3rd doping offense

On Aug 5, 10:19 pm, Bill C wrote:

I agree with everything except the last paragraph. What you are
ignoring, that doesn't exist in cycling, is a very strong union
representing the athletes that has collectively bargained the doping
and "cheating" rules, penalties, and procedures. I would have no
problem with that being applied to cycling and booting Wada and the
rest. Everything in the sports is challenged and evaluated every few
years in the new labor agreements and if cycling actually had a
vialble, strong union, I don't think anyone would object to that route
except Wada, the UCI, and the Teams themselves.
You still are pretty simple for someone who spends so much time in
academia, as the last paragraph makes pretty clear.
You've pretty much missed every point that a lot of us have been
making. There are both labor relations issues, and juridicial issues
in this and neither are served at the level of any decent standard of
western culture that can be applied.
It's a lot closer to Boss Tweed, anti-union skullcrackers, and trying
to get just treatment in a "company town" when your complaint is the
company, but all of that somehow makes us chamois sniffers.
You really are a simple, simple, person in a very complex world.
Bill C- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about, but it's the
umpires this time:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7097508
Quoted:

After the NBA acknowledged last month that the FBI is investigating
referee Tim Donaghy for betting on games, baseball officials reviewed
how they monitor their umpires. The commissioner's office asked major
and minor league umps to sign authorizations for the background
checks, and both the major league union and the Association of Minor
League Umpires told their members not to sign the forms.

"We are committed to fulfilling our obligation to maintain the
integrity of the game, but Major League Baseball also has a
responsibility to do what's in the best interest of the sport and its
fans - and that is to not engage in knee-jerk, misguided witch hunts
against the umpires without fair negotiations," the WUA said in a
statement.

This type of protection doesn't exist for anyone, in any capacity, in
cycling and that's a bad thing.
Accountablility and checks and balances.
Bill C

On Aug 6, 9:09 pm, Bill C wrote:
On Aug 5, 10:19 pm, Bill C wrote:





I agree with everything except the last paragraph. What you are
ignoring, that doesn't exist in cycling, is a very strong union
representing the athletes that has collectively bargained the doping
and "cheating" rules, penalties, and procedures. I would have no
problem with that being applied to cycling and booting Wada and the
rest. Everything in the sports is challenged and evaluated every few
years in the new labor agreements and if cycling actually had a
vialble, strong union, I don't think anyone would object to that route
except Wada, the UCI, and the Teams themselves.
You still are pretty simple for someone who spends so much time in
academia, as the last paragraph makes pretty clear.
You've pretty much missed every point that a lot of us have been
making. There are both labor relations issues, and juridicial issues
in this and neither are served at the level of any decent standard of
western culture that can be applied.
It's a lot closer to Boss Tweed, anti-union skullcrackers, and trying
to get just treatment in a "company town" when your complaint is the
company, but all of that somehow makes us chamois sniffers.
You really are a simple, simple, person in a very complex world.
Bill C- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about, but it's the
umpires this time:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7097508
Quoted:

After the NBA acknowledged last month that the FBI is investigating
referee Tim Donaghy for betting on games, baseball officials reviewed
how they monitor their umpires. The commissioner's office asked major
and minor league umps to sign authorizations for the background
checks, and both the major league union and the Association of Minor
League Umpires told their members not to sign the forms.

"We are committed to fulfilling our obligation to maintain the
integrity of the game, but Major League Baseball also has a
responsibility to do what's in the best interest of the sport and its
fans - and that is to not engage in knee-jerk, misguided witch hunts
against the umpires without fair negotiations," the WUA said in a
statement.

This type of protection doesn't exist for anyone, in any capacity, in
cycling and that's a bad thing.
Accountablility and checks and balances.
Bill C

dumbass,

i know you are a torch-bearer for the blue-collar guy, and like the
guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, you imagine a riders
union will fix the sport.

but you are laughably stupid. with respect to the umpires unions, what
do you think will happen ? i can tell you, ultimately the leagues will
get their way.

this reminds me of when the umpires threatened to resign en-masse a
few years ago.

(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...23/ai_55450230)

"resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately negotiate
a new labor contract to replace the one that expires December 31. But
the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time the umpires decided
to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league umpires had been hired
for big-league duty, and the league had accepted the resignations of
22 current umpires."

at least in pro-leagues the athletes work for the league which is the
revenue generator. for the owners it is not in their interest to beat
up their own investment. besides when it comes to really important
matters (compensation) the owners always get their way over the
players unions.

in cycling it's the race that generates money (ie. the ASO), the teams
and the UCI don't.

the riders can form a union to oppose unfavorable policies of the
teams or the UCI, but both the riders and teams are ultimately
dependent on the ASO for their livelihood. yet they don't work for the
ASO.

so what if the riders have better protection from being fired by their
team or from being suspended by the UCI ? the ASO is still in a
position to pick who it wants to invite to the tour.

