maybe this will stop the doping
Scott
Tom Kunich
news:5527512f-6946-4db2...@s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> or, maybe not
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/beltran-must-pay-liquigas-damages-for-doping-positive
I think that things like that may defeat the doping scandals.
Magilla Gorilla
> or, maybe not
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/beltran-must-pay-liquigas-damages-for-doping-positive
Dumbass,
Ask yourself how come Lick-my-ass never sued that doped-to-the-gills motherfucker Danilo
Dilusional?
Bissell should sue Tom Zirbel too, I take it?
Magilla
Scott
> Scott wrote:
> > or, maybe not
>
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Ask yourself how come Lick-my-ass never sued that doped-to-the-gills motherfucker Danilo
> Dilusional?
>
> Bissell should sue Tom Zirbel too, I take it?
>
> Magilla
Maybe it's just a function of they haven't yet sued DiLuca. I'm sure
they will.
Fred Flintstein
> or, maybe not
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/beltran-must-pay-liquigas-damages-for-doping-positive
"Details of the financial settlement were not released."
Beltran ain't coming back at age 39. Even if he hadn't
been popped, the odds are long that his career would
have already reached its natural conclusion by now.
Given that Beltran is not Italian, what leverage does
Liquigas have to recover damages from him? Especially
if he isn't going to be riding?
This is all about PR for Liquigas.
Fred Flintstein
Magilla Gorilla
Trust me, they won't sue DiLoser anymore than Thom Wiesel would have sued Lance had he tested
positive. You need to brush up on your cycling mafiosa politics a bit. Lickmyass sued
Beltran for the same reason CONI went after Valvoline.
What I can tell you is Zirbel will be required to pay his 2009 salary to the UCI because he
got a 2-year suspension.
Magilla
Scott
Well, I guess it's a good thing that domestic 'pros' don't make too
much.
z, fred
It may be semantics in this instance, but I wonder if it makes any
difference if a rider is hired as an employee of a team vs. an
independent contractor.
Magilla Gorilla
Zirbel was making about $70,000 at Bissell. I could find ut an exact figure, but it should be in
that neighborhood.
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
Dumbass,
All riders on cycling teams are hired as independent contractors. No cyclist is an "employee" of
that team. All disputes must be resolved through arbitration. It's a UCI rule.
Thanks,
Magilla
Scott
The IRS probably doesn't see it that way. There is nothing about the
contract between a rider and the team that even remotely resembles
what's required for 'contractor' status. I would be very surprised if
US pros aren't considered employees by the IRS.
Magilla Gorilla
Dumbass,
Not one single team in the history of pro cycling going back to 1950 has ever paid any of the taxes or
met any of the requirements that an employer, as defined under federal and state law, would be
obligated to pay - i.e. social security, minimum wage, disability, workman's comp, etc.
So, yes, the IRS does in fact consider cyclists to be private contractors. If they didn't, then every
team would be in breach of numerous state and federal laws. Since hundreds of teams and thousands of
pro cyclists have been filing taxes as private contractors without problems let alone federal
indictments and tax liens, we know the IRS does not have a problem with it.
Don't be trying to muddy the waters when in Bermuda, son.
Thanks,
Magilla
Fred K. Gringioni
>
> The IRS probably doesn't see it that way. There is nothing about the
> contract between a rider and the team that even remotely resembles
> what's required for 'contractor' status. I would be very surprised if
> US pros aren't considered employees by the IRS.
Dumbass -
Magilla is right.
thanks,
Fred. presented by Gringioni.
Scott
wrote:
> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
That must have really hurt to type that!
z, fred
You guys are losing the plot.
The issue was:
> What I can tell you is Zirbel will be required to pay his 2009 salary
to the UCI because he
> got a 2-year suspension.
>
> Magilla
>
It may be semantics in this instance, but I wonder if it makes any
difference if a rider is hired as an employee of a team vs. an
independent contractor.
-------------------
As I said, it may be a matter of semantics, but an independent
contractor would not receive a salary (key word), as they are not an
employee.
