will be pretty hard to glean any information re: profitability and revenue of Orbea from a potential lawsuit against Crowie. I honestly don't see it getting to that point anyway. My guess would be that they both agree to part ways, maybe some money is exchanged and that is it.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

I advise them on their alternatives.

Many of them choose to honour agreements even at additional financial cost because they don't want to go back on their word and because they value their reputation as a person who can be counted on to do what he has agreed to do.


As an aside, I would like to add that I do not intend my comments as comments on the actions of CA or the bike company involved here. I do not know what was in their agreement or what commitments had been given regarding the competitiveness of the bike that the bike co was obligated to supply or on what basis CA could take the action he did.

---

Grant

The other thing to keep in mind is that most breaches are not black and white or totally clear cut. Usually both sides have their own theory for why its really the other guy's fault or what the other guy did first that forced the breach. Remember, most contracts are a complex arrangement of reciprocal promises and covenants and there's almost always something that you can point to that "justifies" a breach. Rarely (in my experience) does a party ever just breach because they can. Most lawyers can recognize the gray area that usually surrounds these questions and try to assist their client in acting appropriately (unless of course they are the type that drinks their client's kool-aid; nothing worse than a lawyer that is "outraged" on behalf of his "completely innocent" client).

So as a hypothetical (purely hypothetical, I have no knowledge that this was the case), Crowie may argue that he only breached his contract with Orbea because they failed to provide him with equipment that was up to the expected standards set forth in the contract. Orbea, of course, would dispute this, and the lawyers would make a bunch of money. And both sides likely feel like they are the real victims.

It's not a true lawyer post unless there's a disclaimer ;-)

Entertaining thread for the most part.
One side of the party has released a statement that does not completely condemn Craig's actions nor put him in the clear, the other side is yet to comment on the situation.
I'm sure the truth isn't to far away.
My guess is Orbea failed to live up to there end of the bargain as far as the time line of there new TT Bike goes so CA has informed them he will be using other equipment.

Entertaining thread indeed, let me join the speculations.

What I am wondering is if the change in bike was in fact related to the (aerodynamic) performance of the Ordu. I mean, it is not like the Ordu is a 10 ton brick. I think the time losses from riding a Ordu vs a P4 (with the same fit) are quite limited. It is about the engine (and fit), not about the bikeframe.

With the windtunnel testing of CA it could also be the tests showed another optimal fit for him. One which the current Ordu is not capable of and the P4 is. Than there is a solid arguement to choose for an other bike, especially if Orbea has promissed a bike that could provide CA's best fit but they haven't delivered. Dan (see below) already pointed out that the (51cm) P4 is lower than the (54 cm) Ordu with a similar reach and CA is know to switch sizes to as small as 51cm to get a good fit on the Ordu. If it is about the bike then i think it must be related to fit not to physical properties of the bikeframe (aerodynamics, stiffness, etc.). That stuff is way overrated on this forum.

It is either that or that Orbea did not pay CA according their agreement. If there is an agreement to ride equipment for x amount of money, a reason to not ride that equipment would be if the other end is not living up to their part of the deal. Either in paying not in time or not the full amount. If the word on the street is true that the contract was recently renewed it is hard to believe it would be about the agreed amount of money.
This however would not stroke with the Orbea statement about a new TT bike.

I go with the fit/new bike combo :-P.

---

-----------
....the race is long, and in the end, it�s only with yourself (Baz Luhrmann/Mary Schmich)

Wrong, very wrong. Besides, at their level, where the difference between world champion and also ran is a very small percentage point, it would be relevant if the Orbea was even a 1 lb. brick. Also, Given the various sizes of the Orbea and adjustable stems, aerobar pad stacks, etc. he could duplicate any position on any bike.

Rule of thumb. 100 grams of drag = 10 watts = 1 second / km. That's three minutes over an IM. My Felt DA is 100g to the good of an Orbea (according to a cross section of industry produced aero data). A P4 is 100g or more better than my DA (according to Cervelo, Specialized, and Trek), another 3 minutes. Crowie was (if my math is correct) giving up 6 minutes (or more!), just for his frame alone.

"It is about the engine (and fit), not about the bikeframe. "

There is a reason auto racing teams spend huge amounts of money on aerodynamics, it gives a big engine the edge. You got a guy like Crowie who can pump out the watts and lower his drag he will go faster. It's not wishful thinking, it's science. When you race for a living every advantage is needed. The P4 is faster then the Ordu and it is an advantage for him.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Finally a post of reason!

Anywho, I have one Q for ST:

If he was riding anything but a Cervelo, would anyone care here?

---

@rhyspencer

I think that the new Orbea superbike won't be faster than the current P4...maybe we will see Crowie on a P4 also in Hawai, only three weeks left to have it ready

---

http://cds-0.blogspot.com

Crowie has shown he's willing to risk all to ride the best.
Maybe he'll be on the new P5 ??

---

http://www.austinTRIcyclist.com
http://www.Cannondale.com

If he starts Kona on the new P5 he better win!

seriously, if he doesn't I'm burning my p3

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

You can't. I heard with the P4 out and now the P5 coming out, the p3 is going to be listed as an endangered species.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

The rumors I have read on this forum and others is that the P3 stays and the P4 is dropped with the introduction of the Px.

Why would they drop a bike they have invested so heavily into and is 20% faster than anything else in their lineup? The R&D they have put into the P4 is insane.

The P4 is what 3 years old? Dropping it makes absolutely no sense. I would see them dropping the older models first -- P1, P2, etc.. or dropping the price of the P4 but not dropping it altogether.

Sweet.............I just upgrade from p2 to p4 and I'm good for a 4hr IM bike ;-))

My money is no change in frame from the P4 to the PX. Instead, it'll just be the integrated stem/cockpit ala Shiv/SC/pretty much most "superbikes" out there. I also wouldn't be surprised the data shows no difference when the integrated stem/cockpit is incorporated but Cervelo does have to keep up with "what looks like newest cutting edge". Then again, they might very well make changes to the frame because the integrated stem/cockpit could change the dynamics of the whole sher-bang. So all in all, they won't technically drop the P4 design, just the P4 bike (this was mentioned by 2 different Cervelo dealers round this parts-unofficially of course)

Note: If you didn't notice, this is all speculation.