On Aug 8, 7:23 am, "
wrote:

dumbass,

i know you are a torch-bearer for the blue-collar guy, and like the
guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, you imagine a riders
union will fix the sport.

but you are laughably stupid. with respect to the umpires unions, what
do you think will happen ? i can tell you, ultimately the leagues will
get their way.

this reminds me of when the umpires threatened to resign en-masse a
few years ago.

(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...23/ai_55450230)

"resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately negotiate
a new labor contract to replace the one that expires December 31. But
the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time the umpires decided
to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league umpires had been hired
for big-league duty, and the league had accepted the resignations of
22 current umpires."

at least in pro-leagues the athletes work for the league which is the
revenue generator. for the owners it is not in their interest to beat
up their own investment. besides when it comes to really important
matters (compensation) the owners always get their way over the
players unions.

in cycling it's the race that generates money (ie. the ASO), the teams
and the UCI don't.

the riders can form a union to oppose unfavorable policies of the
teams or the UCI, but both the riders and teams are ultimately
dependent on the ASO for their livelihood. yet they don't work for the
ASO.

so what if the riders have better protection from being fired by their
team or from being suspended by the UCI ? the ASO is still in a
position to pick who it wants to invite to the tour.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Look up how well Baseball's adventure with scab umpires went, and how
football did with replacement players. It went about as you'd expect
it would.
A strong union isn't going to solve everything, by any stretch of the
imagination, but it would begin to provide balance that's missing.
If the ASO was forced to run with scrubs, while the riders, teams,
and politicians were all screaming in the press then ASO wouldn't have
any money for long no matter what races they have. Davey's repeatedly
pointed out that they both could do quite nicely without Wada and the
UCI, and the only thing that would really change would be the Olympics
and "World Championships".
Ask the AAU what happened to them, and their stranglehold on sports
in the US when people got sick of their ****. They're an afterthought
now pretty much.
Bill C

On Aug 8, 7:44 am, Bill C wrote:
On Aug 8, 7:23 am, "
wrote:



dumbass,

i know you are a torch-bearer for the blue-collar guy, and like the
guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, you imagine a riders
union will fix the sport.

but you are laughably stupid. with respect to the umpires unions, what
do you think will happen ? i can tell you, ultimately the leagues will
get their way.

this reminds me of when the umpires threatened to resign en-masse a
few years ago.

(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...23/ai_55450230)

"resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately negotiate
a new labor contract to replace the one that expires December 31. But
the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time the umpires decided
to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league umpires had been hired
for big-league duty, and the league had accepted the resignations of
22 current umpires."

at least in pro-leagues the athletes work for the league which is the
revenue generator. for the owners it is not in their interest to beat
up their own investment. besides when it comes to really important
matters (compensation) the owners always get their way over the
players unions.

in cycling it's the race that generates money (ie. the ASO), the teams
and the UCI don't.

the riders can form a union to oppose unfavorable policies of the
teams or the UCI, but both the riders and teams are ultimately
dependent on the ASO for their livelihood. yet they don't work for the
ASO.

so what if the riders have better protection from being fired by their
team or from being suspended by the UCI ? the ASO is still in a
position to pick who it wants to invite to the tour.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


If the ASO was forced to run with scrubs, while the riders, teams,
and politicians were all screaming in the press then ASO wouldn't have
any money for long no matter what races they have.

dumbass,

you could argue last year's race was run with scrubs, with all the top
dogs: basso, ullrich, hamilton, vino, heras, excluded before the
start.

in 2008 a list of scrubs would include vino, rasmussen, hamilton,
heras, basso, vino, landis, mayo

On Aug 8, 8:02 am, "
wrote:
On Aug 8, 7:44 am, Bill C wrote:





On Aug 8, 7:23 am, "
wrote:

dumbass,

i know you are a torch-bearer for the blue-collar guy, and like the
guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, you imagine a riders
union will fix the sport.

but you are laughably stupid. with respect to the umpires unions, what
do you think will happen ? i can tell you, ultimately the leagues will
get their way.

this reminds me of when the umpires threatened to resign en-masse a
few years ago.

