I apoligize if this has already been posted… I just saw it up on cyclingnews.com.
UCI demands ProTour riders’ signatures on anti-doping agreement for Tour participation
By Susan Westemeyer
**
The UCI has introduced a new anti-doping charter, it announced today in Geneva. Under it, all 600 ProTour riders must sign a statement before the Tour de France in which they agree to pay a year’s salary if they are found to have used illegal doping products, in addition to the usual suspension they would face.
**click on link above for the rest of the article…
I am waiting for Slowman to show up and post that all the Tour riders should sue UCI for that.
I think that is what he implied when this kind of agreement was implemented for this year’s Ironman Germany.
Apparently other (bigger) race organizers are following suit…
We will see if documents like that have any chance in a court of law, but at least it get’s one there…
can you please follow forum protocol, and not reprint the whole article here? print the first paragraph or two, and then provide the link to the rest of the story. thanks in advance for editing your post thusly.
“I am waiting for Slowman to show up and post that all the Tour riders should sue UCI for that.”
all the tour riders should sue the UCI for that. there, you happy?
it’s bullskirt. or let me put it another way. i’d say this is agreeable as long as the UCI is willing to pay attorneys fees + that rider’s full year’s salary if they botch a test, and CAS will be the final determiner of “botch” as it is with everything else in doping. that one year’s salary should be divvied up in equal amounts coming out of the pockets of the lab, and the pockets of each of the UCI’s board members, and the UCI’s executive director.
i applaud the UCI’s vigor in fighting drugs. but everybody’s got to have some skin in the game, including those whose job it is to police the doping.
“all the tour riders should sue the UCI for that. there, you happy?”
It is not about someone being happy.
That mindset (in the general public and among cycling professionals alike) is actually is pretty sad.
I think this is pretty immature to think this way, if you consider what UCI actually stands for. Last time I looked UCI was a governing body and chosen (elected) by athletes (the people). But I guess that has been lost somewhere. Same as an understanding how a democratic system actually works in general. Nowadays everyone seems to think that democracy stands for the right to sue anybody, anytime.
Lavender material…
If you are so keen in counseling pro-cyclists, I have a suggestion for you:
If they don’t want to be held liable, just suggest that they should stage a coup/abandon UCI and vote all the current “suits” out of there and then elect their own governing body. (maybe one more like the WWE, or whatever that wrestling org is called). I would have a couple of good suggestions who should run for President then.
But this would actually require some brains from pro cyclists…
nevermind…
“Last time I looked UCI was a governing body and chosen (elected) by athletes (the people).”
are you sure about that? the typical way IFs are “chosen” is by election of the NFs, many of which (depending on the sport) are in turn appointed or announted by the IFs. if you’re saying the president of the UCI is elected by the athletes, i think you’re going to need to provide some back up for that.
look, why not make it 2 years salary? 4 years salary? why not make it hanging by the neck? this is all for show, so that the sponsors will stop abandoning the sport. if the UCI wanted to ban drugs from its sport, it got religion on the idea fairly late, just like major league baseball. it’s rather hypocritical to start your hand wringing now. what about during the decade of the 90s, why not put the hammer down back then, when everybody knew it was going on, and the UCI did nothing?
doping in sport is bad. it’s very bad. we all agree on that. if i think a 2 or 4 year ban is appropriate for taking drugs, and you think the appropriate punishment should be an 8 year ban plus cutting off every digit of the rider’s right hand, plus placing the athletes’ immediate families in jail for the rest of their natural lives, that doesn’t mean you are harder on drug takers than i am. it just means you’ve got a tar-and-feather, mob-rule, visceral approach to justice.
but thank god for people like you, who’ve been with us throughout history. that’s how we got to have the bill of rights.
Uh, that’s a bit much. This is basically a somewhat stiffer penalty, that’s all- a fine mixed in with the current suspension- mixed up with some pathetic grandstanding. I don’t think it’s the quite the same thing as hanging anyone by the neck until dead.
It is interesting that the UCI chose the middle of June to issue this press release, right before the Tour, rather than issue the release at a time when it made more sense, like during the off-season when rider contracts were being signed. I’m torn. On one hand I think that the fight against drugs does need to happen. Maybe this is the only way to get cycling past the stain of Operacion Puerto. But on the other hand, since when is it appropriate to force workers (the riders) to sign new contracts in the middle of their old contract?
It appears that it is not mandatory, but whoever does not sign will be put on a public list? Something stinks about that? Kinda like pleading the 5th means tha one is automatically guilty of the crime charged.
can you please follow forum protocol, and not reprint the whole article here? print the first paragraph or two, and then provide the link to the rest of the story. thanks in advance for editing your post thusly.
Done… sorry Dan, will follow protocol in the future.
Well,
Thanks for spinning it in a way that makes me look like I am taking a stance against the athletes (they are actually the ones that need to be protected).
And thanks for making that (unnecessarily) personal.
I am now officially offended since I actually have a visceral personality…
Nahh, nice try!
Can’t help that one comment though:
You should know first hand what kind of people strive to get elected into governing bodies and have first hand insight about their motives and their often less than stellar sense of responsibility and integrity.
“Disclaimer: The above is not a personal attack, insult or a political statement. Therefor it cannot be used against the poster in any court of judgement.”
i see your sig and i’ve often wondered whether you really think this offers protection?
Seems like a publicity stunt by the UCI to me. The riders are already supposed to be following the rules and not doping (I’m never surprised when any cyclist is caught though). As far as the one year’s salary goes, it’s a lot easier to get a judgment than to collect upon it it. If the money is spent, it’s really hard to get it back, and I suspect that the riders are divided into those that barely make ends meet and therefore are uncollectable and those that can afford the accountants and attorneys needed to make themselves judgment proof.
And DISCO is a potential no show @ tdf, because they stepped off IPCT this morning.
uli
Actually they resigned from the AIGCP and it has not impact on whether they are at the TdF. They are still a ProTour team so they still have an invitation to the ProTour races. The ASO could decide not to allow them to race but it has nothing to do with the AIGCP.
you can’t be serious!
We live in a world where nothing can protect a person from getting sued.
Can’t believe you actually went for it!
Read the “disclaimer” carefully and pay attention to the wording: It says “judgement”, not law. That should have tipped you off.
Nothing and nobody can protect anybody from being “judged”, don’t you think?
And I just realized that I had misspelled judgment ;-(