Kittel

andytee87

frenchfighter wrote:

Tour participation not a given:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kittel- ... ance-start

In these cases there should probably be a clause in their contracts where they can pay them significantly less.

Even if he caught the virus at a race/training camp? That's a bit harsh. It may affect any renegotiations, but without putting a low base offer on the table with performance based bonuses then what can you do? No different to massively overpaid footballers getting injured, cyclists getting caught in crashes due to others etc. It's part of the risk, and why you need multiple options/fronts.

The problem with clauses where you take from the individual is that they are incentives to "do what you have to" to get through. Whether that is questionable pharma help, riding injured or sick, you are saying to the rider that unless you ride you will be punished and open them to bans/longer and/or worse layoffs. They bring probably more bad press to the title sponsor than having a rider miss targets

frenchfighter

I think it could be structured to something like sick leave but a more sport specific approach. With regard the idea of competing when you are ill just so you get paid, then you could either have a performance element linked in or else the team dr is the one who has to make the call and not the rider.

I mean it is not a great situation for the rider, but a. this is sport not charity and these stars are getting paid significant amounts of money. I am sure if it were out your pocket you would have something to say. and b. they are getting paid a lot of money so will no doubt have savings they can live comfortably on.

If you colleague took off 9 months on full pay due to being sick then I am sure you and your other colleagues would feel much aggrieved and the people that pay your salary would be very unhappy. Which is why the limitations on sick leave exist. Just because you are in sports, it shouldn't be too different.

Sport is a meritocracy so I would be happy to see performance related pay introduced. It would make for more exciting racing as well. You could argue that it may increase the occurrences of doping but then there is a strong structure to identify and disincentive doping anyway.

gweeds

Nice. Your rider gets ill so you hit him financially. Classy idea.

rick_chasey

Gweeds wrote:

Nice. Your rider gets ill so you hit him financially. Classy idea.

Cofidis did it with Armstrong (bit more extreme).

I would imagine Kittel is on a fairly heavy performance related pay scheme, so he's probably being paid less anyway.

andytee87

Yep, I agree with most of that. I guess the problem with this, which I poorly explained at the start of the previous post, is that IF he picked it up whilst working (this is a job) either from hotels/airports/food, or due to being rundown after a training block, there are grounds that it is a workplace related problem. All of the litigation that could come with and salary deductions and/or compensation would be a nightmare, plus the arguments of liability!

Luckily I pay my own salary, so dividends mean it already is performance dependent- but I agree. The balance will be defining clauses per rider, whether that's wins for sprinters, number of high (podium/Top 5/10/20) placings for GC, classifications like mountains/intermediates for breakaway or race days available for pure domestiques. It takes away the reason for people like Tinkov to then complain about Sagan for instance- pay a reasonable market value base salary with performance bonuses.

The_Boy

frenchfighter wrote:

If you colleague took off 9 months on full pay due to being sick then I am sure you and your other colleagues would feel much aggrieved and the people that pay your salary would be very unhappy.

This whole line of reasoning boils my piss. It's the same attitude that has work colleagues with contagious ailments coming into work when they're too ill to do anything fucking useful anyway, for the sole purpose of spreading their horrible illnesses to others so they also feel miserable and too ill to get anything productive done. And then they bore the tits off everyone at the office Christmas party about how they haven't missed a day of work all year. Vermin, so they are.

Why would I care if someone is off on long term sick leave anyway? If they're legitimately ill (likely) then I certainly wouldn't want to swap places with them. And if they're not (less than likely), they'll soon discover that being a blagger is practically a full-time job so the joke's on them. No skin off my nose either way.

Anyway, totally off-topic rant over.

Is their any solid indication as to what has been affecting Kittel this season, or how long he's likely to be affected? I know they're talking about him not being at the Tour, but I'd been looking forward to him and Cav and Greipel going at it at the Tour with the other mobs' second tier sprinter nipping at their heels. Given that he didn't get a chance to frank his 2013 performance with a repeat at the Tour last year you have to feel for the guy.