(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...23/ai_55450230)

"resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately negotiate
a new labor contract to replace the one that expires December 31. But
the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time the umpires decided
to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league umpires had been hired
for big-league duty, and the league had accepted the resignations of
22 current umpires."

at least in pro-leagues the athletes work for the league which is the
revenue generator. for the owners it is not in their interest to beat
up their own investment. besides when it comes to really important
matters (compensation) the owners always get their way over the
players unions.

in cycling it's the race that generates money (ie. the ASO), the teams
and the UCI don't.

the riders can form a union to oppose unfavorable policies of the
teams or the UCI, but both the riders and teams are ultimately
dependent on the ASO for their livelihood. yet they don't work for the
ASO.

so what if the riders have better protection from being fired by their
team or from being suspended by the UCI ? the ASO is still in a
position to pick who it wants to invite to the tour.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If the ASO was forced to run with scrubs, while the riders, teams,
and politicians were all screaming in the press then ASO wouldn't have
any money for long no matter what races they have.

dumbass,

you could argue last year's race was run with scrubs, with all the top
dogs: basso, ullrich, hamilton, vino, heras, excluded before the
start.

in 2008 a list of scrubs would include vino, rasmussen, hamilton,
heras, basso, vino, landis, mayo- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, if the union stuck together it would have to have run with
uncontracted, non-union riders, and banned riders. I can't see them
doing that. Sandy would have a better handle on whether the other
unions, particulary in France would support them and refuse services
to the races, or possibly combine them with their other protests.
Very few who crossed the picket lines in football, amybe a dozen,
ever got a shot at the NFL again. Same for the scab umpires, but I
don't even think 3 of them were hired later. The umpires union didn't
stick together behind those who quit, and did negotiate to bring the
ones they wanted back.
It'd be awfully hard for the ASO to, all of a sudden, build their
races around riders they'd trashed as doping scum. Could be a bit of a
PR problem.
Bill C

Dans le message de s.com,
Bill C a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
On Aug 8, 8:02 am, "
wrote:
On Aug 8, 7:44 am, Bill C wrote:





On Aug 8, 7:23 am, "
wrote:

dumbass,

i know you are a torch-bearer for the blue-collar guy, and like the
guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, you imagine a
riders union will fix the sport.

but you are laughably stupid. with respect to the umpires unions,
what do you think will happen ? i can tell you, ultimately the
leagues will get their way.

this reminds me of when the umpires threatened to resign en-masse a
few years ago.

(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...23/ai_55450230)

"resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately
negotiate a new labor contract to replace the one that expires
December 31. But the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time
the umpires decided to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league
umpires had been hired for big-league duty, and the league had
accepted the resignations of 22 current umpires."

at least in pro-leagues the athletes work for the league which is
the revenue generator. for the owners it is not in their interest
to beat up their own investment. besides when it comes to really
important matters (compensation) the owners always get their way
over the
players unions.

in cycling it's the race that generates money (ie. the ASO), the
teams and the UCI don't.

the riders can form a union to oppose unfavorable policies of the
teams or the UCI, but both the riders and teams are ultimately
dependent on the ASO for their livelihood. yet they don't work for
the ASO.

so what if the riders have better protection from being fired by
their team or from being suspended by the UCI ? the ASO is still
in a position to pick who it wants to invite to the tour.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If the ASO was forced to run with scrubs, while the riders, teams,
and politicians were all screaming in the press then ASO wouldn't
have any money for long no matter what races they have.

dumbass,

you could argue last year's race was run with scrubs, with all the
top dogs: basso, ullrich, hamilton, vino, heras, excluded before the
start.

in 2008 a list of scrubs would include vino, rasmussen, hamilton,
heras, basso, vino, landis, mayo- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, if the union stuck together it would have to have run with
uncontracted, non-union riders, and banned riders. I can't see them
doing that. Sandy would have a better handle on whether the other
unions, particulary in France would support them and refuse services
to the races, or possibly combine them with their other protests.
Very few who crossed the picket lines in football, amybe a dozen,
ever got a shot at the NFL again. Same for the scab umpires, but I
don't even think 3 of them were hired later. The umpires union didn't
stick together behind those who quit, and did negotiate to bring the
ones they wanted back.
It'd be awfully hard for the ASO to, all of a sudden, build their
races around riders they'd trashed as doping scum. Could be a bit of a
PR problem.
Bill C

Before labor issues, the real problem is that by the mutual declaration of
war, UCI and ASO virtually assured that the winner would become the
near-monopolist of the sport. In order to benefit from that position, ASO
will seek more money, thus entrenching its position. What has helped has
been the inordinate attention given to the TdF. 5 or more years ago, it was
the main French race, a giant in Europe, but here people followed the
national division races much more closely. Since the enormous increase in
scandals, the scandal factor has increased attention to the race, and to the
detriment of national level (Continental, if you insist) racing. Scandals
make news, advertisers get more exposure, and whether it's bad or good news,
visual impressions (how they count and manage revenue production) increase.
So long as the mystique of TdF accretes, it will have inordinate power over
all racing components. To be better, it must diminish. To be more
profitable, it must be more sensational. And sensational in any sense will
do.

