Why would they let a lot of former riders come forward with their story? It's a Dutch court, it doesn't seem very likely to me that riders such as Hirschi , or any other rider for that matter, will actually be called upon to testify.So, the cat's out of the bag. Van Wilder and DSM are going to court. I'm not a lawyer, but i'm seeing some issues here, that maybe DSM overlooked from a tactical pespective. While DSM may think this is as simple as having a signed agreement, i believe going to court opens up a possible shitstorm raining down on them, as the court could waver any signed NDA they may have had with former riders, and allow testimonies under oath that can establish a pattern in how they treat their riders. Former teammates who would hesitate to lash out in the press or media now suddenly might be called to witness and testify under oath. Frankly i don't understand they let it come to this. I know Van Wilder asked his lawyers to suggest settling out of court, but supposedly DSM didn't want to budge on the fee and left him no other option. Now if they "win" they get to keep a disgruntled rider or they can cash in a modest fee corresponding his current wages. Big whoop. But if they lose... what does that tell the outside world about them? All the coocoo stories are true. Good luck finding a rider to commit to their ways in the future. We wouldn't even need to hear or know what has been said in court, to understand they have lost touch with reality. Because otherwise they would never have let it come to this and lose. Not to forget, all that just to stick it to Van Wilder. Genius. They have so little to gain, and so much to lose. In fact, they may want to make that their slogan, it's fitting.
DSM - little to gain, much to lose.
I also wonder if the court will inquire about them letting all other riders leave, except Van Wilder, and why exactly that is.
And as to so much to lose, seems to me that a lot of the damage is already done anyway.