'Bye 'Bye "Rider's commitment"
 

http://bit.ly/b1nofr

DR

'Bye 'Bye "Rider's commitment"
 

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
http://bit.ly/b1nofr

DR

I'm NOT siding with the CAS, but these types of agreements are disregarded
in the law, like a pre-nuptial agreement given to a bride right before she
walks down the isle. I don't know the facts here, just pointing out that
these types of deals aren't iron clad.

'Bye 'Bye "Rider's commitment"
 

On Oct 20, 12:08*pm, "Philip W. Moore, Jr."
wrote:
"DirtRoadie" wrote in message

...

http://bit.ly/b1nofr


I'm NOT siding with the CAS, but these types of agreements are disregarded
in the law, like a pre-nuptial agreement given to a bride right before she
walks down the isle. *I don't know the facts here, just pointing out that
these types of deals aren't iron clad.

No, but the CAS saying they don't understand what salary means is
stupid. Obviously endorsements and taxes are calculated differently,
as are bonuses, happy endings from the team masseuse, and money
collected on Halloween for UNICEF.

R

'Bye 'Bye "Rider's commitment"
 

On Oct 20, 10:08*am, "Philip W. Moore, Jr."
wrote:
"DirtRoadie" wrote in message

...

http://bit.ly/b1nofr

DR

I'm NOT siding with the CAS, but these types of agreements are disregarded
in the law, like a pre-nuptial agreement given to a bride right before she
walks down the isle. *I don't know the facts here, just pointing out that
these types of deals aren't iron clad.


I'd view it more like an unenforceable "liquidated damages" provision
that constitutes a penalty rather than compensation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages

Back when these things were put in place I wondered about their
legitimacy. We now have ONE answer.

DR

'Bye 'Bye "Rider's commitment"
 

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Oct 20, 10:08 am, "Philip W. Moore, Jr."
wrote:
"DirtRoadie" wrote in message

...

http://bit.ly/b1nofr

DR

I'm NOT siding with the CAS, but these types of agreements are disregarded
in the law, like a pre-nuptial agreement given to a bride right before she
walks down the isle. I don't know the facts here, just pointing out that
these types of deals aren't iron clad.


I'd view it more like an unenforceable "liquidated damages" provision
that constitutes a penalty rather than compensation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages

Back when these things were put in place I wondered about their
legitimacy. We now have ONE answer.

DR

________________

Excellent point, and one that I haven't thought of. Still, they could have
said that. Or did they, in a foreign manner of speaking?

'Bye 'Bye "Rider's commitment"
 

On Oct 20, 11:01*am, "Philip W. Moore, Jr."
wrote:
"DirtRoadie" wrote in message

...
On Oct 20, 10:08 am, "Philip W. Moore, Jr."
wrote:

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message

....

http://bit.ly/b1nofr

DR

I'm NOT siding with the CAS, but these types of agreements are disregarded
in the law, like a pre-nuptial agreement given to a bride right before she
walks down the isle. I don't know the facts here, just pointing out that
these types of deals aren't iron clad.

I'd view it more like an unenforceable *"liquidated damages" provision
that constitutes a penalty rather than compensation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages

Back when these things were put in place I wondered about their
legitimacy. We now have ONE answer.

DR

________________

Excellent point, and one that I haven't thought of. *Still, they could have
said that. *Or did they, in a foreign manner of speaking?

Well you made me find this:
http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/docu...20internet.pdf

In looking at the decision they refer throughout to whether there was
a validly enforceable "penalty agreement." So they don't seem to have
used the analysis I suggested.

It looks as if they really are saying that the penalty agreement was
really not an agreement - it was intended as only just a public
statement.
DR

'Bye 'Bye "Rider's commitment"
 

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
http://bit.ly/b1nofr

DR

Hard to believe there have only been a couple of relevant cases. Was it only
riders lining up for the 'Tour that year who had to sign it, and nobody
else? There have certainly been many dozens of suspensions since then, and
apparently only one person who agreed to pay up?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

'Bye 'Bye "Rider's commitment"
 

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Oct 20, 11:01 am, "Philip W. Moore, Jr."
wrote:
"DirtRoadie" wrote in message

...
On Oct 20, 10:08 am, "Philip W. Moore, Jr."
wrote:

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message

...

http://bit.ly/b1nofr

DR

I'm NOT siding with the CAS, but these types of agreements are
disregarded
in the law, like a pre-nuptial agreement given to a bride right before
she
walks down the isle. I don't know the facts here, just pointing out that
these types of deals aren't iron clad.

I'd view it more like an unenforceable "liquidated damages" provision
that constitutes a penalty rather than
compensation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages

Back when these things were put in place I wondered about their
legitimacy. We now have ONE answer.

DR

________________

Excellent point, and one that I haven't thought of. Still, they could have
said that. Or did they, in a foreign manner of speaking?

Well you made me find this:
http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/docu...20internet.pdf

In looking at the decision they refer throughout to whether there was
a validly enforceable "penalty agreement." So they don't seem to have
used the analysis I suggested.

It looks as if they really are saying that the penalty agreement was
really not an agreement - it was intended as only just a public
statement.
DR
____________________

Hard to say, sounds like faulty, result-oriented reasoning, IMHO.

-Philip

'Bye 'Bye "Rider's commitment"
 

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Oct 20, 11:01 am, "Philip W. Moore, Jr."
wrote:
"DirtRoadie" wrote in message

...
On Oct 20, 10:08 am, "Philip W. Moore, Jr."
wrote:

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message

...

http://bit.ly/b1nofr

DR

I'm NOT siding with the CAS, but these types of agreements are
disregarded
in the law, like a pre-nuptial agreement given to a bride right before
she
walks down the isle. I don't know the facts here, just pointing out that
these types of deals aren't iron clad.

I'd view it more like an unenforceable "liquidated damages" provision
that constitutes a penalty rather than
compensation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages

Back when these things were put in place I wondered about their
legitimacy. We now have ONE answer.

DR

________________

Excellent point, and one that I haven't thought of. Still, they could have
said that. Or did they, in a foreign manner of speaking?

Well you made me find this:
http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/docu...20internet.pdf

In looking at the decision they refer throughout to whether there was
a validly enforceable "penalty agreement." So they don't seem to have
used the analysis I suggested.

It looks as if they really are saying that the penalty agreement was
really not an agreement - it was intended as only just a public
statement.
DR
____________________

Hard to say, sounds like faulty, result-oriented reasoning, IMHO.

-Philip

'Bye 'Bye "Rider's commitment"
 

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
http://bit.ly/b1nofr

DR

DR,

Just thought how much better this thread would have been had you titled it
"Court of Arbitration for Sport for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of
Kazakhstan".

-Philip