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

[Nearly]

Another Lowe interview in similar veinhttp://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/2011/03/interview-with-trent-lowe/#

 

[Nearly]

TL seems to be firing blanks. Even the 'JV knew about del Moral implications' (due to the White fall out) seem to have fallen away. Lowe is credible in querying why would he publicise the del Moral visits (why indeed!?) but I agree with Bro that the email he/Hardie wrote of 6 Jan looked very much like an angry threat (even if you can understand the frustration behind the making of it). The connection between JV being a stickler on the contract (here it was a case of it being about the bike [and not the kit]) and the del Moral referral is tenuous indeed. Road rage is not the best tactic when someone cuts you off!

The Kimmage cameo is interesting. If any such thing spooked JV into coming out then the defamation claim might have more legs depending on where the 'leak' came from!

 

[Granville57]

Another Lowe interview in similar veinhttp://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/2011/03/interview-with-trent-lowe/#

Very interesting read.

I have to say, I find Lowe to be quite lucid, rational and convincing in this interview.

Has it been established as to how many times he visited Del Moral?

Was it the quarterly health checks that Matt White referred to you Dr Del Moral?

[Trent Lowe] Yeah, that’s right. The initial one was to do a VO2 test, like a fitness test.

This part seems to imply that Lowe deliberately left Del Moral's name out of the email, for everyone's sake. Hmmm.

So after you knew about this policy and when you subsequently say Del Moral, did you tell about your visits with him?

[Trent Lowe] Well, I felt like they knew. And it was outside of an event, so it wasn’t against that policy. I’ve had email conversations with Jonathan about Del Moral. Not as “Del Moral”, but as “my sport’s doctor here”. I just felt they understood that.

To me, these are the key questions:

Slipstream is a big team with a multimillion dollar budget. Why do you think JV is being like this? Why would he have not paid your last month of wages and bonuses which would have only been a few thousand dollars? Do you think there’s a bigger agenda at play?

 

[webvan]

Interesting read, but there is some back-pedalling compared to the "both you and I know I had a fallout with Whitey about that"...now it's

What’s your relationship with Matt White now because of this?

[Trent Lowe] We had a falling out at the time, during the 2009 season.

Was it over anything to do with Del Moral?

[Trent Lowe] It’s complex. It’s not clear cut like that, no. I suppose as much as anything we just see the world differently. We had different goals. There were discrepancies in our goals. I think a lot of it has to do with the both of us really like our work and we’re really passionate about it. So when our goals were a bit different and communication broke down a bit, I guess that’s when we had a falling out. We understood it was necessary to work with one another. We were pretty professional in getting on with our job in the workplace and our roles crossed over smoothly.

 

[skidmark]

What does the good doctor's letterhead look like? Does it say Institute of Sports Medicine of Valencia (in Spanish) with Del Moral's signature scrawled somewhere on the form? Do we know if Lowe actually saw Del Moral? Del Moral is the director of the institute. Does he do the testing himself or is it done by a subordinate?

That, to me, is the key unknown. From the tone of the emails (which, sadly, could be coloured by posturing for future perceived PR purposes on either side) it seems at face value like it was an honest (albeit careless) oversight on Vaughters' part. Lowe seems to assume that it would be known, which makes me question how obvious it was. Vaughters' response is ambiguous, making it seem like either he knew Lowe went to del Moral and was surprised he was bringing up misgivings so much later (hinting at blackmail and a tenuously possible sinister undertone), or just didn't know he went to del Moral. Taking a step back from the cesspool of the cycling world and assuming it's possible the Vaughters is trying to run a 'clean team', the simplest explanation when I put all the pieces together is the same conclusion that BroDeal reaches about this being a tempest in a teapot. I'd love to find something sinister underlying this but I just can't.

 

[BroDeal]

That, to me, is the key unknown. From the tone of the emails (which, sadly, could be coloured by posturing for future perceived PR purposes on either side) it seems at face value like it was an honest (albeit careless) oversight on Vaughters' part. Lowe seems to assume that it would be known, which makes me question how obvious it was. Vaughters' response is ambiguous, making it seem like either he knew Lowe went to del Moral and was surprised he was bringing up misgivings so much later (hinting at blackmail and a tenuously possible sinister undertone), or just didn't know he went to del Moral. Taking a step back from the cesspool of the cycling world and assuming it's possible the Vaughters is trying to run a 'clean team', the simplest explanation when I put all the pieces together is the same conclusion that BroDeal reaches about this being a tempest in a teapot. I'd love to find something sinister underlying this but I just can't.