The_Boy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gweeds wrote:

Nice. Your rider gets ill so you hit him financially. Classy idea.

Cofidis did it with Armstrong (bit more extreme).

Tbf though, I can't think of a question to which the correct answer is "do the same as Cofidis did".

No_Ta_Doctor

frenchfighter wrote:

I think it could be structured to something like sick leave but a more sport specific approach. With regard the idea of competing when you are ill just so you get paid, then you could either have a performance element linked in or else the team dr is the one who has to make the call and not the rider.

I mean it is not a great situation for the rider, but a. this is sport not charity and these stars are getting paid significant amounts of money. I am sure if it were out your pocket you would have something to say. and b. they are getting paid a lot of money so will no doubt have savings they can live comfortably on.

If you colleague took off 9 months on full pay due to being sick then I am sure you and your other colleagues would feel much aggrieved and the people that pay your salary would be very unhappy. Which is why the limitations on sick leave exist. Just because you are in sports, it shouldn't be too different.

Sport is a meritocracy so I would be happy to see performance related pay introduced. It would make for more exciting racing as well. You could argue that it may increase the occurrences of doping but then there is a strong structure to identify and disincentive doping anyway.

1) If there's any team out there that doesn't already have performance related pay already for their top riders I'd be extremely surprised.
2) Top riders are the most significant assets a team has, pissing them off, burning them out or just generally misusing them is a terrible idea. That isn't how to get the best ROI.
3) Insurance. If you have too much invested in the health of your top riders then hedge your best by getting them insured.
4) There isn't a strong structure to identify and offer disincentives to doping. Some teams maybe, but you can't possibly write that without thinking of Katusha, Astana....
5) Riders are already under enough pressure to ride when not fit and healthy, ask Kessiakoff.

frenchfighter

andytee87 wrote:

Yep, I agree with most of that. I guess the problem with this, which I poorly explained at the start of the previous post, is that IF he picked it up whilst working (this is a job) either from hotels/airports/food, or due to being rundown after a training block, there are grounds that it is a workplace related problem. All of the litigation that could come with and salary deductions and/or compensation would be a nightmare, plus the arguments of liability!

I don't disagree entirely with this line of reasoning - it is certainly not an easy proposition to get something like this in place, yet I don't think it is beyond possibility.

Gesink is another example of a rider away for a long time from racing (but I assume he isn't getting paid much).

frenchfighter

The_Boy wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

If you colleague took off 9 months on full pay due to being sick then I am sure you and your other colleagues would feel much aggrieved and the people that pay your salary would be very unhappy.

This whole line of reasoning boils my wee-wee. It's the same attitude that has work colleagues with contagious ailments coming into work when they're too ill to do anything ******* useful anyway, for the sole purpose of spreading their horrible illnesses to others so they also feel miserable and too ill to get anything productive done. And then they bore the tits off everyone at the office Christmas party about how they haven't missed a day of work all year. Vermin, so they are.

Why would I care if someone is off on long term sick leave anyway? If they're legitimately ill (likely) then I certainly wouldn't want to swap places with them. And if they're not (less than likely), they'll soon discover that being a blagger is practically a full-time job so the joke's on them. No skin off my nose either way.

1. there is a differnce between taking a few days off and a few months.
2. 99% if you paid the salaries yourself out of your own wealth then you would never pay an employee full salary for 9 months etc if they are ill. Obviously there would be a variety of factors (length of service, repeat illness, importance to company etc). Companies are not here to provide social welfare. It is very easy to say you don't care if you are not paying the bills; you can however choose to have a principled view.

The_Boy

frenchfighter wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

If you colleague took off 9 months on full pay due to being sick then I am sure you and your other colleagues would feel much aggrieved and the people that pay your salary would be very unhappy.

