The Lowe Down on Vaughters (aka Knight of the Ethical Objectivity round table)

[Broken Spoke]

A lot of different takes on this... I read the entire piece and at its core is a contractual dispute that's gone way past where it should have been settled and that's why it got messy for all involved.

None of this would've happened if Slipstream hadn't cancelled Lowe's contract and withheld his final month's salary and bonuses. The fact that these payments were not made is not in dispute. The only reason Slipstream have cited in justifying their action is breach of contract on Lowe's part by using non-sponsor equipment at a training camp for Lowe's 2011 team. That's it.

Taken in isolation, it seems petty for Slipstream to cancel Lowe's contract given that it's not a unique situation to see riders joining training camps for their soon-to-be-new teams in their current employers kit (is there a precedent for such a dispute?).

Of course, nothing is ever black and white. Take a divorce - it's not simply a matter of summing the assets, apportioning a percentage to each party, shaking hands and walking away. There's history, injustices (perceived and real) and more often than not some regrettable behaviour that needs satisfying. This clouds judgement, distorts recollection, weights opinion and brings emotion to the table which are all toxic to cold, subjective decision.

I see a fair bit of divorce in this. It seems from both accounts an unhappy marriage that didn't live up to expectations. Maybe Lowe felt neglected, perhaps even abused in the relationship. Maybe JV felt disappointed, unfulfilled and unrewarded on his side. Even when a relationship is all but finished, seeing a picture in the social pages of your soon-to-be-ex out on the town with a new squeeze can make people act irrationally.

It's a momentary flash. Decision time. Pay him out and be done with it? Cut him off and get some satisfaction? It's the kind of thing you shouldn't decide the second after spitting coffee all over the newspaper.

This is where you pay someone else to think rationally for you and give you some good advice. This is where Slipstream's lawyer should have said "just pay the guy and move on, it's not worth it". Lowe just wanted to be paid what he was owed. It wasn't a shake down, he didn't even demand interest on late payment that he was entitled to. He was ready to move on.

Slipstream chose to play hardball on this, but didn't count on Lowe sticking to his guns and using whatever leverage he had to get paid what he was owed. This was the second opportunity for someone with any sort of sense at Slipstream to say "just pay him and get him to sign a confidentiality agreement". But no. It was Slipstream who escalated the situation by going public and making it sound like Lowe and Hardie were blackmailing them for half a mill when that figure was only mentioned as possible damages from litigation Lowe was willing to initiate, in part as a result of Slipstream's press release that publicly linked Lowe to Del Moral.

How is this going to end well for Slipstream? I just can't see it. What a mess.

The complete lack of business sense displayed by Slipstream and their legal representatives would be my greatest concern if I was invested in the organisation.

 

[Nearly]

..... 3) He tried to jack his former team for 500K euros.
QUOTE]

In fairness, the 500K euros number only came up once JV had gone public and when Hardie was asked to put a figure on TL's claim (which on counsel's advice was now being extended to include all sorts of damages including for defamation as a result of JV's recent actions). However ill-advised raising the del Moral referral with JV was, any suggestion of a 500k blackmail claim being behind it is a furphy.

JV says he knew nothing about del Moral before 6 January. Lowe says JV knew about his falling out with White over this referral (the timing of that is not clear but it must have been at least before 6 Jan). Who is telling the truth about this? JV certainly has acted and reacted as if it was news to him. Then again a falling out with White (on top of performance/health issues) may also explain the JV cold shoulder during 2010.

Curiously why would Lowe have said to JV in the 6 Jan email "..... and we both know that I have never doped. I have kept my end of the deal and kept this stuff quiet and out of the public eye ...." How would JV necesssarily know if Lowe had not doped unless the issue had been openly dealt with at the time of any "falling out" with White?

There is a lot we don't know!

EDIT: Just saw Broken Spoke's post. A mess indeed.

 

[webvan]

Yes, something clearly happened between White and Lowe at some point and JV was made aware of it. Why Hardie didn't push that button in the negotiations is unclear to me though...

 

[dolophonic]

Also should be noted plenty of Garmin riders were riding Crevelo's before the year was out. Guess that was not as much of a problem.
Good for the goose good for the gander?

 

[Nearly]

Also should be noted plenty of Garmin riders were riding Crevelo's before the year was out. Guess that was not as much of a problem.
Good for the goose good for the gander?

JV may tell us he/they had permission from Felt - but let him tell us.