If JV ignored e-mail from Lowe, he might have also ignored Lowe's medical tests. He may have not known that Lowe saw Del Moral. He may have written Lowe off as a lost cause and did not want to spend any time on him. Dr. Steffan is harder to explain, but I would like to see the forms to see how prominent Del Moral's name is.

I would still like to know how this cross-national lawsuit will work since Slipstream has no business presence in Australia. Why would JV or Dr. Steffan or any other non-Australian employee agree to be deposed or show up at trial? How would a judgement be enforced? What is to stop Slipstream from filing a breach of contract suit against Lowe in the United States?

I think Slipstream should immediately pay Lowe his $2K bonus (if they have not already) and $12K with notification that the $3K balance is a fine for breach of contract. Put Lowe in a position of waging an international lawsuit with a possible payout of only $3K instead of $17K. Hardie refuses to make an offer so act unilaterally.

I also find it interesting that Lowe acknowledges that Hardie is seen as a troublemaker in cycling. He might have been better served by someone who people in the sport feel they can work with. There has to be a "fixer" who could have handled this more adeptly.

 

[rata de sentina]

Perceptions

I haven't really been motivated to comment on this thread, as stated it doesn't seem to amount to more than hamfisted bungling all round. It's all about preceptions and the fear of perceptions. The trail of communications posted didn't really reflect very well on any party.

From my perspective, the perceptions is that this doesn't reflect very well on JVs manageing his personnel, the non-communication followed by the excessively hard-nosed approach considering the rather trivial amounts involved just makes him seem like a wnkr. Hardie's negotiating style leaves a bit to be desired, I'm not sure it's necessary to go all heavy from the outset. Lowe just seems a bit naive.

 

[Ney the Viking]

I think that one thing people tend to gloss over is that the Del Moral test was the required UCI test. The one that the rider has to do himself, and cannot get done by a team doctor, and send to the UCI to get allowed to race. The only reason that the teams even gets a copy is so the rider can prove he did it in time, and will be allowed to race. These health checks are a matter between the UCI and the rider, why the team staff would do more than archive it I cannot understand. I don't get why they should have noticed which doctor the rider went to see.

 

[BroDeal]

Anthony Tan's four part article about the Lowe-Garmin situation.

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/news/23806/Investigation: Cycling’s David v Goliath: Part I
http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/news/23811/Investigation: Cycling’s David v Goliath: Part II
http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/news/23856/Investigation: Cycling’s David v Goliath: Part III
http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/news/23901/Investigation:-Cycling’s-David-v-Goliath:-Part-IV

 

[Granville57]

Anthony Tan's four part article about the Lowe-Garmin situation.

Any highlight quotes for a teaser?
That's a lot of reading for me at this hour of the night.

 

[BroDeal]

Any highlight quotes for a teaser?
That's a lot of reading for me at this hour of the night.

A lot of it is from the Hardie "facts." The new stuff is Vaughters response to questions asked by Tan. The UCI was also asked a number of questions about the arbitration process that is required for such disputes.

Key points are that Lowe gained 10kg. Vaughters describes him as having the most body fat of any pro cyclist he has ever seen, or words to that effect. Vaughters also flatly states that Lowe is not capable of riding a pro road schedule because he does not recover well enough. The dodgy blood test before the Tour was for low testosterone, which Vaughters says is normal for riders doing hard training without the use of drugs. It does not appear to be a health threatening ailment that destroyed Lowe's health when he was forced to ride the TdF. Vaughters says such blood results occur often. Del Moral's signature was not actually on the letterhead; it was in an area for the referring physician.

Tan also illuminates another thing that bothered me about the Hardie document. Hardie at one point stated that Lowe's bonus was to be paid on a certain date but that it was not paid. He neglected to state whether the bonus was paid at a later date, which made me suspicious. It turns out that the bonus was paid, evidently on a date that is normal for such payments.

There are a number of things revealed by Vaughters that make it seem like Hardie has distorted the events.

Tan looked into the rules of resolving such disputes. It looks like it has to go to CAS and then Swiss courts. No lawsuit has been filed in Australia.

 

[Willy_Voet]

Anthony Tan's four part article about the Lowe-Garmin situation.

Thanks for freshening up this thread with an investigative report that attempts to clear up the facts.

From my point of view it looks like Lowe was a less than stellar athlete who made a small mistake at the end of his contract with Slipstream. Vaughters admittedly was harsher with him than a better performing athlete, but appears to have legal standing. Lowe may also have legal recourse, but probably is weighing the cost vs gains.

The thinly veiled attempt at blackmail (on Lowe's part) coupled with Hardie's F-bomb laced email (hardly the mark of a professional) make Lowe/Hardie look like losers.

 

[the delgados]

Funny how those on the wrong end of a power dynamic are perceived as "losers."

Regarding Lowe's visit to the infamous doctor and thinly veiled "blackmail," I tend to think there's more here than meets the eye. And I could be wrong, but I don't think either party wants to go down that road.

Regardless, Lowe is owed the money. He signed a contract and got sick. Gaining weight seemed to be part of the recovery process. Vaughters needs to accept that and stop playing the heavy.

Pay him and be done.

 

[blackcat]

poor old Vaughters ... can't he recall they sent Trent to a Dr in Spain who told him to put on weight. That guy needs to wash his mouth out with soap - talk about arrogant or is it just autistic? And as for Tan and Brodeal offering legal advice ... that's just not even worth commenting on

 

[blackcat]

and one thing - I asked someone who knows Lowe. He has never been paid the bonuses. JV should stop appearing in stupid outfits, tweeting and generally carrying on like a buffoon and do what he is paid all those millions for - to manage a team and his rider's health.

ten years is a long time to sit out

 

[blackcat]

in Dr Steffen’s opinion, “pointless medically, and logistically impossible. I... sort of struggled with that on the form; like, why do you want us to do that and how do you expect us to do that? What would the point of that be?”

Dr Steffen has has just admitted he did not fulfil his duties, and there are pretty dire sanctions for failing to facilitate that remit right there...

13.1.007 snip....The Team doctor shall be responsible for the medical aspects.’

<cough, cough> (steffen is cupping my ballz)

13.2.008 Any breach of the obligations imposed by these regulations shall be penalised by a suspension of between eight days and one year and/or a fine of between CHF 500.00 and CHF 5,000.00. In the case of a second offence within two years of the first, the doctor will be suspended for a duration of at least six months or excluded permanently and subjected to a fine of between CHF 1,000.00 and CHF 10,000.00.
Furthermore the matter may be passed over to the medical disciplinary authorities.

 

[blackcat]

thankx must go out to Anthony Tan. My frendz in Aus say he wears a pretty mean disco or electric blue suit.

 

[JA.Tri]

bloody confused

Agree with view that "ham-fisted" communication all round, reflecting poorly on all.

Still confused on issue of seeing Dr Del Moral.

I cannot discern whether or not Trent saw Dr Del Moral in a prohibited period. As Trent says he did not see the dr during "an event" and JV implies that he did.

I apologise beforehand if I have missed the bleeding obvious.

 

[blackcat]

JV should have comported himself professionally, and if he could not do that, atleast have some dignity. Penalties for not complying with the regs

4. to the Team Manager: a suspension of between eight days and ten years and/or a fine of between CHF 500.00 and CHF 20,000.00.

such a sanction could outlast the time Prance Gunderson does in da Big House.

 

[Granville57]

Four posts on the way...

A lot of it is from the Hardie "facts." The new stuff is Vaughters response to questions asked by Tan. The UCI was also asked a number of questions about the arbitration process that is required for such disputes.

Thanks for those original links and for the summation (although I see you're unable to respond at the moment).

I finally had some time to read through all of it but I have to say, I think Tan's use of the word "Investigation" is a bit over done. As you say, much of it is from what we've already come across, although there are a few key items introduced.

Unfortunately, as with every single aspect of this case it seems, I am left with more questions than answers. Is this really investigative journalism?

When something seems either out of place, disingenuous, or lacking in coherency, it jumps out at me. I'm not sure if anyone else wants to delve into the finer details of this or not (blackcat?) but here's what got my attention:

PART I
"Trent was not required to race the Tour. In fact had he expressed any doubt in his ability to race, we would have readily replaced him," Slipstream's CEO told me, "as Tyler Farrar was left at home in 2008 and was very angry about that. This is documented in Blood, Sweat and Gears, a documentary about us in 2008. Trent never once formally or informally expressed any reservation about racing the Tour. He was proud he’d made the selection and [was] excited to race."

That would seem to make perfect sense in defense of JV. I have that DVD and can confirm what he's describing as, at least, being a part of the documentary. It seems like a weak argument from Lowe's standpoint to suggest that Garmin would knowingly take an unhealthy rider to the biggest event of the season.

