Indeed it is. And I completely understand why Steegmans doesn't want to agree to such a completely outrageous penalty. Every Belgian knows what happened to Ruger Beke (Belgian top triathlete, tested positive for testosteron, got fined and suspended for 2 years, but managed to prove - after a very long, hard, dirty and financially wrecking juridic and medicaly battle - that his body produced the testosteron itself), and Steegmans sure as hell doesn't want to undergo the same thing. I mean, in this climate where even the remotest doping allegation gets taken seriously, such an arbitrary measure which could financially ruin you even though you've done nothing wrong isn't really appealing to any rider, no? If that's already enough for your own team to publicly say "Oh, then you must be doped yourself, there's no other explanation!", then I wouldn't stay either.anubisza said:The paying back of 5x salary is just ridiculous.
anubisza said:The paying back of 5x salary is just ridiculous. Have any banned riders paid anything back yet?
I would imagine it's got something to do with Andrei Tchmil managing - he doesn't strike me as the most considerate boss in the world.
Susan Westemeyer said:It's really hard to see how McEwen's injury is the team's fault....
No definitely not. Imagine being wrongly accused, and being financially crippled for a long, long time. Ultimately, cycling is a job, it has to pay the bills, and cyclists have to take their families into account.39*23t said:i don't even think it is legal to put a clause like that in and it certainly can't be good for morale. i seem to remember that andrei tchmil was not that popular in the peleton during his riding days either
anubisza said:The paying back of 5x salary is just ridiculous. Have any banned riders paid anything back yet?...
Bluebeard said:I am normally rather sceptical about millionaires running sports teams, but I was rather suspicious about Oleg Tinkoff leaving when the team he built was about to become a major force in racing.
joe_papp said:Recent report (maybe CYclingnews.com) said no riders (Vino, example) had paid salary penalties back to UCI or whomever it was after having been caught doping after signing anti-doping clause.
Bigger question for me is what is it with the tendency of Katusha (then Tinkoff) to force contract re-writes mid-season? It is utter crap the way that teams preemptively throw their riders to the wolves with these crazy "pay back 5x your salary if you get caught doping" clauses, without ever stipulating any kind of penalties for team management or support people, doctors, riders' wives or whatever.
If one signs such a clause, would it even be legally-enforcable in the EU? What would happen if you were the one unlucky ******* who did suffer a false positive and you'd agreed to the payback clause? Would Katusha's Russian Mafioso (err, I mean Sponsors/management) come collecting? Why would you sign such an agreement given that there is always always always the chance - however remote - of a false positive, and almost no hope of defending against one (an FP)? Would you only sign b/c your lawyers had told you that the clause was not enforcable?
Where are the lawyers out there? Isn't there something about "Unconscionable-ness" of a term of a contract rendering it unenforcable becuase the terms are so onerous, and one party (the rider) lacks the bargaining power to resist the unfair term?
isayic said:Pfannberger tested positive for a second time. I don't know what was found when he first tested positive.