 

[Kodiak]

Do you think Lowe was one of those evil web chatters and nasty bloggers JV blogged about?

Dave.

No, but I think I'm falling more and more into that mold.

 

[Cloxxki]

Broken Spoke, excellent post, that's how I read it as well.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

It is a big step to go from tests were not performed to Lowe deserves 500K because of that. A very big step.

I rather thought the bulk of the 500K was justified by the slander and associated damage to future employment prospects, rather than wilfully substandard medical support.

 

[steevo]

As far as defamation goes, anecdotally, I was convinced by what was said that TL was dirty. The hundreds of other people following it may have had similar feelings.

 

[Escarabajo]

A lot of different takes on this... I read the entire piece and at its core is a contractual dispute that's gone way past where it should have been settled and that's why it got messy for all involved.

None of this would've happened if Slipstream hadn't cancelled Lowe's contract and withheld his final month's salary and bonuses. The fact that these payments were not made is not in dispute. The only reason Slipstream have cited in justifying their action is breach of contract on Lowe's part by using non-sponsor equipment at a training camp for Lowe's 2011 team. That's it.

Taken in isolation, it seems petty for Slipstream to cancel Lowe's contract given that it's not a unique situation to see riders joining training camps for their soon-to-be-new teams in their current employers kit (is there a precedent for such a dispute?).

Of course, nothing is ever black and white. Take a divorce - it's not simply a matter of summing the assets, apportioning a percentage to each party, shaking hands and walking away. There's history, injustices (perceived and real) and more often than not some regrettable behaviour that needs satisfying. This clouds judgement, distorts recollection, weights opinion and brings emotion to the table which are all toxic to cold, subjective decision.

I see a fair bit of divorce in this. It seems from both accounts an unhappy marriage that didn't live up to expectations. Maybe Lowe felt neglected, perhaps even abused in the relationship. Maybe JV felt disappointed, unfulfilled and unrewarded on his side. Even when a relationship is all but finished, seeing a picture in the social pages of your soon-to-be-ex out on the town with a new squeeze can make people act irrationally.

It's a momentary flash. Decision time. Pay him out and be done with it? Cut him off and get some satisfaction? It's the kind of thing you shouldn't decide the second after spitting coffee all over the newspaper.

This is where you pay someone else to think rationally for you and give you some good advice. This is where Slipstream's lawyer should have said "just pay the guy and move on, it's not worth it". Lowe just wanted to be paid what he was owed. It wasn't a shake down, he didn't even demand interest on late payment that he was entitled to. He was ready to move on.

Slipstream chose to play hardball on this, but didn't count on Lowe sticking to his guns and using whatever leverage he had to get paid what he was owed. This was the second opportunity for someone with any sort of sense at Slipstream to say "just pay him and get him to sign a confidentiality agreement". But no. It was Slipstream who escalated the situation by going public and making it sound like Lowe and Hardie were blackmailing them for half a mill when that figure was only mentioned as possible damages from litigation Lowe was willing to initiate, in part as a result of Slipstream's press release that publicly linked Lowe to Del Moral.

How is this going to end well for Slipstream? I just can't see it. What a mess.

The complete lack of business sense displayed by Slipstream and their legal representatives would be my greatest concern if I was invested in the organisation.

+1.

Your explanation is very clear and with a very good use of an analogy. My thoughts exactly.

 

[BroDeal]

As far as defamation goes, anecdotally, I was convinced by what was said that TL was dirty. The hundreds of other people following it may have had similar feelings.

Based on what? At the time the comedy team of Lowe(l) and Hardie was talking about 500K euros, Slipstream had only said that White was let go for referring Lowe to Dr. Moral. Slipstream bent over backwards to make the visit seem as innocent as possible, explaining that it was a routine health check that could be performed by anyone. They may have done so to minimize the suspicion about the team, but the side effect was to minimize the implication of Lowe seeing Moral.

Hardie's web page detailing Lowe's wildly swinging hematocrit and testosterone levels makes Lowe look more sketchy than anything that Slipstream released.

 

[Realist]

Hardie's web page detailing Lowe's wildly swinging hematocrit and testosterone levels makes Lowe look more sketchy than anything that Slipstream released.

