Offical Wout Van Aert isn't a new Zdenek Stybar

Page 17 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Can we talk about this?
Don't really see why they say this is the ASOs fault. I mean how to prevent this? Use these "sprint barriers" everywhere instead of the normal ones? Can't really be a solution.

I would understand holding the organizers responsible for something like crashing into a pole at Pais Vasco, but not really for this situation.
 

Can we talk about this?
Don't really see why they say this is the ASOs fault. I mean how to prevent this? Use these "sprint barriers" everywhere instead of the normal ones? Can't really be a solution.

I would understand holding the organizers responsible for something like crashing into a pole at Pais Vasco, but not really for this situation.
Why wouldn't we be able to talk about this? I think they are thinking about the direction of placement of the barriers that made the joints stick out like hooks, which could have been prevented, and would in fact have prevented his injury in this particular case. Whether they have a case... i actually don't know.
 
I used the translator and only got something regarding "wrong placement". Thought this means there should have been more space in the corner or so. So usually they stick out to the outside and somehow these barriers were flipped?
Makes more sense than what i initially thought.
 
I used the translator and only got something regarding "wrong placement". Thought this means there should have been more space in the corner or so. So usually they stick out to the outside and somehow these barriers were flipped?
Makes more sense than what i initially thought.
Like i thought, they are arguing that the barriers were not "correctly placed". Not in terms of position, but "the manner" in which they were placed, which was the cause of the seriousness of the injury. They say ASO did not take proper safety precautions. So far, they have not made a claim but are considering it.
 
The metal hooks to attach two barriers were placed so that they were pointing in the direction of the riders. This should have been the other way around. Van Aert caught such a hook, and that went into his leg and tore through his muscles. Had the direction been reversed, the hook would never have penetrated the leg. So, yes, they do have a strong case.
 
Wout in Sporza "Facebook Live". For those who understand Dutch, i suggest watching the video, because there is a lot more in the video than in the transcript.
He was also in Extra Time Koers, for those who want to watch that video (in Dutch), look it up on sporza.be.

View: https://www.facebook.com/sporza/videos/375297393420764/


Wout van Aert was a guest at Extra Time Koers today. But before we sent him into the TV studio, he was happy to answer your questions. It turns out: his recovery is going well, children are not yet on the way and he is on juice diet.

How is your recovery going? (Daveke Bonanza)
"I get questions about my recovery almost daily, but I don't mind. That is nice. In the meantime, I can say that everything is going well. I go to the physiotherapist every day and the power in my right leg gradually comes back. So I hope that I can sit on my bike again in a few weeks. "
"Up to now I have been riding on the rollers for about three times and with the physiotherapist I am on the home trainer. But it was not really possible to cycle yet. I miss it really hard. Especially the World Championship time trial on Wednesday."

What do you think about Tom Dumoulin's transfer? (Roel Draper)
"I think the arrival of Tom Dumoulin is a top transfer. Tom was and is the top of the time trial. I can learn a lot from that."
"Doesn't it get a little busy in the team like that? There are a lot of races, it is not the intention to let everyone ride everywhere. It's good to have several pawns."

How much weight have you gained or lost? (Tim Stroobants)
"You can certainly delete that second one. I have gained a little weight. We have now been two months further and apart from the efforts of the physiotherapist I have not been able to do anything. It is difficult to stay on that top weight."
"In the last few days I have done a small detox with juices to do something about it. Especially for the TV. (Laughs)"

Are any children coming? (Wes)
"As far as I don't know. We enjoy life and with a child there it would be different. We will wait a little longer."

What do you think of the rule of the stockings? (Robin Verbeeck)
"It is now coming into view for the first time, but the rule has been around for 2 years. I understand him, but maybe he is a bit wrong. All the little things make a difference."
"I think Remco did put on his socks at the start. I didn't see the problem with the shoe right away, he swam around nicely. But in the end it made no difference. The winner was clear."

Who will be world champion on Sunday? (Kate Sesselle)
"Mathieu on one, Trentin second and a strong Gilbert takes the bronze medal."
 

Good news. Recovery seems to be going well. Merijn Zeeman assumes he'll be starting TDF2020.
 
Reactions: Koronin
Nuyens wants over 1.1 million in damages for van Aert's breach of contract. I've got a feeling it's going to come down to a testimony of Niels Albert. The reason why van Aert suddenly broke his contract (according to van Aert) was that Nuyens was pressuring/blackmailing Albert to testify against van Aert should it come to that, when Albert wanted to leave the team, so that he didn't have to pay some sort of severance fine for leaving the team. Albert supposedly wouldn't have to pay up, if he complied and painted a rather negative image of van Aert (being intolerable and insufferable). This is the main reason for the "urgent reason" behind the breach of contract.

