The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Lid is 'deksel'. A 'dekker' is a roofer.Descender said:Isn't "Dekker" close to the Dutch word for "lid".
That would make sense.
theyoungest said:Lid is 'deksel'. A 'dekker' is a roofer.
Dear Wiggo said:Thought it would be closer to lekker.
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?
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.
.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ) 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
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?
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.