<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Tom Kunich said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
It would not be in Floyds interest to sign a 1 year contract days after winning the Tour.
How many Tour winners have announced before they've signed their new contract that they had to undergo major surgery that could turn out bad and cripple them for life?
Zero have been in Landis' position.
I just thought it was odd that a one year contract was announced. It has since be denied, at least by the Landis camp. Like Dan Rather, you are charging ahead, saying the now debunked story makes complete sense.
If Landis said so then why not simply cite where he did?
Quoted message said:
He doesn't have enough upside, even with the looming surgery, that the best he could do is a one-year with Phonak?
Just out of curiosity what do you see as a downside to this?
On 25 Jul 2006 18:23:38 -0700, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Tom Kunich said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
It would not be in Floyds interest to sign a 1 year contract days after winning the Tour.
How many Tour winners have announced before they've signed their new contract that they had to undergo major surgery that could turn out bad and cripple them for life?
Zero have been in Landis' position.
I just thought it was odd that a one year contract was announced. It has since be denied, at least by the Landis camp. Like Dan Rather, you are charging ahead, saying the now debunked story makes complete sense.
He doesn't have enough upside, even with the looming surgery, that the best he could do is a one-year with Phonak? No other ProTour team would beat that? Not one? Not even Disco, who have made their interest known post hip announcement?
One of us will be the dumbass when the real contract is announced. If a one year deal, it will be me. If a multi-year deal, it will be you (and Scott).
Y'all posted this here so you're dumbasses anyway. At question is who's the erroneous dumbass.
On 25 Jul 2006 18:23:38 -0700, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
One of us will be the dumbass when the real contract is announced. If a one year deal, it will be me. If a multi-year deal, it will be you (and Scott).
Y'all posted this here so you're dumbasses anyway. At question is who's the erroneous dumbass.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Tom Kunich said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > It would not be in Floyds interest to sign a 1 year contract days after > winning the Tour.
How many Tour winners have announced before they've signed their new contract that they had to undergo major surgery that could turn out bad and cripple them for life?
Zero have been in Landis' position.
I just thought it was odd that a one year contract was announced. It has since be denied, at least by the Landis camp. Like Dan Rather, you are charging ahead, saying the now debunked story makes complete sense.
If Landis said so then why not simply cite where he did?
News that he has not finalized a contract as of 7/25 can be found in any of the numerous sources.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
He doesn't have enough upside, even with the looming surgery, that the best he could do is a one-year with Phonak?
Just out of curiosity what do you see as a downside to this?
When atheletes have career years in the final year of a contract, they ususally opt for the security of a multi-year deal. You just don't see top talent in his position signing one year contracts. Even with the hip uncertanty, someone would offer a multi-year deal, he wouldn't be left with only the one year offer from one team.
One of us will be the dumbass when the real contract is announced. If a one year deal, it will be me. If a multi-year deal, it will be you (and Scott).
Anyone that thinks setting a contract is as simple as you want to make it is a dumbass already. There are two parties - at least - to every contract, and unless you know the motives, intentions and strategy of both, you are simply guessing. Two riders in identical positions may make different decisions depending on how they think they will do and how they think the other team leaders will do over the next 12 months. A one year contract could easily be a choice of confidence by Landis, based on a belief that he will be in a better negotiating position for a top of the pack long-term deal 12 months from now. A healed hip and one top result next year and he is probably right.
And then you have the team's position...
Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...
You just don't see top talent in his position signing one year contracts.
That has the problem of simply not being true. In fact, there are many examples of athletes that are entering or exiting surgery that impacts their career of taking one-year contracts. It is usually based on the expectation and confidence that they will benefit from the removal of uncertainty in the coming 12 months.
Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...