This whole line of reasoning boils my wee-wee. It's the same attitude that has work colleagues with contagious ailments coming into work when they're too ill to do anything ******* useful anyway, for the sole purpose of spreading their horrible illnesses to others so they also feel miserable and too ill to get anything productive done. And then they bore the tits off everyone at the office Christmas party about how they haven't missed a day of work all year. Vermin, so they are.

Why would I care if someone is off on long term sick leave anyway? If they're legitimately ill (likely) then I certainly wouldn't want to swap places with them. And if they're not (less than likely), they'll soon discover that being a blagger is practically a full-time job so the joke's on them. No skin off my nose either way.

you can however choose to have a principled view.

And my view is a principled one.

frenchfighter

No tA Doctor wrote:

1) If there's any team out there that doesn't already have performance related pay already for their top riders I'd be extremely surprised.
2) Top riders are the most significant assets a team has, pissing them off, burning them out or just generally misusing them is a terrible idea. That isn't how to get the best ROI.
3) Insurance. If you have too much invested in the health of your top riders then hedge your best by getting them insured.
4) There isn't a strong structure to identify and offer disincentives to doping. Some teams maybe, but you can't possibly write that without thinking of Katusha, Astana....
5) Riders are already under enough pressure to ride when not fit and healthy, ask Kessiakoff.

All valid points. If I were to offer counter arguments:
1. I admit to having little idea about this but haven't really read about the performance pay element so would be surprised if it is that prevalent or that important. judging by the way many riders race, one would assume they have little by way of performance enhancers.
2. I appreciate this but they are not irreplaceable in most instances. There is clearly a line between being too lenient and being too strict - the optimal point just needs to be found.
3. I appreciate this too especially with someone like Kittel where he was integral in getting the team to where they are and was there at the beginning.
4. I meant through the regulatory authorities rather than the teams themselves. I do believe cycling has a very strong and developed anti-doping approach even if it is not perfect.
5. This is somewhat tangential and relates to the approach of team management. If the team dr or even independent dr says they shouldnt ride then they shouldnt regardless of what the manager thinks.

ddraver

The_Boy wrote:

Is their any solid indication as to what has been affecting Kittel this season, or how long he's likely to be affected?

I believe it was Mrs Cavendish, in Essex with the Voodoo Doll

Dorset_Boy

There are plenty of organizations that will pay 6 months full and 6 months half pay, especially for their key employees.. Also there are plenty of organizations that will put in place insurance to cover payments well beyond this, and as an individual you can do this. It's called income protection and can pay right up to retirement if needed. It's available to sports people too! (cf Steve Thompson having to repay the insurers in order to start playing rugby again.)

Sports salaries and overall earnings are by their nature performance related. They are short contracts from which either party can walk away at the end. Do well and you are rewarded with an improved contract. Do poorly and you might be out of a job. Also, in cycling does the prize money won not get divied up between the team, so again an element of performance related pay?

Non sports earnings will be far higher for the 'stars' rather than the domestiques because their performances have merited it. Charisma / media ability then is an added plus.

For someone who claims to be a socialist, I'd have thought protecting the ill and vulnerable would be high on your agenda Frenchie, not tossing them aside to the wolves!

RichN95.

Frenchie must be livid with Taylor Phinney. He's been skiving for over a year now.

nic_77

frenchfighter wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

1) If there's any team out there that doesn't already have performance related pay already for their top riders I'd be extremely surprised.
2) Top riders are the most significant assets a team has, pissing them off, burning them out or just generally misusing them is a terrible idea. That isn't how to get the best ROI.
3) Insurance. If you have too much invested in the health of your top riders then hedge your best by getting them insured.
4) There isn't a strong structure to identify and offer disincentives to doping. Some teams maybe, but you can't possibly write that without thinking of Katusha, Astana....
5) Riders are already under enough pressure to ride when not fit and healthy, ask Kessiakoff.

