Bill C said:Bill C said: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 -
Quoted message said:- 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/mi_m1208/is_32_223/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.