Except there are similar wild swings in a lot of athletes as they move between trained and untrained. I have had Haematocrit measured between 43 and 51... no dope. 51, I was pretty unfit and probably slightly dehydrated. Plasma increase from training, well hydrated and maybe a tiny bit less Fe than I should have had for a month or so... 43. Test I haven't monitored (neither Haem - tests were for viruses, Haem was incidental), but it's well known Test will fluctuate a lot depending on recent training. T-E ratio would be the more relevant thing here.

 

[BroDeal]

Except there are similar wild swings in a lot of athletes as they move between trained and untrained. I have had Haematocrit measured between 43 and 51... no dope. 51, I was pretty unfit and probably slightly dehydrated. Plasma increase from training, well hydrated and maybe a tiny bit less Fe than I should have had for a month or so... 43. Test I haven't monitored (neither Haem - tests were for viruses, Haem was incidental), but it's well known Test will fluctuate a lot depending on recent training. T-E ratio would be the more relevant thing here.

The point stands. There may be a perfectly kosher explanation for Lowe's levels, but the release of this information raises many more questions that anything released by Slipstream. Show something that Slipstream released that is more indicative of doping than the comedy stylings of Lowe(l) and Hardie. Aside from varying blood levels, Hardie's release shows that Lowe was seeing a witch doctor who somehow raised his hemoglobin, hematocrit, and testosterone. That raises questions. Lowe claiming damages from what Slipstream released is like a man claiming damages from an ingrown toenaill after he has blown his own foot off with a shotgun.

I find it telling that Lowe has not alleged that he received anything but legal treatment from Dr. Moral. If nothing happened then what is he complaining about? It is obvious that the Moral issue is one of pure posturing. It is a weak issue to use as leverage. It boils down to, "Oh, woe is me. My team sent me to a doctor with a dodgy reputation, but all he did was perform routine tests. I am sooo hurt."

 

[Spare Tyre]

A lot of different takes on this... I read the entire piece and at its core is a contractual dispute that's gone way past where it should have been settled and that's why it got messy for all involved.



<snipped for brevity>

Nice overview. I see it this way too.

 

[Benotti69]

The point stands. There may be a perfectly kosher explanation for Lowe's levels, but the release of this information raises many more questions that anything released by Slipstream. Show something that Slipstream released that is more indicative of doping than the comedy stylings of Lowe(l) and Hardie. Aside from varying blood levels, Hardie's release shows that Lowe was seeing a witch doctor who somehow raised his hemoglobin, hematocrit, and testosterone. That raises questions. Lowe claiming damages from what Slipstream released is like a man claiming damages from an ingrown toenaill after he has blown his own foot off with a shotgun.

I find it telling that Lowe has not alleged that he received anything but legal treatment from Dr. Moral. If nothing happened then what is he complaining about? It is obvious that the Moral issue is one of pure posturing. It is a weak issue to use as leverage. It boils down to, "Oh, woe is me. My team sent me to a doctor with a dodgy reputation, but all he did was perform routine tests. I am sooo hurt."

I see it that Hardie is looking at an opportunity more than anything else. That JV never responded emails is interesting but he must have a reason. Did he know about Dr Moral and therefore decided to let Lowe's contract run out and drop him at the end of the season. If so why bother deducting the guy 1 months pay and risk creating a small shít storm over nearly nothing?

Hardie appears to be trying to threaten JV by using Lowe as a possible 'Landis' which if Lowe is hoping to race again is pretty stupid.

 

[Race Radio]

A lot of different takes on this... I read the entire piece and at its core is a contractual dispute that's gone way past where it should have been settled and that's why it got messy for all involved.

None of this would've happened if Slipstream hadn't cancelled Lowe's contract and withheld his final month's salary and bonuses. The fact that these payments were not made is not in dispute. The only reason Slipstream have cited in justifying their action is breach of contract on Lowe's part by using non-sponsor equipment at a training camp for Lowe's 2011 team. That's it.

Taken in isolation, it seems petty for Slipstream to cancel Lowe's contract given that it's not a unique situation to see riders joining training camps for their soon-to-be-new teams in their current employers kit (is there a precedent for such a dispute?).

Of course, nothing is ever black and white. Take a divorce - it's not simply a matter of summing the assets, apportioning a percentage to each party, shaking hands and walking away. There's history, injustices (perceived and real) and more often than not some regrettable behaviour that needs satisfying. This clouds judgement, distorts recollection, weights opinion and brings emotion to the table which are all toxic to cold, subjective decision.