There are more things, van Aert is claiming, like Nuyens not living up to prior agreements of refunding training camps abroad, which van Aert had to pay for, himself. Having to ride with subpar material (i do remember a period where he actually did have issues with his bike in basically every race) and having to keep quiet about it. Having to show up at too many sponsor events. The merger with Roompot was not what he signed up for. He would lose valued teammates and would have to work with a new entourage which he didn't value much.

To be honest, if the "Albert" story gets debunked, i'm not so sure that the rest of the facts will be enough to warrant a breach of contract. Not getting the best/promised material... he won't be the first nor the last (just ask Rohan Dennis). Not wanting the team to merge... well, that's not up to him obviously, even if he was the main/only reason for the teams to merge and even if he was the only reason to attract new sponsors. Not getting refunded for training camps... maybe if he has proof in writing, and proof he had officially informed the team of not living up to their part of the agreement well in advance and/or in numerous occasions. I can see this going both ways.
 
Nuyens wants over 1.1 million in damages for van Aert's breach of contract. I've got a feeling it's going to come down to a testimony of Niels Albert. The reason why van Aert suddenly broke his contract (according to van Aert) was that Nuyens was pressuring/blackmailing Albert to testify against van Aert should it come to that, when Albert wanted to leave the team, so that he didn't have to pay some sort of severance fine for leaving the team. Albert supposedly wouldn't have to pay up, if he complied and painted a rather negative image of van Aert (being intolerable and insufferable). This is the main reason for the "urgent reason" behind the breach of contract.

There are more things, van Aert is claiming, like Nuyens not living up to prior agreements of refunding training camps abroad, which van Aert had to pay for, himself. Having to ride with subpar material (i do remember a period where he actually did have issues with his bike in basically every race) and having to keep quiet about it. Having to show up at too many sponsor events. The merger with Roompot was not what he signed up for. He would lose valued teammates and would have to work with a new entourage which he didn't value much.

To be honest, if the "Albert" story gets debunked, i'm not so sure that the rest of the facts will be enough to warrant a breach of contract. Not getting the best/promised material... he won't be the first nor the last (just ask Rohan Dennis). Not wanting the team to merge... well, that's not up to him obviously, even if he was the main/only reason for the teams to merge and even if he was the only reason to attract new sponsors. Not getting refunded for training camps... maybe if he has proof in writing, and proof he had officially informed the team of not living up to their part of the agreement well in advance and/or in numerous occasions. I can see this going both ways.
Seemed to me like Nuyens wanted a lot more. Like, a load of money that's preposterous even if Nuyens is 100% right.
 
^^Wow. That's really scary. Sounds like some borderline malpractice at the French clinic. I really hope he is back to 100 percent. The sky's the limit for him as far as ITTs, one-day races and even some bunch sprints.
 
Great news. Let's hope he can leave all that behind him and focus on his comeback. Nuyens has already said he will appeal. Considering the verdict, and the motivation of the judges, i doubt he'll have better luck next time.

Looks like Albert's testimony was the deciding factor.

Van Aert en co kregen over de hele lijn gelijk van de arbeidsrechter. "Het is een grondig en zorgvuldig vonnis. De rechters zijn niet over één nacht ijs gegaan."

"Als je als werkgever aan een 3e persoon (Niels Albert, red) vraagt om een onjuiste verklaring op papier te zetten, dan kun je niet meer over voldoende vertrouwen spreken om op een professionele samen te werken."

Bij het kamp-Nuyens vonden ze het ongehoord dat Albert zijn schriftelijke verklaring over de gang van zaken niet persoonlijk kwam vertellen in de rechtbank. "Ze zijn zeer zorgvuldig omgegaan met de verklaring van Albert en hij heeft ook aan derden verklaard dat hij geschokt was over de houding van zijn werkgever. Volgens de rechter was er geen reden om te twijfelen aan de waarachtigheid van wat Albert op papier zette."

Basically, the judges didn't take it lightly. Albert didn't want to appear in court but put his testimony down in writing. Apparently, Albert was asked by Nuyens to write down a false statement concerning van Aert. He also declared he (Albert) was shocked by the attitude of the employer. The judge didn't see any reason to doubt Albert's testimony.
 
To be clear, the statement Nuyens asked Albert to write down, was last year and the actual reason why van Aert breached his contract after finding out from Albert. I assume Nuyens wanted to have something to hold over van Aert's head in case van Aert didn't start cooperating (with the merger in mind).
This is Albert's testimony which he also put in writing, since he didn't want to appear in court.
 
Last edited:
That's weird. I assume Nuyens denied Albert's story. Unless Albert and Van Aert had some further evidence, I see Albert's testimony as very weak grounds for arguing that Van Aert was in right to terminate contract. I mean, Van Aert is the one who performed some action based on some alleged event so it should be up to him to substantiate the event really occurred.

On the other hand, it is not uncommon that in employment-related disputes employees enjoy higher level of legal protection so maybe that played a role, too.
 
