Thomas Dekker to cooperate with Anti-Doping Agency

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jan 15, 2013
909
0
0
I´m a bit confused.

I thought he already had put all the cards on the table when he got caught, and were fully cooperative with the doping authorities and revealed everything?

Wasn´t this the reason he were able to sign a contract with Garmin in the first place?
 
xrayvision said:
I´m a bit confused.

I thought he already had put all the cards on the table when he got caught, and were fully cooperative with the doping authorities and revealed everything?

Wasn´t this the reason he were able to sign a contract with Garmin in the first place?
Vaughters answered it for you.

JV1973 said:
He was, but there were legal limits he had to abide by, as he signed a severance w Rabo. Apart from that the WADA rep was really only interested in current doping events, which Thomas didn't have much, considering he'd just come back from a ban.

So, he fully cooperated. But now he has the opportunity to be more detailed, as the NDA expired end of 2012.

Of course Gerard [Vroomen] writes his blogs without knowing any of this.

Anyhow, same old same old... Back to the evil PR cave.
 
Ryo Hazuki said:
he was paid a lot of money by rabo to have him keep his mouth shut. that is now over


JV1973 said:
He was, but there were legal limits he had to abide by, as he signed a severance w Rabo.

So, he fully cooperated. But now he has the opportunity to be more detailed, as the NDA expired end of 2012.

.
Ryo gets this one right.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
JV1973 said:
He was, but there were legal limits he had to abide by, as he signed a severance w Rabo. Apart from that the WADA rep was really only interested in current doping events, which Thomas didn't have much, considering he'd just come back from a ban.

So, he fully cooperated. But now he has the opportunity to be more detailed, as the NDA expired end of 2012.

Of course Gerard writes his blogs without knowing any of this.

Anyhow, same old same old... Back to the evil PR cave.
So should we commend dopers for taking loads of money to keep their mouth shut while the doping continues.

How nice for Dekker, big pay day from a doping team and he gets to look like he is now a great guy helping the anti-doping.

Doping seems to pay.
 
Benotti69 said:
So should we commend dopers for taking loads of money to keep their mouth shut while the doping continues.

How nice for Dekker, big pay day from a doping team and he gets to look like he is now a great guy helping the anti-doping.

Doping seems to pay.
You do know that Dekker was released by Rabobank before his contract was up which usually results in some sort of severance payment unless fired. Clearly the no-talking clause was part of that. There was clearly a dispute between them of which the exact detail's are not out there yet but hadn't it do with Dekker's blood values or something. Perhaps Ryo or one of the other Dutchie's know more.
 
JV1973 said:
He was, but there were legal limits he had to abide by, as he signed a severance w Rabo. Apart from that the WADA rep was really only interested in current doping events, which Thomas didn't have much, considering he'd just come back from a ban.

So, he fully cooperated. But now he has the opportunity to be more detailed, as the NDA expired end of 2012.

Of course Gerard writes his blogs without knowing any of this.
I suppose that makes sense, although I'm not sure if non-disclosure agreements apply to covering up illegal practices. Thanks for the answer anyway.

(For the record, I was posing this question before I saw Vroomen's tweet. It's kind of the obvious question to ask)
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
1
0
Benotti69 said:
So should we commend dopers for taking loads of money to keep their mouth shut while the doping continues.

How nice for Dekker, big pay day from a doping team and he gets to look like he is now a great guy helping the anti-doping.

Doping seems to pay.
mother of god, anything goes past you doesn't it? :rolleyes:
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
spalco said:
That NDA thing sounds like nonsense to me. No way such a contract would hold up in any court if it included not-disclosing illegal acts, which dealing with unprescribed medication surely is.
That was my thought too. I wonder if JV1973 has an answer for this question.
 
Jul 19, 2010
110
0
8,830
spalco said:
That NDA thing sounds like nonsense to me. No way such a contract would hold up in any court if it included not-disclosing illegal acts, which dealing with unprescribed medication surely is.
He'd have had to prove it court.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
spalco said:
That NDA thing sounds like nonsense to me. No way such a contract would hold up in any court if it included not-disclosing illegal acts, which dealing with unprescribed medication surely is.
In theory, you may be correct that a NDA would not cover illegal acts.