I see a fair bit of divorce in this. It seems from both accounts an unhappy marriage that didn't live up to expectations. Maybe Lowe felt neglected, perhaps even abused in the relationship. Maybe JV felt disappointed, unfulfilled and unrewarded on his side. Even when a relationship is all but finished, seeing a picture in the social pages of your soon-to-be-ex out on the town with a new squeeze can make people act irrationally.

It's a momentary flash. Decision time. Pay him out and be done with it? Cut him off and get some satisfaction? It's the kind of thing you shouldn't decide the second after spitting coffee all over the newspaper.

This is where you pay someone else to think rationally for you and give you some good advice. This is where Slipstream's lawyer should have said "just pay the guy and move on, it's not worth it". Lowe just wanted to be paid what he was owed. It wasn't a shake down, he didn't even demand interest on late payment that he was entitled to. He was ready to move on.

Slipstream chose to play hardball on this, but didn't count on Lowe sticking to his guns and using whatever leverage he had to get paid what he was owed. This was the second opportunity for someone with any sort of sense at Slipstream to say "just pay him and get him to sign a confidentiality agreement". But no. It was Slipstream who escalated the situation by going public and making it sound like Lowe and Hardie were blackmailing them for half a mill when that figure was only mentioned as possible damages from litigation Lowe was willing to initiate, in part as a result of Slipstream's press release that publicly linked Lowe to Del Moral.

How is this going to end well for Slipstream? I just can't see it. What a mess.

The complete lack of business sense displayed by Slipstream and their legal representatives would be my greatest concern if I was invested in the organisation.

I hesitate to wade into this thread as there seems to be so much confusion but on this point it is clear, riding another teams kit or equipment is a big no no. It is in every professional contract and all riders know it. It has resulted in riders not getting paid in the past. I seem to remember that Kloden had an issue with it a few years back.

 

[blackcat]

36) In or around November 2010, Mr Lowe attended a training camp for a cycling team management company Pegasus Sports. At that time Pegasus Sports had no title sponsor for its cycling team. At the time of his attendance at the camp he appeared at all times in his Garmin Transitions clothing. Mr Lowe did not advertise or authorise any advertising by him for any cycling sponsor at the Pegasus training camp. At no time has Mr Lowe ever been paid by Pegasus.

http://www.newcyclingpathway.com/news/blog/transperancy-international

 

[blackcat]

lots of question begging goin on. How does anyone know that Hardie did this off his own bat. I know if I was a rider looking for sound counsel and moral support, he would be the first I go to. He has experience in multiple facets, and drops some good esoteric rock lyrics from Ozzies.

Bro, I dont see the agenda you speak of. Riders have manifest problems, health, contractual, macro life perspective. I dont see this as just contractual, but more holistic and comprehensive.

Seems JV always gets credit extended to him like Bernie Madoff, but the premise is Hardie is out for his own ends. Dont see it. Seems we have one guy wearing a triathlon jersey from an emperor, and the other guy donning the legal wig to defend a fallen worker.

I rather thought the bulk of the 500K was justified by the slander and associated damage to future employment prospects, rather than wilfully substandard medical support.

this.

As far as defamation goes, anecdotally, I was convinced by what was said that TL was dirty. The hundreds of other people following it may have had similar feelings.

lay person anecdote sumbitted into evidence.

Based on what? At the time the comedy team of Lowe(l) and Hardie was talking about 500K euros, Slipstream had only said that White was let go for referring Lowe to Dr. Moral. Slipstream bent over backwards to make the visit seem as innocent as possible, explaining that it was a routine health check that could be performed by anyone. They may have done so to minimize the suspicion about the team, but the side effect was to minimize the implication of Lowe seeing Moral.

Hardie's web page detailing Lowe's wildly swinging hematocrit and testosterone levels makes Lowe look more sketchy than anything that Slipstream released.

Bro, it aint one month's salary. And if Lowe had anything to hide, he would not be carrying on. Speak to Floyd about how to marry your pharma and physiological parameters so the haemo is stable.

I see it that Hardie is looking at an opportunity more than anything else. That JV never responded emails is interesting but he must have a reason. Did he know about Dr Moral and therefore decided to let Lowe's contract run out and drop him at the end of the season. If so why bother deducting the guy 1 months pay and risk creating a small shít storm over nearly nothing?

Hardie appears to be trying to threaten JV by using Lowe as a possible 'Landis' which if Lowe is hoping to race again is pretty stupid.

premise is flawed, do you know Hardie, how is he running an agenda. His only agenda as I see it, is defending the individual and an individual's rights. I have no evidence JV does anything other than the opposite, for all his hifalutin rhetoric.

