The rider has to worry about endless legal fees battling an entity with much deeper pockets. Therefore, Omerta is the rule. IMHO, this is why we see any controversy happening many years after the fact. Essentially every clawback is expired.MarkvW said:Assume an NDA.
Per JV's comment, let's say there is no NDA, there's still a contract to get into a legal battle over if The Team is displeased with breaking Omerta. Cheaper still, Hein and Pat label the rider a rat and he/she never rides for an elite team again and returns to continental racing for barista wages. They seem to have that power.
UCI tells WADA to pound sand. Then the UCI goes to the team and yells at them to get their matters sorted so that there is no doping controversy.MarkvW said: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."
In a sports federation where you have some confidence that everyone was serious about anti-doping and was protecting the sense there is a real game being played, I think what you posted would be true.
It took the management committee to wake from a decades-long slumber to shut down the Kimmage lawsuit. This is Hein's UCI and almost(!) anything goes.