Teams & Riders Derek Gee is the new G

[hayneplane]

#freegee

 

[Izzyeviel]

when did he sign his contract?

 

[LongtimeLurker]

Derek is finding out what happens when you try play games and act innocent and the victim

 

[Netserk]

when did he sign his contract?

After the 2023 Giro.

In June 2023, Derek Gee signed a five-year contract extension with Israel–Premier Tech, extending his contract to the end of 2028.

 

[Rob5091]

If Gee gets lucky, it'll be one of the teams with big bucks that sign him. Adams will want some compensation.

 

[Bolder]

Derek is finding out what happens when you try play games and act innocent and the victim

Yeah, political and moral stands aside he needed to consult with a contract lawyer first. Or maybe he did and this will be settled behind the scenes.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

If they are asking 30 million, what was he earning and how long was he under contract still? Which laws would apply here? Canadian? Israeli? Suisse? The number he quotes is in Euro. None of these countries use Euro as currency.

In any case, can't be hard to prove that number is completely idiotic, which would only prove the team is acting in bad faith.

 

[Netserk]

If they are asking 30 million, what was he earning and how long was he under contract still? Which laws would apply here? Canadian? Israeli? Suisse? The number he quotes is in Euro. None of these countries use Euro as currency.

In any case, can't be hard to prove that number is completely idiotic, which would only prove the team is acting in bad faith.

The less he was earning, the more the contract as an asset was worth to the team.

The opposite case easily shows that. Froome's contract with the team was a liability and not an asset, as soon as it was clear that his labour was worth far less than his salary (and that should have been clear back when his contract was signed, but obviously wasn't for them).

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

The less he was earning, the more the contract as an asset was worth to the team.

The opposite case easily shows that. Froome's contract with the team was a liability and not an asset, as soon as it was clear that his labour was worth far less than his salary (and that should have been clear back when his contract was signed, but obviously wasn't for them).

So your argument in court would be "Your honor, since we have been severely underpaying him, his worth to the team should be considered to be in excess of the budget we save by underpaying him." Something tells me that is not going to go as you might expect in front of a labour court.

 

[Netserk]

So your argument in court would be "Your honor, since we have been severely underpaying him, his worth to the team should be considered to be in excess of the budget we save by underpaying him." Something tells me that is not going to go as you might expect in front of a labour court.

They are not underpaying him. The two parties voluntarily agreed to a binding contract at the fair market price at the point it was signed. They took a bet on him, just like they took a bet on Froome. It can go well for the team and it can go wrong.

Do you think the contract with Froome would be worth more to the team if his salary was even higher?

 

[Netserk]

It sure seems like a mistake to have signed Froome on such a contract. And it sure seems like a mistake by Gee to have extended on such terms for so long. That's freedom, you get to make mistakes and own them.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

They are not underpaying him. The two parties voluntarily agreed to a binding contract at the fair market price at the point it was signed. They took a bet on him, just like they took a bet on Froome. It can go well for the team and it can go wrong.

Do you think the contract with Froome would be worth more to the team if his salary was even higher?

Then by definition they are underpaying him or your whole argument falls flat. "The less he was earning, the more the contract as an asset was worth to the team." If you then want to argue he is due 30 million his contract should reflect that value. Hence he is underpaid.

Froome is overpaid. It's not rocket science. Labor law is there to protect the workers, the employees first and foremost. If a company wants to throw away their money, that is their business.

 

[Netserk]

Then by definition they are underpaying him or your whole argument falls flat. "The less he was earning, the more the contract as an asset was worth to the team." If you then want to argue he is due 30 million his contract should reflect that value. Hence he is underpaid.

Froome is overpaid. It's not rocket science. Labor law is there to protect the workers, the employees first and foremost. If a company wants to throw away their money, that is their business.

No. What a rider is worth depends on supply and demand at the time they sign the contract. If voluntary parties agree to a set of terms, that's the fair market price. The value of the asset can later appreciate or depreciate, but that doesn't make the rider underpaid nor overpaid.

Was there any other team that offered Gee more money for a 5 year contract back in 2023?

I assume that part of the value for Gee was assurance that he got the chance to live as a pro. And insurance that if things went sideways he had a more or less guaranteed income for several years.

Had he only signed for two years, and then performed similarly, he could obviously sell his labour for more today. But he bundled several contract years, so you have to judge them as a bundle at the time of sale.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Foremost UCI arbitral board must now acknowledge there was no wrongdoing and for Derek to be able to freely sign for any team he wants going into 2026 season. Ultimately young man must work and provide for his family so this is now a top priority.

As for other stuff and any other possible legal procedures. I doubt that the team itself would sue Derek, mostly due to bad publicity involved by doing that and associating your brand, Premier Tech, with such things is in general a big no no. So ultimately Adams can try to sue Derek directly and that i guess is that. Personally i am a bit doubtful in successful outcome of such attempt considering the circumstances involved.

 

[Netserk]

Foremost UCI arbitral board must now acknowledge there was no wrongdoing and for Derek to be able to freely sign for any team he wants going into 2026 season. Ultimately young man must work and provide for his family so this is now a top priority.

As for other stuff and any other possible legal procedures. I doubt that the team itself would sue Derek, mostly due to bad publicity involved by doing that and associating your brand, Premier Tech, with such things is in general a big no no. So ultimately Adams can try to sue Derek directly and that i guess is that. Personally i am a bit doubtful in successful outcome of such attempt considering the circumstances involved.

If it's an unlawful termination of a valid contract according to the rules of the UCI, the most just response is for the rider to be banned from the sport for the duration of the contract.

 

[CyclistAbi]

If it's an unlawful termination of a valid contract according to the rules of the UCI, the most just response is for the rider to be banned from the sport for the duration of the contract.

If UCI would take such position then Derek will need to sue them and prove them wrong. Misconduct, unsafe work environment, political views ... IMHO he would be successful in doing that but the only potential problem i see here is he might not be able to sign for a new team in the 2026 season. And we can't have that. Ultimately i expect for UCI to side with Derek on this one and as for any potential lawsuits in terms of damages i don't believe Premier Tech will have any of that, they will pull a plug on this as they can't afford such bad image and publicity as a company. In the end they simply don't want to be associated with any of this and 30 millions is peanuts for them so this surely wasn't spoken in their behalf. Anyway, the important thing here is for getting Derek back on his bike ASAP and to go into 2026 season riding for a new team. The rest will eventually sort itself out.

 

[Red Rick]

Whatever you think about his motivations, he has put his current racing career in at least temporary legal jeopardy, and has had to abandon his goals for the latter part of the season (Vuelta, Worlds, and Italian classics would likely have been on the menu).

There is still no guarantee that his termination gambit will be successful. There could be real consequences for this move.

To be clear, I don't think he's particularly in the wrong for leaving. I'd be looking to leave too.

I just disagree with heroizing people for taking actions that are most likely rooted in self-interest first and foremost. Even if there may be consequences, it is still a self-interested gamble.

The fact that it took him this long to leave makes me think he got a big offer after 2 GT top 10s and there's no way he was on the biggest contract just after the 2023 Giro.

 

[Netserk]

To be clear, I don't think he's particularly in the wrong for leaving. I'd be looking to leave too.

I just disagree with heroizing people for taking actions that are most likely rooted in self-interest first and foremost. Even if there may be consequences, it is still a self-interested gamble.

The fact that it took him this long to leave makes me think he got a big offer after 2 GT top 10s and there's no way he was on the biggest contract just after the 2023 Giro.

Even if not consciously, self-interest will play a role unconsciously. And in the real alternatives you have. I don't think he'd be able to sign elsewhere for a better salary (even ignoring costs from breaking the contract) after the 2023 season when the war had begun. Had he wanted out already then, I doubt he'd have been a pro in 2024.