 

[Granville57]

PART II

However, this timeline doesn't make any sense to me. I'm going to assume that it's just put together with grammatical innacuracies:

The document then says on 16 April White sent an e-mail to Lowe, referring him to Dr Luis Garcia del Moral.
By doing this, Slipstream Sports claims that White broke the team’s policy concerning involvement of non‐staff medical personnel, circulated by Dr Steffen on 28 May 2009.
The 17 April 2009 visit also came one-and-a-half months after Dr Steffen circulated the team’s policy concerning involvement of non‐staff medical personnel, sent on May 28.

Surely Tan means before the circulation of the policy? Last time I checked, April comes before May.

Then we have comments like these that, frankly, I wish were never made. They stretch credibility:

Vaughters: I don’t know that Prentice even knew who del Moral was in 2009.

Yeah. OK.


Then this bit is odd, as it seems to be left totally open ended:

I will continue my work with Rob and whilst in Europe he has been treating many riders on our team at their own expense. His skill set is beyond that of anyone I have ever worked with before. Should you be interested to know something about his methods please let me know. I highly recommend them.

Vaughters also said that Rob Grace, the Canadian referred to in Lowe’s 19 April e-mail, tried to get a job with Slipstream Sports but was never hired. As an aside, Maximizing Marginal Gains, the name of Grace’s business, last recorded a post on Facebook on 28 February this year, which reads: “cycling is in a bad way. mmg will be shutting its doors shortly.”

Is that last quote supposed to be implying something critical? There is no follow-up.

 

[Granville57]

PART III

In regards to the team policy violation, there seems to be a contradiction from JV here:

Vaughters:
Yes, there are photos of Trent on the [Scott] bike. However, that is irrelevant. His contract states than he cannot work for another team. So, just by being at the camp, without permission, he violated this. Other riders in his position ask for written permission before attending camps, and I expect my new riders to do the same with their old teams.

But then this from JV's email:

I’m sorry to inform you, but you were photographed riding non-sponsor equipment at another team’s training camp, without written permission from any representative of our team; therefore your contract has been terminated.

But did Lowe’s “offense” really meet the criteria?

ARTICLE 8 - Termination of the contract
The Team may terminate the present contract, without notice or liability for compensation, in the event of serious misconduct on the part of the Rider or of the suspension of the Rider under the terms of the UCI regulations for the remaining duration of the present contract. Serious misconduct is considered to include refusal to ride cycle races, despite being repeatedly called on to do so by the Team. If need be, the Rider shall be required to prove that he was in no state to compete in a race.

To top things off, we have this ambiguity over the bonus payment, which is never clarified in the article.

In a 13 March e-mail to me this year, Vaughters confirmed the US$2,000 owing to Lowe had been paid:

13 March 2011

Jonathan Vaughters
To: Anthony Tan
Yeah, of course we’ll pay him the $2000 bonus. He earned it (it’s a bonus for when your teammate wins a stage) ... Not that Trent had anything to do with Robbie Hunter winning a field sprint... But we contractually owed him that, so we paid it.

But I don’t really feel we owe him December’s salary, as he was already working for another team. In mind and action... Without permisssion.

Vaughters added that, “We pay bonuses on Feb 28 [of the following year]” and that this applies “for everyone”.

The bolded part shows the mix of future tense and past tense. So which is it?
Will they pay him, or did they pay him?

Tan doesn't seem to provide any confirmation.

 

[Granville57]

PART IV
Not for nuthin' but...
Why does "Slipstream Sports legal adviser Matthew Pace, of Herrick Feinstein LLP, a New York-based law firm" communicate like a twelve-year-old when discussing serious matters?

My client does not want to talk to u.

We will not pay 15.

What number will ur client accept?

Given we know the amount of the bonuses owed from the Vuelta a Murcia, we can safely assume Lowe’s December salary was in the region of US$13,000.

In Tan's article, this last line is presented as if it's a part of the email. I didn't realize that the first time around because I assumed that was Tan's musing. But it is definitely put forth as if part of the email. Why would Slipstream's legal department have to "assume" how much Lowe was getting paid?


Later, Tan summarizes the whole piece with this:

All this grief – and all for a somewhat paltry fifteen grand. Or is it much more than that?

I still can’t decide, or whether Trent Lowe will indeed have his day in court.

Something doesn't add up here.

There was this referrence:

By email dated 23 January 2011, Mr Hardie advised Mr Pace, so far as relevant, as follows:
I have consulted Trent on your offer. He is not prepared to accept your offer as once he has calculated bonuses it is about $15000 below what is owed to him.


