PDA

View Full Version : VN Article on Under 28 rule...


fourflys
01-28-2009, 09:53 AM
What do you all think about the recent article in VN about the Continental Teams under 28 rule? The article basically says the rule is pushing older pros or those that start later in life out of the professional aspect of the sport before they have a chance to hit thier stride.

While I can see both sides of the story, I have to agree that the rule, as written, is hurting the sport in this country. I think the best approach would be to lower the required percentage of under 28 riders (majority now) and maybe raise the percentage of riders that must be US. The goal should be to support and develop US racing, not just under 28... Maybe even, dare I say it, have a minimum age that rider can turn pro? That way, they would have to develop themselves in an amateur/under 23 type of atmosphere...just an idea.

What say you?

rwsaunders
01-28-2009, 10:32 AM
I'd ask Lance, George Hincapie and other "over 30" pros for their opinion.

BumbleBeeDave
01-28-2009, 10:42 AM
. . . riders are employees of a team. If the teams are governed by an umbrella organization and that organization has put in place a rule that requires a certain percentage of employees of that organization to be under a certain age, then on its face that appears to be age discrimination and is illegal under US law. It's difficult for me to imagine any other employer in this country who could publicly release employees because they are "too old" without getting their butts sued off.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but an inquiry to the appropriate US government agency or to the ACLU might yield an interesting answer. Or perhaps there are lawyers who read this who could give a personal informal opinion.

BBD

fourflys
01-28-2009, 10:44 AM
The article is focused on US(or other countires, but mainly US in the article) Continental teams (Jelly belly, Ouch/Maxxis, etc), Lance and George don't really count in this discussion... The ProTour level teams don't have this issue, they can hire whomever they want.

fourflys
01-28-2009, 10:47 AM
BBD,
The article did mention that... the argument is it's hard to prove you are being fired solely on age alone since they can have a few riders over 28 (the majority must be under 28). The teams used to be able to skirt the rule by having "specialists" (TT, track, etc) and never send the younger riders to races, that has changed this year as the teams are now only allowed to have 4 specialists on a squad.

So, while it is age discrimination, it's very hard to prove...


. . . riders are employees of a team. If the teams are governed by an umbrella organization and that organization has put in place a rule that requires a certain percentage of employees of that organization to be under a certain age, then on its face that appears to be age discrimination and is illegal under US law. It's difficult for me to imagine any other employer in this country who could publicly release employees because they are "too old" without getting their butts sued off.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but an inquiry to the appropriate US government agency or to the ACLU might yield an interesting answer. Or perhaps there are lawyers who read this who could give a personal informal opinion.

BBD

BumbleBeeDave
01-28-2009, 11:18 AM
So, while it is age discrimination, it's very hard to prove...

. . . but it costs a lot of money to bring a lawsuit to trial. I know--I just finished getting a settlement a few months ago as administrator for my mother's estate. In the state we were suing that was a motivator for the defendant to settle. It would have cost at least $25k just to get to trial. Regardless of the merits of the case, if USA Cycling has a couple of dozen different riders sue them and they suddenly have those expenses to deal with, they will be motivated to do something. Don't forget they already owe Sue Haywood $300k for screwing her out of an Olympics berth--and that's not counting legal fees . . .

http://www.velonews.com/article/84979

I would bet if the effect of the rule is to discriminate, that would be good enough to get them in a bad place. I really wish some real lawyer would chime in here . . .

BBD