UCI duty of care to riders

[Don Quixote]

Does such a legal obligation exist?

If so, how may it be applied to the regulation of doping?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Where would the duty, if it exists, be enforced?

Swizterland? A rider's home country where the UCI is not incorporated? A third country where the rider performs in a race that neither party has citizenship?

This is the beauty of an international organization. They rise above all law that attempts to constrain them.

In the U.S., Olympic sports have been granted a monopoly and other broad powers such that even if an attempt were made in litigation-happy U.S. USA Cycling is impervious.

 

[Don Quixote]

Where would the duty, if it exists, be enforced?

Swizterland? A rider's home country where the UCI is not incorporated? A third country where the rider performs in a race that neither party has citizenship?

This is the beauty of an international organization. They rise above all law that attempts to constrain them.

In the U.S., Olympic sports have been granted a monopoly and other broad powers such that even if an attempt were made in litigation-happy U.S. USA Cycling is impervious.

Thanks, that's an angle I hadn't even considered.

Irrespective, do you consider the duty to exist?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Thanks, that's an angle I hadn't even considered.

Irrespective, do you consider the duty to exist?

If I'm running the current UCI? No. I'm like Pat and Hein, I'm trying to create fantastical stories like Wonderboy's and now Sky's that will attract a media audience. Selectively enforcing oxygen vector doping lets me pick winners. Health consequences are not my concern. Putting on a good show that creates an audience is my concern.

The old saying that you cannot protect people from themselves applies here. Doping probably got Wonderboy sick. It got Greg Strock and other sick too. Ideally, the UCI passes all the authority over to WADA to attempt to bring some credibility back to the concept of the sport.

That's not a straight-up yes/no type answer because yes/no doesn't really work.

 

[H2OUUP2]

Yes the duty should exist. They should be protecting riders, and have the riders best interests in mind.....but they don't as has already been pointed out.

There needs to be a cycling union like the UCI, obvioulsy without the idiots like the two who are running it, and a separate organization to deal with the sport of cycling as a whole, or an independent organization to deal with the laws, rules, and punishment of riders. Not WADA or USADA, etc, it has to be an organization put in place for pro cyclists and the pro sport of world cycling.

 

[Basecase]

Would it apply to national federations as part of consideration when a rider applies for a racing licence?

Will race / team / federation / manufacturer insurers take a different view for policy renewals for next year now that they know more of how things operate?!?

 

[Don Quixote]

I think there's an inherent risk of harm in anything we do, walking down the road, sitting in an office chair, flying in an aeroplane etc.

But in everything we do, in whatever environment we find ourselves - there seems to be a duty of care afforded to us, as Citizens.

If I walk down the road and fall down a hole that the council are aware of, yet have failed to repair - I may sue them for breach of this duty of care, ie negligence.

If I am in the office and suffer discrimination or harrassment, and my employers fail to act despite their awareness of my plight - I may sue them - there is an intrinsic duty of care that they have failed to afford me.

If an aeroplane on which I'm flying crash lands in the sea, because a wing falls off due to poor maintenance, and I have to walk 50 miles on water to the nearest landfall and in so doing blister my foot - I may seek compensation for my injured soul. My loss/harm is through the negligence of the airline.

I'm astonished and appalled that professional riders have no rights afforded to them.

 

[Don Quixote]

The old saying that you cannot protect people from themselves applies here.

But does it for riders faced with the loss of a livelihood, who were forced to make an unwilling choice, because an unwholesome and unsafe environment existed?

I can think of both Bassons and Zabraskie for example.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'm astonished and appalled that professional riders have no rights afforded to them.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Riders don't have to ride. It's a choice and in many ways a privilege. Many just left when they got to the level where doping is prevalent.

Dave Z. should have left. Dave Z's case is particularly irksome to me because he's fashioned himself a victim. Well paid and living the dream... Poor Dave Z! Bassons did what he could.

Maybe competitive bike racing needs to get much poorer before anything is fixed?

Pat and Hein certainly don't share your sentiments.

 

[arjanh]

Dave Z. should have left. Dave Z's case is particularly irksome to me because he's fashioned himself a victim. Well paid and living the dream... Poor Dave Z!

Maybe that's a bit too harsh. There are well-documented cases of women who get beaten up by their husband on a daily basis, and have every opportunity to leave, but for some reason don't.

