Gert Steegmans

[Race Radio]

I would not sign it either. I am surprised anyone did. They must have had their lawyers review it and found there where holes big enough to drive a truck through

 

[usedtobefast]

i was kind of surprised that robbie did, but then like you said...back up the truck.

 

[Anonymous]

hey scott , .....i read through the thread and im not defending anyone , but just to get this back on topic , ..... i would not have signed that either , call it principle , legal or personal rights , whatever but common 5 times there salary.........would you really be ok with that ?
you would sign that document...........

Ok, first off I never stated that Steegmans not signing the contract proved anything. I simply asked the poster if he was bothered by Steegmans not signing when everyone else did.

My chosen profession has literally hundreds of stipulations regarding advice given to clients and fiduciary responsibility. I have to endure a compliance audit twice per year and I can be fined and/or imprisioned if I commit fraud in my profession. I consider doping in cycling to be fraud. While pro cyclists don't lose or steal other people's money (except from other cyclists that don't dope), it is still fraud.

I don't mind the possibility of being sanctioned because I can control my behaviour. Nobody forced this profession on me, I chose it. The draconian penalties are in place because not everyone in my profession is honest (I know, it's a shocker).

Restated: If I am a pro cyclist and I'm not doping but I know there is a real problem with PED's, then I'm first in line to sign that deal. Nobody's got a gun to my head, I do it because I know that the continued abuse of PED's poses a huge risk to my ability to pursure my chosen profession.

I think this is really simple (if I'm not doping).

 

[usedtobefast]

problem. false positive. it does happen.

 

[Anonymous]

problem. false positive. it does happen.

False Negatives too. Nothings perfect. I'd take that chance.

If the dopers manage to destroy the sport then what differece does it make?

 

[usedtobefast]

False Negatives too. Nothings perfect. I'd take that chance.

If the dopers manage to destroy the sport then what differece does it make?

the sport will survive, dope or no dope. i am not ok with false
positives. not now, not ever. i do salute your professional ethics code.

 

[biker jk]

How many false positives have there been compared with false negatives due to the hurdle on the tests being so high?

 

[elapid]

The system is designed to avoid false positives. The cutoffs for most doping tests are very high in an effort to avoid false positives. This is also why there are not more positive doping tests because there is such a large margin for error. Look at how some riders skirt the upper limits of the UCI/WADA standards, but despite obvious evidence of doping the UCI cannot do anything about it because those riders are still within the accepted limits for that test, whether it be hematocrit or OFF score or whatever else. High specificity, but low sensitivity. The first priority is to protect the rider and his livelihood from the blight of a false positive.

 

[blackcat]

if you go to the site by the Landis propagandist, trustbutverify, they argue the false positive rate for testo positives is ridiculously high, more than the actual positives.

 

[lagartija]

I would for these reasons:

1. If I were clean, then no worries about getting busted for doping.
2. If it were the profession I loved, then there is nothing nefarious or inappropriate about signing something that I will never deal with so long as I stay clean anyway.
3. It would show my employer that I am dedicated to my profession and the employment opportunity with which I was presented.
4. It isn't a forceful abdication of my personal liberties. I am free to choose another team or profession. Nobody is making him ride his bike for a living.

it seems to me the employer has some resposibility towards that rider , and i find a contract of that nature totally inappropriate......
i think the sport is super hard , and being professianal involves such a deep level of commitment and dedication i would have thought that was obvious to the employer , for a rider of his level.
and he did end up moving on , which again i would have done aslo

 

[lagartija]

Restated: If I am a pro cyclist and I'm not doping but I know there is a real problem with PED's, then I'm first in line to sign that deal. Nobody's got a gun to my head, I do it because I know that the continued abuse of PED's poses a huge risk to my ability to pursure my chosen profession.

I think this is really simple (if I'm not doping).

OK..........i think we have to agree to disagree
no way i would have gone for that.......and most involved in the sport realize a promblem exists , thats not an appropriate resolution , as a matter of fact its no resolution whatsoever

 

[Anonymous]

OK..........i think we have to agree to disagree
no way i would have gone for that.......and most involved in the sport realize a promblem exists , thats not an appropriate resolution , as a matter of fact its no resolution whatsoever

You know, its funny, when I used to do lots of drugs, I used to hate cops. Now that I am clean, I actually quit like most of them. I also don't have to worry about getting a DUI. Strange how that works.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

I wouldn't sign the agreement either. Steegmans already had a contract with his bosses and then part way through it they try to force more requirements on him. I'd say "more conditions = more money buddy". (Maybe more money was offered? I didn't see it mentioned anywhere though.)

It annoys me when bosses try to move the goalposts.

 

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't sign the agreement either. Steegmans already had a contract with his bosses and then part way through it they try to force more requirements on him. I'd say "more conditions = more money buddy". (Maybe more money was offered? I didn't see it mentioned anywhere though.)

It annoys me when bosses try to move the goalposts.

I can agree with that; however, every time my company changes my comp plan, they don't really ask me if I agree.

