Armstrong will sue someone here.

Everyone catch the story about a judge in Manhattan forcing Google to reveal the details of a blogger that had posted derogatory comments about a model?

Got me thinking, how long will it be before someone on here or another similar forum is pursued by Lance's army of lawyers for derogatory comments?

The case above sets a precedent.

It would be the ideal tactical move on Lance's part to do this. If he can sue someone on here for defamation, it would have a massive impact on the free thinking discussions that take place. People would be very reluctant to post anything negative or speculative especially WRT doping.

I predict he will attempt to do something like this.

I guess to combat this, websites will simply be moved to other countries where they could not be accountable to US law.

Interesting thought though.

That is a strange decision by that court and I'm only going on what was reported/posted.

It seems ludicrous that someone in making a comment about another persons appearance - can be deemed to have libelled them.

If the person made a comment attacking a persons character, then I can see where a libel could be inferred.
But in the case you linked, it looks like the persons appearance, not their character, was commented upon.

And would a celebrity - particularly one who has a polarising reputation - waste time/money suing everyone who denigrates them
throughout the internet?

Your post is very interesting, MP.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it" - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

The fact that the lady in question is a model means that 'appearance' is everything too her. It's her livelyhood...

That said, I've not seen what she looks like. Is she worthy of a five knuckle shuffle?

i doubt lance cares one way or another as to who or how anyone talks of him.

and there are probably a million times as many people submitting irrational volleys of ill will towards Big Lance vs. the one person on the face of this planet who gave that whiney little bean the time of day and so she went with it to feel important as the attention she has craved for oh so long came in the form of an insult.

my two cents.

__________________
Anything is Possible.

What makes you think that Armstrong would want to argue any doping allegations in a court of law, under oath? That's the last place he wants to answer for his doping past.

hey jimmy cracked corn and i don't care, can you read? ever read any of his books? ever compared them to any other ride on the face of this planet? he is the most tested rider there ever will be, bar none and i'm not saying that the possiblity of him doing something suspicious when he was with others who were doing the same is not a possibility but that it's much easier to just say someone doped rather than looking at their time in the saddle/training and his tops everyones and so that is why he wins, continuously.

no one on earth has spent more time training than him.

every second counts and it's not about the bike would be the ones i'd read if i were you.

__________________
Anything is Possible.

Suggest you familiarise yourself about the law (tort) of defamation before posting.


Don't know.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it" - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Agreed.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it" - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Jesus. It's difficult to separate the trolls from the fanboys.

that was cute. say what you will, it'll always just fall short of the proof regardless.

"You can't. You can not. There's three meters of snow, there's no way you can ride"

"Who says that?"

__________________
Anything is Possible.

YouTube - Lance Armstrong - Cycling Legend

YouTube - Lance Armstrong - Cycling Legend

__________________
Anything is Possible.

Mr. Roadhouse, your short list of fav videos doesn't support your argument about LA training more than anyone or being the 'most tested on the planet" Especially 'the look' vid; cyclists have been giving 'the look' for at least 30yrs...and that is as far back as the videos I have seen show. The look is probably as old as the first cycling race.

But therein resides the problem that some people may not understand or don't allow themselves to consider: propaganda and positive self-promotion / negative external denigration.

Saying that I am the most tested, the hardest working etc... and then having my PR team, coach/trainer (C.Carmichael), DS (J. B.-the master of deception), TV broadcasters(P.L.,P.S.), financial supporters...all financially collusional BTW... reinforce these notions more and more people start to accept it as 'fact' when it probably isn't. Then throw in books, PR attendances and buy the best teams ever assembled and only race once grand tour a year, missing out on the Olympics and every world championship since 1993. Propaganda is communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause, as opposed to impartially providing information, and presents information primarily to influence an audience. It often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. It has been around since the 1600s and used most effectively since WWI, but perfected in recent years when invading countries for their natural resources.

Do you really think that LA trains harder than all other top 30 riders during his glory years, most of whom all tested positive? Do you understand the performance gains by using EPO (20-30%), GH/Insulin combos(5-10%), Testosterone patches for recovery, and not including autologous blood doping ??? %. Then add on the fact that during his Tour de France winning streak most of these substances were undetectable, allowing anyone to claim they are clean, and his losing combatants were using them, making his 'clean' wins clearly suspicious. Then add in the under Oath confessions by Frankie and his wife clearly stated that they were in the physical room when LA told his MDs he took these drug. Books have been written by various support people stating he used drugs, his link to Dr. Ferrari, and most top riders from his older teams that went on to ride separately then tested positive. How much information does one need. Oh ya, what about Lance's claim to want the best third-party, unbiased, dope testing team in the world (Dr. Catlin) and then months later quietly state that despite being a millionaire, with excess financial backing from Fortune 500 companies, that the testing is too expensive.

Please tell us that despite all of the above you unequivocally still believe he is clean and the hardest training athlete that has never tested positive (in a system that until now could not find a cheat). That is why LA hasn't sued anyone, because he doesn't want educated people to find real scientists/physiologists, to retroactively test his older samples, and call old teammates, soigneurs, trainer...to under Oath give the real fact and destroy his image and financial industry. Find out how much LA is worth, find out about the relationships of Bill Stapleton, Lance Armstrong's long-time agent and partner at Capital Sports & Entertainment (CSE) which owned and managed the US Postal and Discovery Channel squads and now owns and is managing Team RadioShack, and Bart Knaggs, Chris Carmichael for starters. try this newpaper article http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-...news/smith.htm

San Francisco Stories

PS: I haven't even discussed the crazy propoganda of LA's heart and lung size? Please! Who did the impartial testing of these organs and did they use PFTs, Echocardiograms? Did they measure Cardiac Output from central lines in the heart or indirect measurements? Where are these values and who were the other champion cyclists that they ranked LA up against. I am dying to see this data. Until then these claims are complete bunk.

PSS: I enjoyed watching Ullrich ride and never giving up. He was, probably the strongest and most personable rider of his time, who despite having weaker teams and carrying a sprinter in most tours (Zabel) he always rode well. But having said that I am not delusional he was a doper and still lost to LA.

UR

not too bright are you? if you had read above than you would know that i said he may have participated with others at some time in that very aspect.

and anyone else you know who trained in his hospital room right after lung and testicle and brain surgery? didn't think so.

__________________
Anything is Possible.

and that will be the last time i respond to you or anyone who's first closet post comes at me like that. too much likeness of my days of yester and if you are one of them, then i still have no respect for you or anyone else on a bike.

__________________
Anything is Possible.

go back to that sh!t site you hail as formidable as i crush your very existance.

goodbye.

__________________
Anything is Possible.