All valid points. If I were to offer counter arguments:
1. I admit to having little idea about this but haven't really read about the performance pay element so would be surprised if it is that prevalent or that important. judging by the way many riders race, one would assume they have little by way of performance enhancers.

Or maybe not everyone is motivated by money?

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

Frenchie must be livid with Taylor Phinney. He's been skiving for over a year now.

If we start with the assumption that cyclists are just mobile billboards for their sponsors' products then Phinney has been grafting like fuck on twitter, hasn't he?

dougzz

The_Boy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gweeds wrote:

Nice. Your rider gets ill so you hit him financially. Classy idea.

Cofidis did it with Armstrong (bit more extreme).

Tbf though, I can't think of a question to which the correct answer is "do the same as Cofidis did".

I want to run a very unsuccessful cycling team, how would I go about it.

The_Boy

dougzz wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gweeds wrote:

Nice. Your rider gets ill so you hit him financially. Classy idea.

Cofidis did it with Armstrong (bit more extreme).

Tbf though, I can't think of a question to which the correct answer is "do the same as Cofidis did".

I want to run a very unsuccessful cycling team, how would I go about it.

Even that doesn't really work - they've managed a TdF top 10 in the last two years and everything .

andyp

Giant Alpecin not pulling any punches with this one;

@GiantAlpecin - Unfortunately @marcelkittel will not start tomorrow’s @KoolskampKoers and Saturday’s #GPImpanis because he is not fit.

Richmond Racer 2

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19705104#p19705104]andyp[/url] wrote:

Giant Alpecin not pulling any punches with this one;

@GiantAlpecin - Unfortunately @marcelkittel will not start tomorrow’s @KoolskampKoers and Saturday’s #GPImpanis because he is not fit.

A year to forget for Kittel.

Lets see if he comes out punching from the start next season.

dish_dash

Geez, that boy got problems. Caffine shampoo must not agree with him...

gweeds

He's got 99 problems, but a win ain't one

DeVlaeminck

If his body says no there's not much he can do.

Richj

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19705427#p19705427]DeVlaeminck[/url] wrote:

If his body says no there's not much he can do.

Is it body or mind?? Seemed gutted to miss the tour

gweeds

Seemed to be some virus. If that's the case they can take an absolute age to clear. Especially to perform at that level. Shame. The sprints are poorer without him and I hope he mends up.

Richj

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19705437#p19705437]Gweeds[/url] wrote:

Seemed to be some virus. If that's the case they can take an absolute age to clear. Especially to perform at that level. Shame. The sprints are poorer without him and I hope he mends up.

Agreed and hope he comes back stronger next year

ddraver

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19705436#p19705436]Richj[/url] wrote:

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19705427#p19705427]DeVlaeminck[/url] wrote:

If his body says no there's not much he can do.

Is it body or mind?? Seemed gutted to miss the tour

That - plus whats the point now this year. Rest up, sort it out, and come back next year.

DeVlaeminck

One of my brothers came down with a virus while he was working with a group of students on a trip to Malta. He "recovered" but the after effects hung about for years - he couldn't play football or any kind of sport, had to give up lecturing for a year and go on admin duties as his voice gave out with any extended talking - stuff like that. He had endless tests but they never found anything it just gets called post viral fatigue - in the end time seems to have cured it but if he'd been a pro cyclist it would have been end of career.

gweeds

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19705454#p19705454]DeVlaeminck[/url] wrote:

One of my brothers came down with a virus while he was working with a group of students on a trip to Malta. He "recovered" but the after effects hung about for years - he couldn't play football or any kind of sport, had to give up lecturing for a year and go on admin duties as his voice gave out with any extended talking - stuff like that. He had endless tests but they never found anything it just gets called post viral fatigue - in the end time seems to have cured it but if he'd been a pro cyclist it would have been end of career.

I had similar at 18. It pretty much wiped me out for 3 years. Never found out was it was beyond, as you said, post viral fatigue. It was grim.