But that does not apply here. Firstly, is dealing with "unprescribed medication" actually illegal? Even if it is, no case has been brought.

Dekker went to WADA. They are not a court so the NDA applys.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Assume an NDA.
Assume that the NDA bars the rider from disclosing all rule-violating sports doping (legal and illegal).
Assume a WADA investigation.

The rider is going to tell WADA: "I think I might have an NDA problem. The NDA bars me from talking about all the rule-violating doping that happened on the team."

WADA is then going to approach the UCI and ask it: "Does that team REALLY have a contract that bars riders from talking about rule violating doping? Such a provision would be a rather obvious violation of the WADA code."

The UCI is then going to call the team and ask the team the same question that WADA asked the UCI.

The team is not likely going to tell the UCI to pound sand. They are not going to insist on retaining contractual omerta at the price of losing their Pro Tour slot. They are going to tell the UCI and WADA and the rider: "Heavens no! Our riders are free to talk about all doping that they know about." And they will be estopped from denying that statement.

There may be other reasons why an omerta-NDA won't work, but that's the most obvious one I see.
 
spalco said:
That NDA thing sounds like nonsense to me. No way such a contract would hold up in any court if it included not-disclosing illegal acts, which dealing with unprescribed medication surely is.
Illegal in sports, but that is civil law as I have been reminded time and again that riders basically do not fall under penal law when they sign up for their license but under civil arbitration law. Now I know for a fact that using PED's is not illegal in the Netherlands for penal law and there is no telling whether or not any actions of team management including doctors could be covered by Dutch penal law. So please define illegal, because I can very well imagine that PED-abuse doe not fall under the scope of illegal for purposes of this contract.

Regards
GJ
 
MarkvW said:
Assume an NDA.
Assume that the NDA bars the rider from disclosing all rule-violating sports doping (legal and illegal).
Assume a WADA investigation.

The rider is going to tell WADA: "I think I might have an NDA problem. The NDA bars me from talking about all the rule-violating doping that happened on the team."

WADA is then going to approach the UCI and ask it: "Does that team REALLY have a contract that bars riders from talking about rule violating doping? Such a provision would be a rather obvious violation of the WADA code."

The UCI is then going to call the team and ask the team the same question that WADA asked the UCI.

The team is not likely going to tell the UCI to pound sand. They are not going to insist on retaining contractual omerta at the price of losing their Pro Tour slot. They are going to tell the UCI and WADA and the rider: "Heavens no! Our riders are free to talk about all doping that they know about." And they will be estopped from denying that statement.

There may be other reasons why an omerta-NDA won't work, but that's the most obvious one I see.
Congratulations! If you are right he might have been able to talk to WADA or the the Dutch ADA (actually spellt NADA, omen est nomen :D) but he could still have been tied up in civil litigation to pay back his severance payment or to pay damages to Rabobank-team based on the fact that he broke his NDA.

Regards
GJ
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
GJB123 said:
Congratulations! If you are right he might have been able to talk to WADA or the the Dutch ADA (actually spellt NADA, omen est nomen :D) but he could still have been tied up in civil litigation to pay back his severance payment or to pay damages to Rabobank-team based on the fact that he broke his NDA.

Regards
GJ
Not if he's released from the omerta provision by the team. . .
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
Basically, teams have riders sign nda's and its party on once again. Money wins again, like we expected anything else. Makes one wonder how many nda's are in effect now?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
ElChingon said:
Basically, teams have riders sign nda's and its party on once again. Money wins again, like we expected anything else. Makes one wonder how many nda's are in effect now?
well indeed.

jv could score some points in my book by telling us his riders don't have to sign any NDA's.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
sniper said:
well indeed.

jv could score some points in my book by telling us his riders don't have to sign any NDA's.
No NDAs, except technology based for those working in this area. We're actually very guarded re our work with aerodynamics and data analysis.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
There's a lot of sidetalk about an NDA, that no longer exists and could not be broken by WADA who even if no NDA existed do not themselves prosecute athlete.

Some appear to miss that what Dekker is doing has not been done since Floyd - ie a full frank admission where they name others.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY