consipiracy theory

Dans le message de ,
Kyle Legate a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Sandy wrote:
Dans le message de ,
Kyle Legate a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Sandy wrote:
Dans le message de
ups.com,
a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré
After watching a bit of the coverage on VS over the weekend (don't
recall if it was Saturday or Sunday) it occurred to me just how
ludicrous it was to require the riders to sign away their rights
to a year's salary if caught doping.
My defense to this ridiculous penalty is to say, OK, take the
salary for the _next_ year. Given that it amounts to zero, not
toooooo bad. Besides, even with an arbitration clause in the employment
contract, this is as close to unenforceable as you can get. If
laws counted, that is.
As soon as Vino, or Moreni, or Mayo takes it to court, laws will
count.

Court you say? Court!?
TAS is as far from a court of law as you can imagine.

I'm not sure what TAS is, but they don't have to challenge the
contract within the confines of sport. They can challenge it in a
real court, using real contract law, with a real judge presiding.
With a whole year's salary on the line, it would be worth challenging
the contract as seriously as possible.

TAS = CAS = unmitigated abomination stillborn monster pseudo-arbitration
institution.

Most courts in most countries will enforce an employment contract that
provides for dispute resolution by private arbitral panels. Sadly, somehow
the TAS is recognized as such. Courts will seldom find it interesting to
deprive parties of the right to settle matters outside the court. Yet there
remains the final element - confirmation of an arbitral award - that can
allow for some play in courts.

It will take a fullly developed TAS matter, then its aftermath, and tons of
money, before any court will even begin to consider the law involved.
However, my sense is that riders think too individually and so won't
consider challenging the overall structure collectively.