That's weird. I assume Nuyens denied Albert's story. Unless Albert and Van Aert had some further evidence, I see Albert's testimony as very weak grounds for arguing that Van Aert was in right to terminate contract. I mean, Van Aert is the one who performed some action based on some alleged event so it should be up to him to substantiat e the event really occurred.

On the other hand, it is not uncommon that in employment-related disputes employees enjoy higher level of legal protection so maybe that played a role, too.
What TF are you talking about? The dispute is between van Aert and Nuyens and Albert is a prime witness. Why would Albert lie? If you kill someone, and there is a witness who saw you, you're screwed.
 
What TF are you talking about? The dispute is between van Aert and Nuyens and Albert is a prime witness. Why would Albert lie? If you kill someone, and there is a witness who saw you, you're screwed.
No, you aren't if there are reasons to doubt the witness and if there is no other evidence against you. Otherwise good luck defending yourself if someone makes such claim against you one day.

From CN article:
"Nuyens' lawyer argued it was part of a ploy for Van Aert to end his contract but the judge ruled in the rider's favour."

So the judge must have decided this argument was not supported. I do not say Albert lies, I am just wondering that no additional evidence was available (or at least is not reported) to support either Albert's claim or the Nuyens' lawyers claim of the ploy.

And clearly, someone lies - either Albert, or Nuyens. I don't know why Albert would have lied but let's not pretend it is unimaginable. Witnesses have lied for much less than 1 million euro which is at stake here. That's why it is always nice to have additional evidence.
 
No, you aren't if there are reasons to doubt the witness and if there is no other evidence against you. Otherwise good luck defending yourself if someone makes such claim against you one day.

From CN article:
"Nuyens' lawyer argued it was part of a ploy for Van Aert to end his contract but the judge ruled in the rider's favour."

So the judge must have decided this argument was not supported. I do not say Albert lies, I am just wondering that no additional evidence was available (or at least is not reported) to support either Albert's claim or the Nuyens' lawyers claim of the ploy.

And clearly, someone lies - either Albert, or Nuyens. I don't know why Albert would have lied but let's not pretend it is unimaginable. Witnesses have lied for much less than 1 million euro which is at stake here. That's why it is always nice to have additional evidence.
Having a first hand witness is about as strong as a case can be, lol. There is no DNA or fingerprints to determine guilt in this case. No tapped phonecalls. There is a reason why only so few people commit purgery. People don't run around making claims about other people in court as you seem to think. This is not a case of "i can't remember" or "i'm not sure what i saw" or "it looked like him but it was dark" which are all things that can not be verified. Albert is flatout saying what he did see. Albert was a sort of go-between van Aert and Nuyens for years. He is not a witness of whom you can have doubts of that he didn't/couldn't read the situation or knew what was happening.

Ofcourse it's not impossible for Albert to lie, but i find the notion that having a prime witness in a case like this being "very weak", laughable. Where you there? Did you read Albert's testimony? Where you in the room when the judges made their ruling? You do not know the details of Albert's statements. The judges do, and they ruled based on the information they had.

This is a world where very little is put on paper with a lot of verbal communication, there would never be much further evidence. There is no reason to doubt Albert's testimony at this time as far as i know, hence no reason to see his statement as "very weak". Ofcourse Nuyens will try to smear Albert, it's the only thing he can do. You're claiming it is up to van Aert to come up with evidence... he did. It's called Niels Albert. So no, it is not "weak". You can only say that it is weak if you know what was in his testimony. It is on the other hand a very serious matter if Albert lied to the court.

I said it weeks/months ago, a lot would be riding on Albert's testimony. And it seems that this was strong enough to rule in favor of van Aert. I can only imagine it must have been damning and convincing. The only people who are in a position to argue that both him as a witness and his actual statement are weak, is the judge.
 
Fair enough, we shall see anyway how this ends up at the appellate court.

By the way in the new article on CN on this, Nuyens' lawyer basically repeats my concerns with the ruling:
"In the event of a breach of contract, the bar is always very high. You must have conclusive proof that the other party has made a very serious mistake. In this case there was only the testimony of Niels Albert, which is debatable. Albert says he never had any problems with Van Aert, while he often said the opposite within the team. We have four witnesses. Only the judge found that is irrelevant. Hence: an unbalanced judgment,"
 
Fair enough, we shall see anyway how this ends up at the appellate court.

By the way in the new article on CN on this, Nuyens' lawyer basically repeats my concerns with the ruling:
"In the event of a breach of contract, the bar is always very high. You must have conclusive proof that the other party has made a very serious mistake. In this case there was only the testimony of Niels Albert, which is debatable. Albert says he never had any problems with Van Aert, while he often said the opposite within the team. We have four witnesses. Only the judge found that is irrelevant. Hence: an unbalanced judgment,"
Please tell me how Albert having issues with van Aert would be in the interest of Nuyens in this case? Having disagreements with van Aert, would make it even MORE unlikely for Albert to lie in court in favor of van Aert, would it not?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts