Lefevere and Boonen won court case

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Lefevere and Boonen won court case
http://www.cyclingheroes.info/id1026.html

Good on them. It is one thing to make rational accusations. It is another to just throw libelous stuff around. Notwithstanding these guys could be all on PED's. But the pol obviously didn't have much of a leg to stand on once in court.

Also respected Boonen's litigation amount of one euro. It's the principle that matters.

Liberace won a defamation suit in the UK after a 1957 newspaper article falsely imputed that he was gay.

Liberace won a defamation suit in the UK after a 1957 newspaper article falsely imputed that he was gay.
Yeah...but he wasn't gay then. I think he caught the disease from a gerbil in 1963, if my memory serves me correctly.:rolleyes:

What about Het Laastste Nieuws? There were 8 sources for the Nieuws. One source a Quickstep rider. Lefevre looked for his identity by telling riders to sue HLN-he thought the source would not sue.

What about Het Laastste Nieuws? There were 8 sources for the Nieuws. One source a Quickstep rider. Lefevre looked for his identity by telling riders to sue HLN-he thought the source would not sue.
I believe the court hearing of the case against Het Laatste Nieuws will be in the coming year...

Also respected Boonen's litigation amount of one euro. It's the principle that matters.
I thought they were suing for more than that but the judge only awarded a single euro.

I don't know what this sort of thing means in Belgium, but in the U.S. when you get awarded a dollar it generally means the case is shit and the judge is pissed off at having his time wasted.

Didn't Marion Jones sue Victor Conte? I wonder if Conte will turn around and sue Jones now that she fessed up.

Dupe post. :mad:

I thought they were suing for more than that but the judge only awarded a single euro.

I don't know what this sort of thing means in Belgium, but in the U.S. when you get awarded a dollar it generally means the case is shit and the judge is pissed off at having his time wasted.

Didn't Marion Jones sue Victor Conte? I wonder if Conte will turn around and sue Jones now that she fessed up.
Read post above...

Boonen sued for 1 euro, Lefevere for 25.000 euro.

Read post above...
Boonen sued for 1 euro, Lefevere for 25.000 euro.So Boonen was 100% right, and Lefevere only 0,004 %!

So Boonen was 100% right, and Lefevere only 0,004 %!Very funny Pouli...tres drole...but actually true!

But I don't think they used the money to go out and celebrate.:p

Very funny Pouli...tres drole...but actually true!

But I don't think they used the money to go out and celebrate.:pThe most important was that Boonen just sued for 1€ , it's like he would said that Dedecker was right about others.

I thought they were suing for more than that but the judge only awarded a single euro.

I don't know what this sort of thing means in Belgium, but in the U.S. when you get awarded a dollar it generally means the case is shit and the judge is pissed off at having his time wasted.

Didn't Marion Jones sue Victor Conte? I wonder if Conte will turn around and sue Jones now that she fessed up.
European Civil law is different from US civil law. For instance if you sue within the EU and lose you are responsible for all the court costs (of both sides) and a fee nominated by the judge hearing the case.

In the US you can sue as much as you like and not be responsible for the court costs.

This was Armstrong’s tactic. He would engage litigation and seek censure of further comment, bog the case down in documentation requests then withdraw the case 3 years later when everyone had forgotten about it. What he was achieving was the headline "Armstrong sues Walsh" - implying his case is/was strong enough and worthy enough to sue in a court of law. It also gave him the ability to say "I cannot comment on David Walsh's book. For the moment all that I can say is that I'm taking his accusations to the highest court in country and that impedes me from saying anymore". What we know now that is was just bullshit and diversion strategy. Good strategy mind you. I digress.

The most important was that Boonen just sued for 1€ , it's like he would said that Dedecker was right about others.
Maybe one euro is all that a cyclist's reputation is worth. :D

European Civil law is different from US civil law. For instance if you sue within the EU and lose you are responsible for all the court costs (of both sides) and a fee nominated by the judge hearing the case.

In the US you can sue as much as you like and not be responsible for the court costs.

Okay. That makes more sense now.

Okay. That makes more sense now.Point being European law is more sophisticated than US law..... reminds me of a storyhow stupid Americans are.....


Its known as the Shetland Pony story.......... It was when a halfwitted inbred Yank lunged across me with the video camera while I was sleeping on a train on my way to Edinbrough and began filming a field of small horses out the window of the carriage. She then explained how the people at home would never believe her that they also had Shateland ponies in England, so she had to capture the moment on video. I tried to explain the concept that many animals had infact come from Europe and been transported to the US. And that there was a group of windswept islands off the north coast of Scotland called the Shetland Islands where this horse had probably originated from. She then responded with "God dam I love the English, who else would namea group of islands after an American horse?!!!"

Point being European law is more sophisticated than US law..... reminds me of a storyhow stupid Americans are.....


Its known as the Shetland Pony story.......... It was when a halfwitted inbred Yank lunged across me with the video camera while I was sleeping on a train on my way to Edinbrough and began filming a field of small horses out the window of the carriage. She then explained how the people at home would never believe her that they also had Shateland ponies in England, so she had to capture the moment on video. I tried to explain the concept that many animals had infact come from Europe and been transported to the US. And that there was a group of windswept islands off the north coast of Scotland called the Shetland Islands where this horse had probably originated from. She then responded with "God dam I love the English, who else would namea group of islands after an American horse?!!!"
lol WBT

Liberace won a defamation suit in the UK after a 1957 newspaper article falsely imputed that he was gay.Mendacious litigation has been a staple in English courts since old Oscar pushed his luck and ended up balladeering in Reading Gaol.
Liberace took exception to these comments in the Daily Mirror-"this winking, sniggering, chromium- plated, scent-impregnated, luminous, quivering, giggling, fruit-flavoured, mincing, ice-covered heap of mother love.''
Sounds like a pretty accurate description of the lying, limp wristed, ivory tickler. They just don't write them like that these days.

I thought they were suing for more than that but the judge only awarded a single euro.

I don't know what this sort of thing means in Belgium, but in the U.S. when you get awarded a dollar it generally means the case is shit and the judge is pissed off at having his time wasted.

Didn't Marion Jones sue Victor Conte? I wonder if Conte will turn around and sue Jones now that she fessed up.Sometimes in a defamation case a dollar is in fact awarded. In a law suit you have to prove all of the elements of the claim. One such element is in fact damages. Contrary to what many believe, you don't just get to make up a magical number that "sounds good." You have to actually PROVE your amount of damages (hypothetical example: someone doesn't get a particular job because someone else maliciously spread a false rumor about them; perhaps they could recover the annual salary of the job as damages if they could prove that they would have gotten the job but for the defamation).

(At least this is how it all works in the US where we're all in fact stupid and inferior to the rest of the world ;) ).

If the Judge was really pissed off that his time was wasted, he could have simply thrown the case out. Instead, he made sure the win went down in the books, even though there wasn't much proved in the way of damages. (At least, under American law anyway.)

It is entirely plausible to be defamed but not have incurred much in the way of damages. To prove a point and give you a judgment on the books in your favor, you win . . . oh . . . say . . . a dollar. If you weren't awarded at least a dollar then you wouldn't have established the element of damages, which is required to win you case. So, an award of a dollar goes down in the books as a win, and is actually going out of the way to make it clear that the other party wronged you.

So, I respectfully disagree with your statement. Though, like you, I'm just a stupid American and as such, know nothing about the superior Belgian law. Well, and as a dumb American, I don't know much about American law either, but I DO know about Shateland ponies dammit. :rolleyes:

Addendum: so, although I see WBT's point about one difference between American law and Euro law, I don't really think it's germaine to this discussion. In American courts, you still must prove damages for a defamation claim.

Sometimes in a defamation case a dollar is in fact awarded. In a law suit you have to prove all of the elements of the claim. One such element is in fact damages. Contrary to what many believe, you don't just get to make up a magical number that "sounds good." You have to actually PROVE your amount of damages (hypothetical example: someone doesn't get a particular job because someone else maliciously spread a false rumor about them; perhaps they could recover the annual salary of the job as damages if they could prove that they would have gotten the job but for the defamation).

(At least this is how it all works in the US where we're all in fact stupid and inferior to the rest of the world ;) ).

If the Judge was really pissed off that his time was wasted, he could have simply thrown the case out. Instead, he made sure the win went down in the books, even though there wasn't much proved in the way of damages. (At least, under American law anyway.)

It is entirely plausible to be defamed but not have incurred much in the way of damages. To prove a point and give you a judgment on the books in your favor, you win . . . oh . . . say . . . a dollar. If you weren't awarded at least a dollar then you wouldn't have established the element of damages, which is required to win you case. So, an award of a dollar goes down in the books as a win, and is actually going out of the way to make it clear that the other party wronged you.

So, I respectfully disagree with your statement. Though, like you, I'm just a stupid American and as such, know nothing about the superior Belgian law. Well, and as a dumb American, I don't know much about American law either, but I DO know about Shateland ponies dammit. :rolleyes:

Addendum: so, although I see WBT's point about one difference between American law and Euro law, I don't really think it's germaine to this discussion. In American courts, you still must prove damages for a defamation claim.
The decision of the court says Boonen and Lefevere were right... but could not proof their losses were because of Dedeckers remarks on belgian tv. Boonen did only ask for one euro in the first place...