As it turns out, the term salary is not used in the UCI rules.
Page 61
Fines
326. In addition to the sanctions provided for under articles 293 to 313
anti-doping violations shall be sanctioned with a fine as follows.
1. The fine is obligatory for a License-Holder exercising a professional
activity in cycling and in any event for members of a team registered
with the UCI.
a) Where a suspension of two years or more is imposed on a member of a
team registered with the UCI, the amount of the fine shall be equal to
the net annual income from cycling that the License-Holder normally was
entitled to for the whole year in which the anti-doping violation
occurred. The amount of this income shall be as assessed by the UCI,
provided that the net income shall be assessed at 70 (seventy) % of the
corresponding gross income. The License-Holder concerned shall have the
burden of proof to the contrary. For the purpose of the implementation
of this article the UCI shall have the right to receive a copy of the
complete contracts of the License-Holder from the auditor appointed by
the UCI. If justified by the financial situation of the License-Holder
concerned, the fine imposed under this paragraph may be reduced, but not
by more than one-half.
So the UCI does not use the term "salary". They use "net annual income
from cycling", rendering the employee/ind contractor issue moot.
But taking things a step further, it appears that only UCI registered
team income is factored in, not income from endorsements, coaching, etc.
Podium Cafe says: "Interesting article from Le Monde on salaries of pro
cyclists, and specifically the disparities between the stars and the
others. A few tidbits: Contador makes 2-3 million euros per year between
salary and image rights; Chavanel's the highest paid Frenchman at
700,000. Maxime Bouet, on the other hand, makes 1,700 euros net per
month, though in 2008 he also made 7,000-10,000 in prize money. Salaries
are on the rise - average has gone from 70,000 in 2002 to 136,000 this
year."
Yet Cyclingnews reported that Petacchi is accused of tax fraud: "The
Lampre-Farnese Vini sprinter allegedly earned three million Euro in
image rights and advertising contracts during his time [three years]
with the Milram team without declaring them to Italian tax authorities.
According to Italian newspaper Il Giornale, the fraud was organised
through a Dutch company, with Petacchi keeping the money in a Swiss bank
account."
It does not appear to be clear. Are image rights considered net annual
income from cycling? Does it matter who pays for those image rights?
What about appearance fees not directly related to starting races?
Phil H
wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > or, maybe not
>
>
> "Details of the financial settlement were not released."
>
> Beltran ain't coming back at age 39. Even if he hadn't
> been popped, the odds are long that his career would
> have already reached its natural conclusion by now.
>
> Given that Beltran is not Italian, what leverage does
> Liquigas have to recover damages from him? Especially
> if he isn't going to be riding?
>
> This is all about PR for Liquigas.
>
> Fred Flintstein
The money goes from Beltran's Italian account to Liquigas and then
back to Beltran's offshore account.
Phil H
Magilla Gorilla
1.) I was using the term salary in a generic way. All cyclists
are independent contractors.
2.) The UCI rulebook's use of the term income is likewise generic with
respect to the independent contractor vs. employee distinction.
3.) Image rights, appearance fees, and prize money is NOT considered
a part of what the UCI can claim for a doping violation pursuant to Rule
326.
4.) The source of this is the UCI and the figures are highly suspect.
Most riders earn far less than that and the UCI is basing its figures purely
on copies of the contract. Many teams are known to subvert the minimum
annual income requirement by submitting false documents to the UCI.
The UCI is either stupid or complicit to that well known ruse.
Magilla
Fred Flintstein
> 4.) The source of this is the UCI and the figures are highly suspect.
> Most riders earn far less than that and the UCI is basing its figures
> purely on copies of the contract. Many teams are known to subvert the
> minimum annual income requirement by submitting false documents to the
> UCI. The UCI is either stupid or complicit to that well known ruse.
Dumbass,
The UCI would never wink at rule enforcement. That's how you
know that riders never bargain for shit like lead-outs in
big races. It's against the rules. Dumbass.
Fred Flintstein