But putting all that aside, the situation on the ground has changed considerably. Oct 8, 2023 is not at all comparable to the situation today. Where exactly to draw the line between then and now depends on the info you base your decision on and your preferences/convictions. It's not at all obvious to me what date exactly an ethical decision like Gee's would have been most sound or "pure".

If I had to guess when someone like Gee would be most likely to make such a decision and I didn't know any of his performances or which timing would be most in his self-interest, and I had to guess based on the situation on the ground and what gets reported, the summer this year is about the least surprising timing. So in that sense, it also seems genuine. And yeah, that will obviously also correlate with when it's the most popular decision to make.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Could be but then again contract renegotiation is a rather common thing, especially on when circumstances change and initial contract is not beneficial to both sides anymore.

 

[Red Rick]

Even if not consciously, self-interest will play a role unconsciously. And in the real alternatives you have. I don't think he'd be able to sign elsewhere for a better salary (even ignoring costs from breaking the contract) after the 2023 season when the war had begun. Had he wanted out already then, I doubt he'd have been a pro in 2024.

But putting all that aside, the situation on the ground has changed considerably. Oct 8, 2023 is not at all comparable to the situation today. Where exactly to draw the line between then and now depends on the info you base your decision on and your preferences/convictions. It's not at all obvious to me what date exactly an ethical decision like Gee's would have been most sound or "pure".

If I had to guess when someone like Gee would be most likely to make such a decision and I didn't know any of his performances or which timing would be most in his self-interest, and I had to guess based on the situation on the ground and what gets reported, the summer this year is about the least surprising timing. So in that sense, it also seems genuine. And yeah, that will obviously also correlate with when it's the most popular decision to make.

Only after IPT have been left out of races has he made any real statements. To me he's been set on leaving for other reasons and this is the obvious PR justification.

It's pretty normal that a rider takes the best deal on the table under any circumstance.

 

[CyclistAbi]

In the statement Derek mentions irreparable relationship with team principle, safety and personal beliefs. All in all hence such things don't happen over night and i doubt the opportunistic angle was the main driver behind it all. After all Derek is now unemployed and future in this profession all but certain. This indicates that opportunism likely isn't at play here or if it is then Derek is bad at it.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

No. What a rider is worth depends on supply and demand at the time they sign the contract. If voluntary parties agree to a set of terms, that's the fair market price. The value of the asset can later appreciate or depreciate, but that doesn't make the rider underpaid nor overpaid.

Was there any other team that offered Gee more money for a 5 year contract back in 2023?

I assume that part of the value for Gee was assurance that he got the chance to live as a pro. And insurance that if things went sideways he had a more or less guaranteed income for several years.

Had he only signed for two years, and then performed similarly, he could obviously sell his labour for more today. But he bundled several contract years, so you have to judge them as a bundle at the time of sale.

[content deleted] Of course you can be underpaid even if the contract you signed at the time might have reflected the conditions at the time. Hundreds of examples can be found in the music industry. The idea that you as an individual can be the held hostage because you did your job better than what was expected of you and better than your colleagues is asinine.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

#freederrickgee

 

[Netserk]

At this point i have to wonder whether you are trolling. Of course you can be underpaid even if the contract you signed at the time might have reflected the conditions at the time. Hundreds of examples can be found in the music industry. The idea that you as an individual can be the held hostage because you did your job better than what was expected of you and better than your colleagues is asinine.

You can only be held hostage to the promises you freely made and that you asked the state to enforce for you. It's one of the most profound privileges our civilisation offers us.

 

[Red Rick]

You can only be held hostage to the promises you freely made and that you asked the state to enforce for you. It's one of the most profound privileges our civilisation offers us.

No you see, contracts only matter when they benefit the individual I like, otherwise they are simply void cause it would just be modern slavery if they weren't.