And I find the selection procedure of who gets to be on the dope team chillingly alike the grooming that pedophiles do.

 

[Martin Hardie]

Does such a legal obligation exist?

If so, how may it be applied to the regulation of doping?

yes it exists but it is ignored. I spoke about it last week at the USADA symposium and last year at Play the Game. I have been proposing bringing together the anti doping and health monitoring rules to increase the riders stake in anti doping. Not many people are interested. Check out the UCI rules on health monitoring. They are pretty stringent and have big penalties but no one follows or enforces them. I spoke to Zorzoli and Francesca Rossi about it in Atlanta last week. To her credit Rossi is very interested in the idea.

See http://www.newcyclingpathway.com/ne...ng-and-medical-monitoring-–-a-better-approach

 

[fat_boy_fat]

Remember what happened when Floyd tried to get paid from the bank guarantee his team had to set up with the UCI: nothing, and then he got threatened and had even to apologise.

That’s how the UCI cares for riders.

 

[Don Quixote]

yes it exists but it is ignored. I spoke about it last week at the USADA symposium and last year at Play the Game. I have been proposing brining together the anti doping and health monitoring rules to increase the riders stake in anti doping. Not many people are interested. Check out the UCI rules on health monitoring. They are pretty stringent and have big penalties but no one follows or enforces them. I spoke to Zorzoli and Francesca Rossie about it in Atlanta last week. To her credit Rossi is very interested in the idea.

See http://www.newcyclingpathway.com/ne...ng-and-medical-monitoring-–-a-better-approach

Martin, thanks for this.

It won't be ignored if a claim is brought forth.

Sadly, riders are too intent with following a nonsensical omerta (borne from shame, not honour let's be clear) which serves only to deny them their lawful rights thus empowering those who seek to abuse them.

If they cannot wake up to the simple truth in front of their own eyes, to their own folly which binds them - they will never break free.

 

[MarkvW]

Does such a legal obligation exist?

If so, how may it be applied to the regulation of doping?

No. Theoretically one person could assume a duty to another person to keep that other person from doing dope, but nobody is crazy enough to do that.

Note that I am distinguishing between the duty itself and the person to whom the duty runs.

Like: The police have a duty to enforce the law, but that duty doesn't run to the criminals who break the law.

 

[Don Quixote]

No. Theoretically one person could assume a duty to another person to keep that other person from doing dope, but nobody is crazy enough to do that.

Note that I am distinguishing between the duty itself and the person to whom the duty runs.

Like: The police have a duty to enforce the law, but that duty doesn't run to the criminals who break the law.

If the police are complicit in creating an environment of lawlessness, counter to their duty - and I were to suffer a consequential loss, would I not have grounds for claim against them?

 

[MarkvW]

If the police are complicit in creating an environment of lawlessness, counter to their duty - and I were to suffer a consequential loss, would I not have grounds for claim against them?

Sure. People have a duty that runs to other people not to inflict civil wrongs on those people.

But if I was one of the criminals, I couldn't sue the cops because they didn't catch me.

 

[Don Quixote]

For example Mark,

I live in a block of flats. There is a drug problem in the flats, a big crack den, dealers, junkies everywhere etc. The police not only are aware of the problem, they are not investigating it because they're taking a cut from the dealers.

For my familys safety I have to leave, and I lose my home and job.

I can later prove that the police were complicit in perpetuating an unsafe, unlawful environment.

Edit: I think you've answered, crossed post - thanks

 

[MarkvW]

For example Mark,

I live in a block of flats. There is a drug problem in the flats, a big crack den, dealers, junkies everywhere etc. The police not only are aware of the problem, they are not investigating it because they're taking a cut from the dealers.

For my familys safety I have to leave, and I lose my home and job.

I can later prove that the police were complicit in perpetuating an unsafe, unlawful environment.

Your use of the word "complicit" implies criminal behavior. I assume you don't mean to imply that.

In my neck of the woods, the cops have a general duty to make sure the law is obeyed, but no private duty to any individual citizen unless a 'special relationship' is formed.

Foisting too many duties on people makes them unfree. Better, as much as possible let them define by contract which duties they elect to assume, as well as to whom they will be liable for any breach of those duties.