I hesitate to wade into this thread as there seems to be so much confusion but on this point it is clear, riding another teams kit or equipment is a big no no. It is in every professional contract and all riders know it. It has resulted in riders not getting paid in the past. I seem to remember that Kloden had an issue with it a few years back.

see above. But some riders it is appropriate, and issuing the former Jim Felt's steeds mid season posed zero problems did it.

Where is the universality in application of the contract terms. Seems any terms, or terms suddenly imposed, are abitrarily and capriciously applied, according to whether you are a required rider, and substantive actor in the organisation and team.

Otherwise, you are expendable. Believe in contract law. And believe in riders' conditions, health and safety, which is parallel to aspiring to a clean sport, you can't hold both conceptions at the one time without suffering cognitive dissonance writ large.

 

[BikeBuoy]

Transparency, Professionalism, Justice and Truth - Garmin Lowe

So much comment on this matter is trying to make sense by doing autopsies on individual trees and hence not seeing the forest. At the heart of this, is the classic maxim, always negotiate from a position of power, it appears the complete opposite in Lowes case. Having your correspondence ignored would have left Lowe with a feeling of powerlessness and frustration at the unfairness at being singled out for an infringement that was commonplace.

If we were in Lowes shoes, would we want to leave a sport, should it come to that, with an inference of doping of over our heads when we know we are innocent?

Out of curiosity, the photos of Lowe that were a catalyst for this, I cant clearly identify Lowe, but maybe my wife could get pick out his calves a mile of, not me, maybe a bloke thing. Correct me if I am wrong.

If we view this in the context of a workplace dispute, this is a case study in how unions come into existence, often when such things like, when health is compromised, salary is in dispute and employees feel they have no position of strength to negotiate. The warning bells should ring out, is this the prime moment for a riders union?

Like a few others have deduced, it’s a negotiation that ran off the rails and poorly handled by those that should be wiser, especially those in management holding a mentoring responsibility and duty of care. There needs to be more accountability with those in the Industry that hold professional mentoring functions and where their public activities destroy careers through unsubstantiated inference.

Where is the scrutiny from above in this, any reasonable executive in most business outside cycling would have looked at the amount in dispute, and with a rudimentary risk assessment, settled. The month’s worth of wages is trivial in terms of the potential brand damage, not to mention the potential destruction of a career.

I wonder if someone has highlighted this recent revelation posted on http://www.newcyclingpathway.com/news/blog/transperancy-international , to Garmin HQ, they should be asking questions over this as to brand damage that JV was so concerned about?

Finally, in terms of transparency, where is the media coverage? When Vaughters had the ascendency on this a month ago, every journalist was onto it, why are they so quiet now? Is it a case of don’t bite the hand that feeds you or chew on the ego that sues you, either way, transparency is the looser.

 

[The Hitch]

Did they for real make Wonderlance a mod that this thread has been moved to the Road section?

 

[Race Radio]

see above. But some riders it is appropriate, and issuing the former Jim Felt's steeds mid season posed zero problems did it.

Where is the universality in application of the contract terms. Seems any terms, or terms suddenly imposed, are abitrarily and capriciously applied, according to whether you are a required rider, and substantive actor in the organisation and team.

Otherwise, you are expendable. Believe in contract law. And believe in riders' conditions, health and safety, which is parallel to aspiring to a clean sport, you can't hold both conceptions at the one time without suffering cognitive dissonance writ large.

You are assuming that all contracts are the same, they are not. Contador receiving bikes has nothing to do with Lowe riding a Scott. If there was another Slipstream rider with the same clause in his contract that rode a Scott and did not get dinged you would have a point but the fact is JV treated them both the same.

You can say JV is being petty and have a good point but he has the contract to back him up. You would be surprised how many riders do not get paid their last couple of months when they change team.....even if they do not get caught riding non-sponsor equipment. Happens all the time, teams just don't pay and make the rider try to extract the cash. If you are changing teams it would be smart to read your contract and make sure you play by the rules.

 

[Broken Spoke]

I hesitate to wade into this thread as there seems to be so much confusion but on this point it is clear, riding another teams kit or equipment is a big no no. It is in every professional contract and all riders know it. It has resulted in riders not getting paid in the past. I seem to remember that Kloden had an issue with it a few years back.

BikeBuoy raise the question in a general sense, but specifically I wonder if Svein Tuft was also a few coins short in his December pay? Same rules for all? Not to mention Cornu (Skil Shimano), Traksel (Vacansoleil), Kemps (Astana), McEwen (Katusha), Lapthorne (Rapha-Condor Sharp), Rohregger & Eichler Milram - admittedly they were pulling up stumps) & Impey (Radioshack) who all dutifully turned out in their current (at the time) kit at the camp and all went for a spin on shiny new Scott F01s. It wasn't a team presentation or public event, so although there may technically be a claim for breach of contract I think the action taken by Slipstream speaks of motives well beyond brand loyalty post-season.

I do take your point on precedent however - I haven't had a chance to research the Kloden case yet but Kloden is/was a headline rider and you'd be hard pressed to argue that a rider of Lowe's profile could inflict one tenth of the damage to your image that Kloden could.

It smacks of employer refusing to cough up your last pay after you resign because they found out you'd been posting on Cyclingnews in your lunch break.

Gotta go, the boss is coming...

Ok, just read your reply to Blackcat and that makes some sense. Did Tuft get docked as well then?

I guess the point I and some others are making that it might happen but it doesn't make it right.

 

[Race Radio]

BikeBuoy raise the question in a general sense, but specifically I wonder if Svein Tuft was also a few coins short in his December pay? Same rules for all? Not to mention Cornu (Skil Shimano), Traksel (Vacansoleil), Kemps (Astana), McEwen (Katusha), Lapthorne (Rapha-Condor Sharp), Rohregger & Eichler Milram - admittedly they were pulling up stumps) & Impey (Radioshack) who all dutifully turned out in their current (at the time) kit at the camp and all went for a spin on shiny new Scott F01s. It wasn't a team presentation or public event, so although there may technically be a claim for breach of contract I think the action taken by Slipstream speaks of motives well beyond brand loyalty post-season.

I do take your point on precedent however - I haven't had a chance to research the Kloden case yet but Kloden is/was a headline rider and you'd be hard pressed to argue that a rider of Lowe's profile could inflict one tenth of the damage to your image that Kloden could.

It smacks of employer refusing to cough up your last pay after you resign because they found out you'd been posting on Cyclingnews in your lunch break.

Gotta go, the boss is coming...

Ok, just read your reply to Blackcat and that makes some sense. Did Tuft get docked as well then?

I guess the point I and some others are making that it might happen but it doesn't make it right.

Tuft was paid accidently, but they are withholding some bonuses.

Yeah, it is a petty move but JV is well within his rights to do so.

 

[Nearly]

.....premise is flawed, do you know Hardie, how is he running an agenda. His only agenda as I see it, is defending the individual and an individual's rights. I have no evidence JV does anything other than the opposite, for all his hifalutin rhetoric....

I am sure Hardie's motives are/were nothing but genuine and he has probably put a lot of time and energy quite possibly for no personal return. Whilst he has a very impressive legal palmares he is first and foremost an academic (apparently without a legal practice and indeed he refers to himself as a "personal advisor" of Lowe) who includes prominently amongst his research interests "Professional Cycling and Doping" as borne out by his NEW PATHWAYS FOR PRO CYCLINGconference at his uni at the time of last year's WC in Geelong. That is his agenda in cycling and whilst he doubtless scrupulously tried to promote rather than compromise Lowe's position he does not fight people's employment battles on a daily professional basis as far as I can see. He has waved (or at least not dissuaded Lowe from waving) a doping red rag in front of an argyle bully - one which seemingly has no relevance to the contractual dispute nor any health based claim (unless there is something we are not being told). It is one thing to fight to defend an individual's right and another to do so within an inch of his life because you have some notion that the team has been duplicitous in its dealings on a much broader doping canvass.

That said we are all wise after the event, sitting anonymously in front of our keyboards, and Lowe seems to have been very shabbily treated on a number of fronts by JV, in particular, and Slipstream in general as the prospect of having to sue and enforce a small debt (perhaps not for TL) against a US company would lead most to urge some other alternative. Who can blame either from seeking whatever leverage they could as long as they were totally atune to the consequences.

Unwittingly JV's reaction may have provided the basis for a claim which is worth pursuing but sadly may not get Trent back in the peleton any time soon.

 

[cyclingPRpro]

That page is pretty much like when a company hires PRweb or a similar news service to put out its message. One voice, and this time it was written by a lawyer. You be the judge.