 

[usedtobefast]

You know, its funny, when I used to do lots of drugs, I used to hate cops. Now that I am clean, I actually quit like most of them. I also don't have to worry about getting a DUI. Strange how that works.

sorry tff about your drug issue. it is funny how that works. i am still not signing it.

 

[Anonymous]

sorry tff about your drug issue. it is funny how that works. i am still not signing it.

For me, it was the best thing that could have ever happend. I don't regret anything. It has been eighteen and a half years and I am a much better person for all of what happened. (I still fondly remember seeing the space ship take off from the top of the stage at my first Show. Greensboro 1989. Bertha->Jack Straw opener.)

Thank you though, I appreciat the thought.

I would sign it if I still wanted to ride for that team. But I could also move on if I wanted. Just like when they change my comp plan.

 

[usedtobefast]

For me, it was the best thing that could have ever happend. I don't regret anything. It has been eighteen and a half years and I am a much better person for all of what happened. (I still fondly remember seeing the space ship take off from the top of the stage at my first Show. Greensboro 1989. Bertha->Jack Straw opener.)

Thank you though, I appreciat the thought.

I would sign it if I still wanted to ride for that team. But I could also move on if I wanted. Just like when they change my comp plan.

it does have to be a personal decision. i work in the music industry, so drugs are all over. mostly different from sports, but still the same. i am very libertarian about such things. if you can "hold your liquor" so to speak, we usually look at it as no big thing. great performances come from all kinds of places, where art is involved. stone cold sober, or wacked out of your mind. and all points between. people do condemn such behavior, but it has not gone away.(mj) Jerry died in rehab, in case anyone forgot. anyway, sometimes things are too real for people, Van Gogh for instance, and they
need something to blunt/smooth it out. such is the artists life.
other folks can pretty much stay sober as a preacher and get it done.

 

[craig1985]

Ok, first off I never stated that Steegmans not signing the contract proved anything. I simply asked the poster if he was bothered by Steegmans not signing when everyone else did.

My chosen profession has literally hundreds of stipulations regarding advice given to clients and fiduciary responsibility. I have to endure a compliance audit twice per year and I can be fined and/or imprisioned if I commit fraud in my profession. I consider doping in cycling to be fraud. While pro cyclists don't lose or steal other people's money (except from other cyclists that don't dope), it is still fraud.

I don't mind the possibility of being sanctioned because I can control my behaviour. Nobody forced this profession on me, I chose it. The draconian penalties are in place because not everyone in my profession is honest (I know, it's a shocker).

Restated: If I am a pro cyclist and I'm not doping but I know there is a real problem with PED's, then I'm first in line to sign that deal. Nobody's got a gun to my head, I do it because I know that the continued abuse of PED's poses a huge risk to my ability to pursure my chosen profession.

I think this is really simple (if I'm not doping).

Would you still stay in your profession if they told you had to pay back 5x your salary?

 

[gregod]

Would you still stay in your profession if they told you had to pay back 5x your salary?

No way. If I trusted my employer, maybe. But the big problem with the onerous penalty is that even though it is designed to prevent doping and, perhaps fairly, compensate the sponsor for loss of reputation in the event of a doping offense, it also gives the team an unfair financial incentive to see a positive if they want to get rid of an underperforming rider.

 

[elapid]

No way. If I trusted my employer, maybe. But the big problem with the onerous penalty is that even though it is designed to prevent doping and, perhaps fairly, compensate the sponsor for loss of reputation in the event of a doping offense, it also gives the team an unfair financial incentive to see a positive if they want to get rid of an underperforming rider.

So are you saying that a professional team will collude with the UCI to produce a positive doping test just to fire a rider for a financial incentive that the rider will probably never pay anyway? Wow. Now that is a conspiracy theory.

 

[gregod]

So are you saying that a professional team will collude with the UCI to produce a positive doping test just to fire a rider for a financial incentive that the rider will probably never pay anyway? Wow. Now that is a conspiracy theory.

I don't think there would necessarily have to be any collusion with the UCI. A soignoir could merely provide the wrong chamois cream or a team doctor the wrong asthma medication and the team's internal testing or a routine UCI random inspection could doom a rider. If in the past there were soignoirs and team doctors who would assist in doping, it is not unreasonable to speculate that they could do something like this. You may be right that a rider will never pay, but then why have it in the contract?

 

[Anonymous]

Would you still stay in your profession if they told you had to pay back 5x your salary?

Absolutely. I don't steal from my clients. Pro Cyclists have the ability to not use PED's.

 

[lagartija]

You know, its funny, when I used to do lots of drugs, I used to hate cops. Now that I am clean, I actually quit like most of them. I also don't have to worry about getting a DUI. Strange how that works.

Your right it is funny how that works..... I don't do drugs, and I still don't like cops,
Stay focused......

 

[Anonymous]

Your right it is funny how that works..... I don't do drugs, and I still don't like cops,
Stay focused......

I think they are great. Very underappreciated in fact.

Focus? They don't come any more ADD than I am, so you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You may be right that a rider will never pay, but then why have it in the contract?

They have it in the contract so they can appear to be "tough on doping".