As to labor, the racers' union is very transient. Remember that typical
contracts are 1 year minimum, and there are plenty. Individual performance
is a key to hiring, and no employer wants to hire a malcontent. So the
individual's self interest and lack of courage is magnified when
agglomerated broadly. I have repeated - the basic legality of the form
contract is not tenable more than 70% of fundamental terms in most European
legal structures. But UCI is Swiss, and can mandate as it likes.

From the broad perspective of labor relations, typical workers identify with
unions strongly. However, as almost all jobs are regulated by industry-wide
collective conventions, one can't escape unions. And when the greater part
of unions (representing those with small incomes) are asked to support union
demands of significantly higher paid bike racers (guys playing little boys'
games), they do not supply much energy.

To summarize
- BAD organizations in cycling
- cowardly riders
- class warfare

--
--
Sandy

--
Si les autres parties du monde ont des singes ; l'Europe a des Français.
Cela se compense.
[Arthur Schopenhauer]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:44:49 -0700, Bill C wrote:

On Aug 8, 7:23 am, "
wrote:

dumbass,

i know you are a torch-bearer for the blue-collar guy, and like the
guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, you imagine a riders
union will fix the sport.

but you are laughably stupid. with respect to the umpires unions, what
do you think will happen ? i can tell you, ultimately the leagues will
get their way.

this reminds me of when the umpires threatened to resign en-masse a
few years ago.

(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...23/ai_55450230)

"resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately negotiate
a new labor contract to replace the one that expires December 31. But
the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time the umpires decided
to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league umpires had been hired
for big-league duty, and the league had accepted the resignations of
22 current umpires."

at least in pro-leagues the athletes work for the league which is the
revenue generator. for the owners it is not in their interest to beat
up their own investment. besides when it comes to really important
matters (compensation) the owners always get their way over the
players unions.

in cycling it's the race that generates money (ie. the ASO), the teams
and the UCI don't.

the riders can form a union to oppose unfavorable policies of the
teams or the UCI, but both the riders and teams are ultimately
dependent on the ASO for their livelihood. yet they don't work for the
ASO.

so what if the riders have better protection from being fired by their
team or from being suspended by the UCI ? the ASO is still in a
position to pick who it wants to invite to the tour.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Look up how well Baseball's adventure with scab umpires went, and how
football did with replacement players. It went about as you'd expect
it would.
A strong union isn't going to solve everything, by any stretch of the
imagination, but it would begin to provide balance that's missing.
If the ASO was forced to run with scrubs, while the riders, teams,
and politicians were all screaming in the press then ASO wouldn't have
any money for long no matter what races they have. Davey's repeatedly
pointed out that they both could do quite nicely without Wada and the
UCI, and the only thing that would really change would be the Olympics
and "World Championships".

In the absence of a powerful rider's union it is impossible to assume that the
riders agree with the terms of their employment. Yeah, they keep cashing the
checks, but that isn't the same thing. All of the rules, including doping are
presented to the riders from some foreign agency without any concern for the
opinion of the peloton. We have coerced pledges and other shakedowns that are
legally and morally meaningless and the riders mostly shut up and pedal. With a
meaningful union for the riders we can accept that whatever doping rules are
agreed to are fair to the riders and that a violation would be an offense
against the peloton. Maybe it's more blue collarism, but I consider that more
morally compelling than the opinions of an overtrained yup with a Colnago or the
easily outraged outrage Mr. Pound.

Ask the AAU what happened to them, and their stranglehold on sports
in the US when people got sick of their ****. They're an afterthought
now pretty much.

I heard of them. A long time ago.

Ron

In article
om,
" wrote:

"resignations were designed to force baseball to immediately negotiate
a new labor contract to replace the one that expires December 31. But
the league called the umpires' bluff. By the time the umpires decided
to rescind their resignations, 25 minor league umpires had been hired
for big-league duty, and the league had accepted the resignations of
22 current umpires."

The NBA decided a few years ago that their referee
corps could be manned by journeymen, rather than
masters. In the old way, the referees had latitude to
talk with the coaches and player, to laugh and joke
with them; and to persuade the contestants that their
interests were protected. David Stern changed to a
system where referees were `anonymous' and
'unapproachable' and `objective'. The result is players
and coaches who are ignored as human beings, who feel
they must take matters into their own hands, who resort
to outrageous behavior, who are assessed heavy
penalties, and finally indictment of a referee for
taking money to influence the score of games. Referees
need to be recognizable and recognized by the public
for doing a good job maintaining fair play.

Too much control of officials by the league leads to
badly managed games, and the bad management is
immediately perceived by spectators.

--
Michael Press