So...
How much was "the offer"?
How much does Lowe consider to be "owed" to him?
$15,000...below?!

If Lowe was asking for 15,000, how could the offer had been 15,000 below that?
Did they calmly offer him zero?

They stated the original amount requested as being December's salary + his $2,000.00 bonus + expenses incurred from a charity event (first time I've heard mention of this additional expense).

At the present time Garmin has not paid Trent his salary for December 2010, the portion owing on his outstanding bonuses for 2009, and various expenses for his attendance at a charity event in September 2010 . Trent seeks immediate payment in full of all these items.
http://www.newcyclingpathway.com/news/blog/transperancy-international

Do we know how much Lowe's annual salary was?
Tan suggests that the 15,000 would comprise 13,000 for December + 2,000 for the bonus. But then what about the September "expenses"?

These details are lost to me.

 

[AussieGoddess]

I do think Anthony Tan's stuff did fill some of the holes left by Hardie's version of events.

Essentially
- Lowe was sick. He wasnt performing, gained weight and had dodgy blood values probably due to a combination of training and illness

- the team sent Lowe to Del Morel ... (I would still suggest this was with JV's knowledge and approval. I simply do not believe that a manager would send an athlete to a dodgy doctor known to JV without his implicit approval)

- having said that - Lowe trying to blame Garmin for his health issues is not really cutting it. Lowe has a contract - its in Garmin's best interest to get him healthy, well and riding to the best of his ability. Thats what they do ..... they have medical professionals and sports people to assist. Nobody can realistically believe that Garmin was doing less than their best to help him back onto his bike (even if for their own self interest)

- and the assertions that he rode the 2008 TdF when he was unfit is simply ludicrous. The competition for a spot in the TdF is pretty vicous ... they wouldnt be including an unfit or unwilling rider if he were red-hot - much less a bit-part domestique.

- JV was avoiding talking to Lowe during 2010 ...that is actually pretty understandable to my mind. He only rode 30 days, was sick and not performing well at the time and his contract was expiring. JV had the issues of finding and negotiating a new sponsor - and when that sponsor was Cervelo, the issues of merging the teams. He KNEW that Lowe was not going to be offered a new contract ... so in his mind why would he waste time meeting with him or bothering with him.

- Lowe notified JV in August that he found a new team. All is good.

- In November - when he was still contracted and being paid by Garmin, he attended a training camp for Pegasus. To be honest - if he only rode 30 racing days for Garmin in 2010, I can understand why JV was pi**ed that he found the effort to attend the training camp for his new team.

- as for firing Matt White - I am guessing they got the letter from Hardie threatening to go public with the Del Moral thing and decided to use that as an excuse to sack White (who they knew were talking to Green Edge and didnt want around anymore anyway). Being able to sack White was a bonus.

I am guessing a bit of a backroom deal was done here between White and JV .... that JV and Garmin would continue with the line that the Del Morel thing was all innocent etc, and not malign White, and that White would go quietly and take the blame for the Lowe thing.

If all Garmin has done is withheld 1 month pay from a 3 year contract for breach of contract ... I actually think Garmin is the ones in the right here.

The only thing they have done wrong is refer Lowe to Del Morel ....

 

[Ferminal]

- as for firing Matt White - I am guessing they got the letter from Hardie threatening to go public with the Del Moral thing and decided to use that as an excuse to sack White (who they knew were talking to Green Edge and didnt want around anymore anyway). Being able to sack White was a bonus.

I am guessing a bit of a backroom deal was done here between White and JV .... that JV and Garmin would continue with the line that the Del Morel thing was all innocent etc, and not malign White, and that White would go quietly and take the blame for the Lowe thing.

If all Garmin has done is withheld 1 month pay from a 3 year contract for breach of contract ... I actually think Garmin is the ones in the right here.

The only thing they have done wrong is refer Lowe to Del Morel ....

There are a few things which have me confused on White.

Lowe says that they "saw the world differently".

Hardie has mentioned things which are almost defending White.

As I posted earlier in this thread - my response to Lowe's comments were that White knew exactly why he was sending Lowe to Del Moral. JV found out what White was doing and had to get rid of him. I guess this would be the story which favours JV.

Then there's the story where JV knew what White was doing sending someone to Del Moral, but when it hit the fan in January, dumping White had to happen to try and preserve the team's reputation. Plus as you say, White was more than likely off to GreenEdge anyway. This story isn't so nice to JV.

Not sure what to believe.